If Djokovic wins his eighth Wimbledon title.........?

[Hitman]

Totally, Ivanisevic who should've ended Slamless is a tougher opponent than a 22 or 24 Slam champion. If not for washed up Becker Sampras would barely have any Wimbledon champions to beat.

If you actually think Federer had tougher competition, that is fine, I am not interested in convincing you otherwise, you are entitled to your opinion. But keep this in mind, majority all know the depth of the 90s was superior, and please don't tell me they aren't just for the sake of arguing.

 

[tennis_pro]

If you actually think Federer had tougher competition, that is fine, I am not interested in convincing you otherwise, you are entitled to your opinion. But keep this in mind, majority all know the depth of the 90s was superior, and please don't tell me they aren't just for the sake of arguing.

What's depth? Having a slightly stronger 2nd round opponent? If you compare the QF/SF/F that Sampras faced in 1992-2000 compared to the ones Fed faced in his prime (and later) it's like a different tour.

Nostalgia is a hell of a drug, what seemed tough back then now looks mediocre at best. Ivanisevic, Henman, Courier, Agassi and a past his prime Becker - that was his competition. Unless you want to argue that Krajicek, Chang, Pioline, Courier are some grass monsters that prime Sampras was so scared of. Did I forget about anyone?

 

[Hitman]

What's depth? Having a slightly stronger 2nd round opponent? If you compare the QF/SF/F that Sampras faced in 1992-2000 compared to the ones Fed faced in his prime (and later) it's like a different tour.

Nostalgia is a hell of a drug, what seemed tough back then now looks mediocre at best. Ivanisevic, Henman, Courier, Agassi and a past his prime Becker - that was his competition. Unless you want to argue that Krajicek, Chang, Pioline, Courier are some grass monsters that prime Sampras was so scared of. Did I forget about anyone?

The Irony....

 

[tennis_pro]

The Irony....

Ivanisevic, Henman and an old Becker > Nadal, Djokovic, Murray

Or maybe nostalgia makes me remember it wrong....

 

[Hood_Man]

The trouble with the head to head arguments is that Federer is 6 years older than Djokovic, and Djokovic started to dominate after Federer started to decline.

This became completely non-arguable from July 2023 when, after a decade of arguing that age was just a number, the Djokovic fanbase fully embraced the concept of one player being older than the other as a disadvantage.

One wonders what it was that caused this seismic shift in thinking...?

 

[Hitman]

Ivanisevic, Henman and an old Becker > Nadal, Djokovic, Murray

Or maybe nostalgia makes me remember it wrong....

Maybe you just accept my opinion doesn't match yours.

I actually watched tennis in the 80s and every decade after that, so I experienced it all.

 

[Shield]

What about Edberg and Stich?

 

[tennis_pro]

Maybe you just accept my opinion doesn't match yours.

I actually watched tennis in the 80s and every decade after that, so I experienced it all.

Believe what you believe. I've seen this phenomenon that many people are "extending" the true golden age of tennis which was around 1985-1992, maybe 1993 at most giving Sampras the nod that he had such a strong field throughout his career. Ivanisevic was Sampras' no 1 opponent at Wimbledon in his prime years followed by an old past his prime Becker. That's not even questionable, nobody has played Sampras at Wimbledon more times than these 2. And I don't care what anyone says Ivanisevic and and an old Becker aren't even in the same stratosphere as facing Nadal and Djokovic on slower grass. Just because their games were more suited for grass doesn't mean that they were tougher opponents, just mentally they're 3 leagues above them.

 

[tennis_pro]

What about Edberg and Stich?

See this is exactly what I'm talking about. Extending the 1985-1992 golden age of tennis just to make Sampras look better.

Sampras played Edberg exactly 0 times at Wimbledon and played Stich once in 1992 when he wasn't even in good enough form to beat Ivanisevic that year.

Might as well bring in Lendl and Mac to the discussion.

