NatF
Bionic Poster
Oh yeah I forget to add GONZALEZ aswell.
The bigger omissions are Nadal, Agassi and Djokovic. Then others like Nalbandian, Blake, Ljubicic, Gasquet Berdych and Ferrer who were consistent top 10-20 players.
Oh yeah I forget to add GONZALEZ aswell.
Weak era is a weak argument. Djokovic has been playing at a slam winning level since 2007. Despite his success at the AO 2008, he couldn't completely breakthrough because he had to compete against prime Fed on hard and prime Nadal on clay. When Federer slowed down, Nadal was there as a top contender. When Nadal declined too, Djokovic finally enjoy a weaker field. After 8-9 years of top level tennis.
If a player is able to play that well for that long, of course he will enjoy easier moment. Federer had 2006, Nadal had 2010, Sampras had the late 90's (on which he didn't capitalize).
If you look at Nadal, Federer or Djokovic complete careers, and not the few years during which they achieved the most dominance, it's completely stupid to say they had weak competition. They are among the best ever and played each others, it can't be weak.
The assumption that weak eras and great players don't go together is misguided.
I don't think anyone is saying Novak is not an ATG.
But not many ATG enjoyed such long vacuum as competition
He would still get murdered by redlining roddicks, davydenkos, safins and the like. Too many dangerous floaters on quicker surfaces.
The assumption that weak eras and great players don't go together is misguided.
I don't think anyone is saying Novak is not an ATG.
But not many ATG enjoyed such long vacuum as competition
I'm not sure about that. But I'm sure that not many ATG had the professionalism of Djokovic, which allows him to be so consistent. Nadal, Sampras, Agassi, Connors, McEnroe, all of them were prone to upsets here and there because they could have an off day which allowed a lesser player to beat them. Avoiding upset in early rounds has little to do with the strength of the competition, it has a lot more to do with playing at a high level all the matches. Federer and Djokovic are the best at that. Lendl was also very good at playing well, but he was simply not as good.
Also all others ATG had some luck regarding the competition. McEnroe was lucky enough to have his main rival retire at 25 years old, and he was replaced by an aging Connors, for example.
it was a horrible first set...besides that it was 50-28 (see how I can spin it). Regardless, the original point stands...he was better (much better even) than in the 2011 final when he was passive and making errors anyways. In both matches he played 1 really bad set, but if you throw out his horrible 4th set in the 11 final he's still only 16-14 for the first three...that's awful...passive yet still making errors.Nadal was an error machine in the 06 final as a result of his aggressive play.
http://www.tennisabstract.com/charting/20060709-M-Wimbledon-F-Roger_Federer-Rafael_Nadal.html
If we don't take in account the great 3rd set he played,30W to 34 UE is terrible for a grass match.
The second set was poor from both and in the 4th Nadal started playing great when down 5-1,too late for him.
While Federer fans have taken a lot of heat in the last year or even two for their complaints about Djokovic dominating a weak field, and being dismissive of Djokovic, I can atleast understand their vantage point. I will try and break down what I mean.
From the perspective of a Federer fan (or even a non Federer fan in many cases) the perception is probably fairly obvious peak or even prime Federer would be atleast this dominate against the current field sans Djokovic (basically Fed taking Djokovic's place). Without getting into another of these weak field talks, think about it. Federer even today is winning every match against Murray, hasn't lost to him in over 3 years now. Of course one thus assumes prime Federer would also have won ever encounter against Murray. It also seems a pretty safe bet prime Federer would win almost every match against the current Federer, as excellent as he still is. That seems a pretty safe bet. Wawrinka is losing, and usually getting killed in every medium-fast court match, and is only winning on the slowest courts (actually he has only ever won on clay, but he would have had a good shot any year they hypothetically would have met at the Australian Open too) to current Federer. So in absolute best case for him he could be a possible threat to prime Federer on slower courts, mainly clay, and even that isn't certain but that would be the absolute best case for him and worst for Federer. Current Nadal is a shadow of his old self who has declined so much he is ranked lower than the current old Federer, so safe to believe he would lose every or almost every match to absolutely prime Federer, regardless of the match up history and issues. Best case he might win some matches on clay against prime Federer, and so worst case for Federer is maybe he wouldn't dominate totally on clay with Nadal/Wawrinka (something he never did in his prime anyway, and that 0 RG winner Djokovic hasn't done either).
So while I don't necessarily agree, I do 100% understand their vantage point when it comes to Djokovic and his current dominance, and also how they perceive him dominating the current field/competition.
How was the path cleared for him? He played Cilic playing his very best in his entire life. Cilic would have beaten anyone. I am convinced that Djokovic wouldn't have got a set from Cilic either. (Why would you think otherwise since he lost so badly to Nishikori in the semi's).
You're kidding right? The amount of Fed fans whining about Djokovic's competition of late is like nothing I've ever seen before. Weak era this, weak era that - just totally monotonous and mind-numbingly tedious. I'd call out a few of the culprits(they know who they are) but I'm a decent person and don't believe in naming and shaming.It is actually the Nadal fans that complain.
Federer's fans are having fun (as it should be).
![]()
Federer's recovery is pretty bad these days. He was probably still feeling it from the Monfils match. Didn't use his legs much and gave Cilic a steady diet of mid court attackable balls.While Cilic played a fantastic match, I would of thought that Federer would of been extra motivated, energized and would of used his variety (slice, dropshots, etc...) and not give Cilic any rhythym. The old Federer would of found a way to win this match IMO.
Federer's recovery is pretty bad these days. He was probably still feeling it from the Monfils match. Didn't use his legs much and gave Cilic a steady diet of mid court attackable balls.
Even if Djokovic wins 25 majors there would be no need for Federer fans to be upset. Federer will always have a good argument to be the greatest ever. His dominance in his best years were incredible, esp. considering it was done in the Open Era. His career overall can only be called fantastic or any adjective of that type. Even at his age now, he's a big threat to win any tournament. There are some excellent arguments that he was more dominant in his best years than even Laver was in his Grand Slam year of 1969!
This.Ferrero, Safin, Grosjean, Davydenko, Hewitt, Baghdatis, Henman, Roddick, Kiefer, Bjorkman Imagine if Djokovic had that field instead of 2012 or 2013 one.
You are the biggest Nadal troll around here. You must be ashamed to even say you can shame other posters.You're kidding right? The amount of Fed fans whining about Djokovic's competition of late is like nothing I've ever seen before. Weak era this, weak era that - just totally monotonous and mind-numbingly tedious. I'd call out a few of the culprits(they know who they are) but I'm a decent person and don't believe in naming and shaming.
I agree that the number of majors is not necessarily decisive element in GOAT debate. As an example, if Djokovic wins FO2016 he would be the first man after Laver to hold all 4 majors at the same time, which is a strong argument for GOAT. On the other hand, Federer can't be GOAT if he doesn't improve 11:23 to a respectable minus (something like 18:23).Even if Djokovic wins 25 majors there would be no need for Federer fans to be upset. Federer will always have a good argument to be the greatest ever. His dominance in his best years were incredible especially considering it was done in the Open Era. His career overall can only be called fantastic or any adjective of that type. Even at his age now he is a big threat to win any tournament. There are some excellent arguments that he was more dominant in his best years than even Laver was in his Grand Slam year of 1969!
I agree that the number of majors is not necessarily decisive element in GOAT debate. As an example, if Djokovic wins FO2016 he would be the first man after Laver to hold all 4 majors at the same time, which is a strong argument for GOAT. On the other hand, Federer can't be GOAT if he doesn't improve 11:23 to a respectable minus (something like 18:23).
He'd have less majors than he does now.Ferrero, Safin, Grosjean, Davydenko, Hewitt, Baghdatis, Henman, Roddick, Kiefer, Bjorkman Imagine if Djokovic had that field instead of 2012 or 2013 one.
He'd have less majors than he does now.We're in the weakest era of all time, where 35 years old's keep their place in the top 10 without opposition.![]()
berdych was what like number 13 at the end of 06? I really do not believe his level is any higher right now. But since today there is no depth and you can show up for a masters and pencil your name into the quarters he holds onto his ranking. At least back then you had to play some dangerous opponents in earlier rounds so if your level wasn't high you would be biting the dust. Same thing with Ferrer who was 14 at the end of 2006 and really his level was no higher than it was in 2015 where he finished like 7th.This is not to say that 2006 was some super strong year, it wasn't, just shows you that today is even worse which is truly sadI am not sure which is worse. That 34 year old Federer is the 2nd best player in the world today (I know where he is ranked, but as long as he is regularly beating Murray in big matches, and neither is winning a major) or that 34 year old David Ferrer and 32 year old Tomas Clowndych are firmly entrenched in top 10 still.
They are all pretty bad to be honest, the worst obviously being the likes of freaking Berdych being in the top 10 at 32 years of age!?!I am not sure which is worse. That 34 year old Federer is the 2nd best player in the world today (I know where he is ranked, but as long as he is regularly beating Murray in big matches, and neither is winning a major) or that 34 year old David Ferrer and 32 year old Tomas Clowndych are firmly entrenched in top 10 still.
Federer fans started calling him goat when he has 12 slams and saying he will win 20-25.
Now you are crying foul about Djoker fans.
I guess karma is a *****.
Yes when a new star comes along people Djoker fans have to deal with it. If you are a Federer fan put up or shut up. That's the way it goes.
Oh boy, this will be fun, every time Djoker wins a big one from now on. It's even fun watching you guys give an excuse whenever Federer loses.
I mean Ferrer is a clay court specialist who is frickin 34 years old, on his last legs, and STILL he is #9 and finished last year 7?? How is that even possible?They are all pretty bad to be honest, the worst obviously being the likes of freaking Berdych being in the top 10 at 32 years of age!?!
Oh yeah I forget to add GONZALEZ aswell.
I mean Ferrer is a clay court specialist who is frickin 34 years old, on his last legs, and STILL he is #9 and finished last year 7?? How is that even possible?