 

[Hitman]

Believe what you believe. I've seen this phenomenon that many people are "extending" the true golden age of tennis which was around 1985-1992, maybe 1993 at most giving Sampras the nod that he had such a strong field throughout his career. Ivanisevic was Sampras' no 1 opponent at Wimbledon in his prime years followed by an old past his prime Becker. That's not even questionable, nobody has played Sampras at Wimbledon more times than these 2. And I don't care what anyone says Ivanisevic and and an old Becker aren't even in the same stratosphere as facing Nadal and Djokovic on slower grass. Just because their games were more suited for grass doesn't mean that they were tougher opponents, just mentally they're 3 leagues above them.

Lets see....competition before Federer's era, weak. Competition during Federer's era strong because Nadal, Murray, Djokovic. Competition after Federer stopped winning even more weak.

That is basically your point right?

 

[tennis_pro]

Lets see....competition before Federer's era, weak. Competition during Federer's era strong because Nadal, Murray, Djokovic. Competition after Federer stopped winning even more weak.

That is basically your point right?

Damn if only Federer played Ivanisevic and Henman more instead of Nadal and Djokovic.

Fed beating Philippoussis in 2003 = weak. Sampras beating a retiring Phillippousis in 1999 - "luckiest day of my life, should've lost" - so strong. Henman was a monster, because Federer couldn't beat him. But Sampras could....what a monster.

The competition was good on clay and HC. On grass? Give me a break.

 

[Hitman]

Damn if only Federer played Ivanisevic and Henman more instead of Nadal and Djokovic.

Yeah, like clay courter Nadal was taking Wimbledons from Sampras in the 90s. LOL

Can I ask why you insist to continue this, it seems you are very annoyed that Djokovic could potentially win 8 Wimbledon titles...but hey, if the titles don't matter because the competition is weak, why are you so bent out of shape?

 

[Djokovic_is_the_best#1]

Damn if only Federer played Ivanisevic and Henman more instead of Nadal and Djokovic.

You basically admitting nadal and Djokovic are superior players. Damn if only Federer actually did better against both in slams. He may still have the slam record

If Fed had cleaned up even more before Nadalovic came on seen he may have slam record

 

[Hitman]

You basically admitting nadal and Djokovic are superior players. Damn if only Federer actually did better against both in slams. He may still have the slam record

If Fed had cleaned up even more before Nadalovic came on seen he may have slam record

Federer was too busy losing to Henman in 2001 and losing to Ancic first round the year after to make the most of things.

 

[tennis_pro]

Yeah, like clay courter Nadal was taking Wimbledons from Sampras in the 90s. LOL

And that clay courter has 2x as many Wimbledon titles as Ivanisevic, Henman and Becker (after 1989) put together.

Yeah Sampras would just roll over peak Nadal on slow grass.

Btw I thought you said you didn't want to bite? If my arguments are so dumb you should debunk them with one post. I'm still waiting for the list of monsters that Sampras beat at Wimbledon in 1992-2000 that are so much tougher than whoever Federer was beating.

Can I ask why you insist to continue this, it seems you are very annoyed that Djokovic could potentially win 8 Wimbledon titles...but hey, if the titles don't matter because the competition is weak, why are you so bent out of shape?

What does Djokovic have to do with this?

Djokovic had easy Wimbledons too, but at least nobody is arguing otherwise.

 

[Hitman]

Damn if only Federer played Ivanisevic and Henman more instead of Nadal and Djokovic.

Fed beating Philippoussis in 2003 = weak. Sampras beating a retiring Phillippousis in 1999 - "luckiest day of my life, should've lost" - so strong. Henman was a monster, because Federer couldn't beat him. But Sampras could....what a monster.

The competition was good on clay and HC. On grass? Give me a break.

LOL I have to comment on this, for someone who wants to talk about context, do you understand what Mark went through three knee operations before he came back and made the Wimbledon final.

 

[Hitman]

And that clay courter has 2x as many Wimbledon titles as Ivanisevic, Henman and Becker (after 1989) put together.

Yeah Sampras would just roll over peak Nadal on slow grass.

Federer should have rolled him over also, if he didn't have a mental block, but that's another conversation.

Btw I thought you said you didn't want to bite? If my arguments are so dumb you should debunk them with one post. I'm still waiting for the list of monsters that Sampras beat at Wimbledon in 1992-2000 that are so much tougher than whoever Federer was beating.