And still makes the second week at HC slams.I mean Ferrer is a clay court specialist who is frickin 34 years old, on his last legs, and STILL he is #9 and finished last year 7?? How is that even possible?
I mean Ferrer is a clay court specialist who is frickin 34 years old, on his last legs, and STILL he is #9 and finished last year 7?? How is that even possible?
The fact that Ferrer was ranked lower in 2005 than today, at 34, also says a lot.
Yet that was when the 'weak era' was with today apparently being much better.The fact that Ferrer was ranked lower in 2005 than today, at 34, also says a lot.
Nonsense.I agree that the number of majors is not necessarily decisive element in GOAT debate. As an example, if Djokovic wins FO2016 he would be the first man after Laver to hold all 4 majors at the same time, which is a strong argument for GOAT.
On the other hand, Federer can't be GOAT if he doesn't improve 11:23 to a respectable minus (something like 18:23).
Even if Djokovic wins 25 majors there would be no need for Federer fans to be upset. Federer will always have a good argument to be the greatest ever. His dominance in his best years were incredible especially considering it was done in the Open Era. His career overall can only be called fantastic or any adjective of that type. Even at his age now he is a big threat to win any tournament. There are some excellent arguments that he was more dominant in his best years than even Laver was in his Grand Slam year of 1969!
The fact that Ferrer was ranked lower in 2005 than today, at 34, also says a lot.
Coincidentlly,I have seen the match like 2 weeks ago,I wouldn't have talked about it otherwise(just using the stats).
The level in the 2nd was poor from both players,with tons of uncharacteristic errors.Nadal played a superb to break Federer,but was equaly lame when serving for the set
I was probably the first person on the forum to start using that resource for matches and I'm not completely sold on it's accuracy - though I do like to use it. It's often quite different from the official stats - I like to use it to get a rough idea of how much players were going down the line etc...or to get an idea of whether errors were being made early in the point or later.
If you take out the first set, Nadal is 50W 28 UE which is pretty decent, without the 4th he's 47W and 27UE and without the second he's 32W and 23UE. In the middle 2 sets he went 44W and 18UE which is very good. As the initial comment was comparing it to the 2011 final I would point out that Nadal's stats in that match were 16W and 25 UE's if you take out the third set of that match - which is significantly worse than the 2006 final. Removing other sets in different combinations will still lead to worse stats than 2006 final in pretty much every way. Also worth noting Federer was 22W and 9 UE in the set he lost in 2006, in the set Djokovic lost in 2011 he was 2 W and 6 UE.
The official stats paint 2006 as a better quality match purely in terms of winners and errors too.
What does Frusteration mean?While Federer fans have taken a lot of heat in the last year or even two for their complaints about Djokovic dominating a weak field, and being dismissive of Djokovic, I can atleast understand their vantage point. I will try and break down what I mean.
From the perspective of a Federer fan (or even a non Federer fan in many cases) the perception is probably fairly obvious peak or even prime Federer would be atleast this dominate against the current field sans Djokovic (basically Fed taking Djokovic's place). Without getting into another of these weak field talks, think about it. Federer even today is winning every match against Murray, hasn't lost to him in over 3 years now. Of course one thus assumes prime Federer would also have won ever encounter against Murray. It also seems a pretty safe bet prime Federer would win almost every match against the current Federer, as excellent as he still is. That seems a pretty safe bet. Wawrinka is losing, and usually getting killed in every medium-fast court match, and is only winning on the slowest courts (actually he has only ever won on clay, but he would have had a good shot any year they hypothetically would have met at the Australian Open too) to current Federer. So in absolute best case for him he could be a possible threat to prime Federer on slower courts, mainly clay, and even that isn't certain but that would be the absolute best case for him and worst for Federer. Current Nadal is a shadow of his old self who has declined so much he is ranked lower than the current old Federer, so safe to believe he would lose every or almost every match to absolutely prime Federer, regardless of the match up history and issues. Best case he might win some matches on clay against prime Federer, and so worst case for Federer is maybe he wouldn't dominate totally on clay with Nadal/Wawrinka (something he never did in his prime anyway, and that 0 RG winner Djokovic hasn't done either).
So while I don't necessarily agree, I do 100% understand their vantage point when it comes to Djokovic and his current dominance, and also how they perceive him dominating the current field/competition.
I trust the official stats of the wimby 2006 final over this ...
maybe, I'll do a set ( set 2 ) and see ...
wimby official stats are messed up though. I charted the 3rd set of the match myself and maybe they were a bit generous with the UFE but it was fairly accurate. (I think I got like 22/6 for Nadal)I trust the official stats of the wimby 2006 final over this ...
maybe, I'll do a set ( set 2 ) and see ...
lol....so you only watched Djokovic peak tennis. Go back and watch Federer peak tennis.Yes they are. I am the only 8th grader in my school with an iPhone .
I saw. He lost every time he faced a good player.lol....so you only watched Djokovic peak tennis. Go back and watch Federer peak tennis.