I am just interested why are you so angry, is it because Djokovic could win 8?

What does Djokovic have to do with this?

Djokovic had easy Wimbledons too, but at least nobody is arguing otherwise.

Everything, you are clearly annoyed that Federer's record is under attack and he could lose it, if Sinner fails on Friday.

 

[tennis_pro]

Federer was too busy losing to Henman in 2001 and losing to Ancic first round the year after to make the most of things.

And Sampras lost to the dude who lost to Henman? What was Sampras doing in 1991 at the same age too btw?

Btw wasn't Sampras 29 in 2001 and 30 in 2002? Federer lost to Tsonga in 5 and won next year (against Murray and Djokovic). Who told Sampras to lose to baby Fed and Bastl of all people?

So what now, teenage Federer = prime Fed and a 29-year old Sampras is washed up and excused? LMAO

Sampras had 1000x easier competition on grass and he still got surpassed by Fed.

 

[tennis_pro]

LOL I have to comment on this, for someone who wants to talk about context, do you understand what Mark went through three knee operations before he came back and made the Wimbledon final.

What difference did it make for Sampras if Philippoussis still couldn't complete the match in 1999? So he counts as a taff opponent for Sampras or no? Yes, no?

So what you're saying is - "I'll take the peak version of Philippoussis despite him not being able to play for more than a set over the past his prime Philippoussis even though he could play a full match. Peak > not peak."

 

[tennis_pro]

You basically admitting nadal and Djokovic are superior players. Damn if only Federer actually did better against both in slams. He may still have the slam record

If Fed had cleaned up even more before Nadalovic came on seen he may have slam record

On grass? How? I'm saying Nadal and Djokovic are superior players to Ivanisevic and Henman. Well no S.

Maybe if Fed wasn't a generation older than Nadal and Djokovic he could've had more wins. Outside of 2008W/2009 AO where he should've won at least 1 of these matches he did fine against both until 2009/2010ish. They only started to dominate more when they were 24/25 and Fed was in his 30s.

 

[Shield]

See this is exactly what I'm talking about. Extending the 1985-1992 golden age of tennis just to make Sampras look better.

Sampras played Edberg exactly 0 times at Wimbledon and played Stich once in 1992 when he wasn't even in good enough form to beat Ivanisevic that year.

Might as well bring in Lendl and Mac to the discussion.

I think you have your terms mixed up as that isn’t really extending. I was honestly asking since Stich and Edberg were both very good during that time. The question was more to if Sampras had played them both during their peaks in the early 90’s, since I wasn’t familiar with their H2H against Pete.

 

[Hitman]

And Sampras lost to the dude who lost to Henman? What was Sampras doing in 1991 at the same age too btw?

Yes, lets forget Sampras was one month from turning 30, you know that golden age that Fedal fans like to use to say - Out of prime.

And Pete beat Henman in several semis there.

Sampras in 1991 was at least USO 1990 champion, what did Federer have, Hamburg 2002?

Btw wasn't Sampras 29 in 2001 and 30 in 2002? Federer lost to Tsonga in 5 and won next year (against Murray and Djokovic). Who told Sampras to lose to baby Fed and Bastl of all people?

Lets forget about advancements in sport science and medicine and nutrition and that more players had longer careers in general.

So what now, teenage Federer = prime Fed and a 29-year old Sampras is washed up and excused? LMAO

Sampras had 1000x easier competition on grass and he still got surpassed by Fed.

This is what you want to say

Competition before Federer weak, competition during Federer peak strong, competition after Federer even worse.

 

[Hitman]

What difference did it make for Sampras if Philippoussis still couldn't complete the match in 1999? So he counts as a taff opponent for Sampras or no? Yes, no?

So Sampras takes on the peak version, who made the USO final the year before, and shows how strong grass competition was....Federer beats the same guy, who is four years older and has had three knee operations and it is meant to be the same according to the context folks,

So what you're saying is - "I'll take the peak version of Philippoussis despite him not being able to play for more than a set over the past his prime Philippoussis even though he could play a full match. Peak > not peak."

What I am saying is that you are very angry right now that Djokovic is two matches away from equalling Federer.

 

[tennis_pro]

Federer should have rolled him over also, if he didn't have a mental block, but that's another conversation.

Fed beat him in 2006, 2007 and in 2008 the match went to the wire despite Fed already not being

Also hilarious mentioning the mental block. Sampras never had that issue, man losing to the same man over and over again just prior to Wimbledon in Monte Carlo, Rome and the FO, because he kept losing to a variety of players all the time. Damn, if Fed was a tad smarter like Sampras and stopped reaching a gazillion FO files only to lose to Nadal all the time.

I am just interested why are you so angry, is it because Djokovic could win 8?

Dude I'm not playing ad personam. We're talking about the 90s grass field, Djokovic is only brought up as a part of Federer's grass era.

Everything, you are clearly annoyed that Federer's record is under attack and he could lose it, if Sinner fails on Friday.

I'm not even thinking about it, if not Djokovic then someone else will break the record, 8 is beatable.

 

[tennis_pro]

Yes, lets forget Sampras was one month from turning 30, you know that golden age that Fedal fans like to use to say - Out of prime.

Yeah, out of prime, less than your career best. Not 6 months from retirement.

And Pete beat Henman in several semis there.

Amazing.

Sampras in 1991 was at least USO 1990 champion, what did Federer have, Hamburg 2002?

Sampras did slightly better than Federer before the age of 22. Now let's compare the achievements of both after the age of 31. No, wait...

Lets forget about advancements in sport science and medicine and nutrition and that more players had longer careers in general.

The same advancements that Agassi didn't have access too?

Sampras was physically fine in 2002, he was gone mentally. And honesly good for him, because by 2004 Fed would be beating him like a drum everywhere.

Competition before Federer weak, competition during Federer peak strong, competition after Federer even worse.

Maybe Sampras should've kept playing if the competition was so weak on grass, then? Who would've stopped him in 2002? Ah, Bastl, I forgot.

 

[Hitman]

Fed beat him in 2006, 2007 and in 2008 the match went to the wire despite Fed already not being

Also hilarious mentioning the mental block. Sampras never had that issue, man losing to the same man over and over again just prior to Wimbledon in Monte Carlo, Rome and the FO, because he kept losing to a variety of players all the time. Damn, if Fed was a tad smarter like Sampras and stopped reaching a gazillion FO files only to lose to Nadal all the time.

Federer is the reason why nadal became a multi surface slam champion, he couldn't defend his turf when he was clearly the better player. His mental block cost him W 2008.

Dude I'm not playing ad personam. We're talking about the 90s grass field, Djokovic is only brought up as a part of Federer's grass era.

I'm not even thinking about it, if not Djokovic then someone else will break the record, 8 is beatable.

Dude, I can look past all this and see what your annoyance is coming from.

This is your narrative in one sentence - Competition before Federer was weak, then it became strong when Federer was winning, then it became super weak after Federer's peak was over.

All this other bells and whistles is basically sitting under that, because it is all coming back to this. I get it, you are a Federer fan and hey even I think Federer is the grass GOAT, but NOT for the reasons you think, because he won 8 titles, and that is what is getting Federer fans riled up, because ultimately it is about the numbers, and if Djokovic gets past Sinner....

 

[tennis_pro]

I think you have your terms mixed up as that isn’t really extending. I was honestly asking since Stich and Edberg were both very good during that time. The question was more to if Sampras had played them both during their peaks in the early 90’s, since I wasn’t familiar with their H2H against Pete.

They would've been really strong opponents for Sampras in 1993-2000 if both were in their primes during that period. Unfortunately, Edberg already started declining by early 1993 and Stich had by far his best run at Wimbledon in 1991 and couldn't reproduce that level on grass again.

 

[Shield]

They would've been really strong opponents for Sampras in 1993-2000 if both were in their primes during that period. Unfortunately, Edberg already started declining by early 1993 and Stich had by far his best run at Wimbledon in 1991 and couldn't reproduce that level on grass again.

Ahh ok that answers my question then. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[tennis_pro]

Federer is the reason why nadal became a multi surface slam champion, he couldn't defend his turf when he was clearly the better player. His mental block cost him W 2008.

Better than getting straight setted by freaking Krajicek in the middle of his prime. He couldn't defend his turf now either, huh?

Also what was Federer supposed to do, wim Wimbledon in 2008 while not at his best against peak Nadal, win in 2009 and then not get injured in 2010 and win again? For 8 Wimbledon titles in a row? He's not a machine, he pushed the final in 2008 as much as he could. And, again, what was Fed supposed to do, lose on purpose on clay in every tournament before meeting Nadal?

Now imagine instead of choker Ivanisevic Sampras gets mauled in MC, Rome and FO by the same player year by year who also keeps pushing him harder and harder in Wimbledon finals. Sampras' mentality is so overrated it's not even funny. His toughest career opponent was meth doing Agassi who was sitting at 3 Slams in 1999 when Sampras was almost done winning Slams altogether. Who was he supposed to be mentally challenged by?

I remember listening to a Sampras interview way back and he mentioned that he was scared of playing Ivanisevic. The dude he kept beating over and over again after 1992. It's like Fed saying he was scared of playing Nalbandian or Hewitt. Give me a freaking break. Sampras never played anyone of a big 3 calibre and you have no idea how he would react if he kept being pushed to the limit all the time.

This is your narrative in one sentence - Competition before Federer was weak, then it became strong when Federer was winning, then it became super weak after Federer's peak was over.

Federer also had weaker competition obviously. But not all the time throughout his entire career. And he was still a gazillon times better at 30-38 than what Sampras would've been if he kept playing and actually won Wimbledon at 31, 36 and played many more finals coming close.

All this other bells and whistles is basically sitting under that, because it is all coming back to this. I get it, you are a Federer fan and hey even I think Federer is the grass GOAT, but NOT for the reasons you think, because he won 8 titles, and that is what is getting Federer fans riled up, because ultimately it is about the numbers, and if Djokovic gets past Sinner....

Dude I wasn't even thinking about this, for the last time. 8 will be broken eventually. I replied, cause I couldn't read about the 90s strong grass field myth for the n-th time.

How does the 90s grass field go follow to the crumbs of Federer vs Djokovic? Stop reaching.

 

[clayqueen]

You basically admitting nadal and Djokovic are superior players. Damn if only Federer actually did better against both in slams. He may still have the slam record

If Fed had cleaned up even more before Nadalovic came on seen he may have slam record

You're right. Federer was a late bloomer, and he made the most of the window of transition between the Sampras era and the Nadalovic era. In fact, Federer wasn't all-conquering in his TMF days because he only dominated Wimbledon and the US Open for 5 years. He won sporadically at the AO and bugger-all at the French Open. He didn't really dominate the Masters either during those years.

 

[Hitman]

Better than getting straight setted by freaking Krajicek in the middle of his prime.

Also what was Federer supposed to do, wim Wimbledon in 2008 while not at his best against peak Nadal, win in 2009 and then not get injured in 2010 and win again? For 8 Wimbledon titles in a row? He's not a machine, he pushed the final in 2008 as much as he could. And, again, what was Fed supposed to do, lose on purpose on clay in every tournament before meeting Nadal?

Now imagine instead of choker Ivanisevic Sampras gets mauled in MC, Rome and FO by the same player year by year who also keeps pushing him harder and harder in Wimbledon finals. Sampras mentality is so overrated it's not even funny. His toughest career opponent was meth doing Agassi who was sitting at 3 Slams in 1999 when Sampras was almost done winning Slams altogether.

Federer also had weaker competition obviously. But not all the time throughout his entire career. And he was still a gazillon times better at 30-38 than what Sampras would've been if he kept playing and actually won Wimbledon at 31, 36 and played many more finals coming close.

Dude I wasn't even thinking about this, for the last time. 8 will be broken eventually. I replied, cause I couldn't read about the 90s strong grass field myth for the n-th time.

How does the 90s grass field go follow to the crumbs of Federer vs Djokovic? Stop reaching.

Lets come back to the main point, you are reluctant to come out of your comfort zone.

Tell me honestly, are you concerned that Sinner might not be able to stop Djokovic from getting his 8th Wimbledon title, or you feel Sinner will be the mountain Djokvic cannot climb and he will protect Federer's record? Because this is Djokovic's last chance.

Do you feel Sinner can save Federer's record?

 

[Djokovic_is_the_best#1]

You're right. Federer was a late bloomer, and he made the most of the window of transition between the Sampras era and the Nadalovic era. In fact, Federer wasn't all-conquering in his TMF days because he only dominated Wimbledon and the US Open for 5 years. He won sporadically at the AO and bugger-all at the French Open. He didn't really dominate the Masters either during those years.

I agree. One thing I will admit is out the big 3, nadal was the best big 3 match player when all were at their peaks. Then it Djokovic and Fed last.

Djokovic is the best longevity though. In most important categories between them nadal and Djokovic passed Fed.

 

[clayqueen]

Lets come back to the main point, you are reluctant to come out of your comfort zone.

Tell me honestly, are you concerned that Sinner might not be able to stop Djokovic from getting his 8th Wimbledon title, or you feel Sinner will be the mountain Djokvic cannot climb and he will protect Federer's record? Because this is Djokovic's last chance.

Do you feel Sinner can save Federer's record?

I wonder if Federer is on tenterhooks about the possibility of being recordless if Djokovic equals his Wimbledon total. They were too hasty is crowning him the GOAT based purely on the number of slams won. That simplistic criterion has now become a farce.

 

[Hitman]

I wonder if Federer is on tenterhooks about the possibility of being recordless if Djokovic equals his Wimbledon total. They were too hasty is crowning him the GOAT based purely on the number of slams won. That simplistic criterion has now become a farce.

It all depends on Sinner really protecting Federer's record, this is why so many Federer fans are on pins and needles, yesterday FAA came so close to protecting the record, now all hope falls on Sinner.

I am not sure if I blame Federer, but the media did not help.

 

[tennis_pro]

Lets come back to the main point, you are reluctant to come out of your comfort zone.

Tell me honestly, are you concerned that Sinner might not be able to stop Djokovic from getting his 8th Wimbledon title, or you feel Sinner will be the mountain Djokvic cannot climb and he will protect Federer's record? Because this is Djokovic's last chance.

Do you feel Sinner can save Federer's record?

Dude why do you keep bringing this up? Literally who cares right now? It's pointless to discuss unless Djokovic is in the final and has high odds of winning. You keep bringing Djokovic's 8 Wimbledon titles when Djokovic still has to beat Sinner. He beats him, then we can talk. We are talking about something completely different.

2026 AO was an anomaly, Djokovic got a W/O, a 0-2 retirement, played the perfect match and Sinner underperformed on the big points. Things like this can happen once if everything aligns and it did. If he loses again it's 100% on him and then we can discuss what it implies. Sinner has no business losing to Djokovic even playing at his B- level.

 

[Hitman]

Dude why do you keep bringing this up? Literally who cares right now? It's pointless to discuss unless Djokovic is in the final and has high odds of winning. You keep bringing Djokovic's 8 Wimbledon titles when Djokovic still has to beat Sinner. He beats him, then we can talk. We are talking about something completely different.

2026 AO was an anomaly, Djokovic got a W/O, a 0-2 retirement, played the perfect match and Sinner underperformed on the big points. Things like this can happen once if everything aligns and it did. If he loses again it's 100% on him and then we can discuss what it implies. Sinner has no business losing to Djokovic even playing at his B- level.

This is basically the point here. It all comes back to Djokovic threatening Federer's record with numbers, not context, but numbers, which is what has Federer fans concerned. And that to me shows what people are really feeling. The rest is deflection, I want to address the root cause.

Are you confident then that Sinner stomps out Djokovic in semis and restores order?

Heck I pick Sinner also, I had him as the winner, but I also feel if Sinner falls, no one else is stopping Djokovic from getting 8.

 

[clayqueen]

It all depends on Sinner really protecting Federer's record, this is why so many Federer fans are on pins and needles, yesterday FAA came so close to protecting the record, now all hope falls on Sinner.

I am not sure if I blame Federer, but the media did not help.

I don't blame Federer, I'm just wondering if it bothers him. Mind you, he's still being promoted as the GOAT. Nothing is further from the truth.

 

[clayqueen]

Dude why do you keep bringing this up? Literally who cares right now? It's pointless to discuss unless Djokovic is in the final and has high odds of winning. You keep bringing Djokovic's 8 Wimbledon titles when Djokovic still has to beat Sinner. He beats him, then we can talk. We are talking about something completely different.

2026 AO was an anomaly, Djokovic got a W/O, a 0-2 retirement, played the perfect match and Sinner underperformed on the big points. Things like this can happen once if everything aligns and it did. If he loses again it's 100% on him and then we can discuss what it implies. Sinner has no business losing to Djokovic even playing at his B- level.

As you know, anything can happen in tennis, and no one can write Djokovic off against anyone.

 

[Hitman]

I don't blame Federer, I'm just wondering if it bothers him. Mind you, he's still being promoted as the GOAT. Nothing is further from the truth.

Only he knows for sure.

 

[Winners or Errors]

This is basically the point here. It all comes back to Djokovic threatening Federer's record with numbers, not context, but numbers, which is what has Federer fans concerned. And that to me shows what people are really feeling. The rest is deflection, I want to address the root cause.

Are you confident then that Sinner stomps out Djokovic in semis and restores order?

Heck I pick Sinner also, I had him as the winner, but I also feel if Sinner falls, no one else is stopping Djokovic from getting 8.

Nothing wrong with Djokovic being elevated if he wins the title going through something like #4, #3, and #1 when #2 wasn't here. That's the stuff of legends. I mean, he was there to take out Fed's generation, made the careers of all of those players from the next group not named Nadal or Murray irrelevant, saw off another generation, and now would be demonstrating the inferiority of the current top guy. Just, wow, if this Wimbledon ends in a Djokovic victory. That'd be standing on the top of the mountain. 25 + 8 really is an unimaginable set of numbers...

 

[messiahrobins]

If you actually think Federer had tougher competition, that is fine, I am not interested in convincing you otherwise, you are entitled to your opinion. But keep this in mind, majority all know the depth of the 90s was superior, and please don't tell me they aren't just for the sake of arguing.

Sampras Becker Agassi Edberg Chang Martin Ivanisevic Stich Bruguera Muster Courier and even an old Mcenroe Connors and Lendl still around early 90s. The Golden Age of tennis

 

[gamelovergold]

The trouble with the head to head arguments is that Federer is 6 years older than Djokovic, and Djokovic started to dominate after Federer started to decline.

This became completely non-arguable from July 2023 when, after a decade of arguing that age was just a number, the Djokovic fanbase fully embraced the concept of one player being older than the other as a disadvantage.

One wonders what it was that caused this seismic shift in thinking...?

One wonders that People forgets
6 year age gap vs 14 year age gap is not comparable.
Sinner vs Novak 14 years
Sinner vs Alcaraz 16 year
Is not comparable to
Federer vs Novak 6 uears
Federer vs Nadal. 5 years.

 

[mike danny]

One wonders that People forgets
6 year age gap vs 14 year age gap is not comparable.
Sinner vs Novak 14 years
Sinner vs Alcaraz 16 year
Is not comparable to
Federer vs Novak 6 uears
Federer vs Nadal. 5 years.

At one point it is comparable. Especially as Sinner and Alcaraz are also not as good as Nadal and Djokovic

 

[gamelovergold]

At one point it is comparable. Especially as Sinner and Alcaraz are also not as good as Nadal and Djokovic

Sinner Alcaraz not good as Novak and rafa is fair assesment
But playing 6 year younger player vs
Playing 16 year younger player is not comparable.
Unless you are giving statements like Roger did "I AM BETTER PLAYER IN 2015 THAN I WAS IN 2005 BECAUSE I HAS 10 MORE YEAR OF EXPERIENCE ".
Something like that

 

[mike danny]

Sinner Alcaraz not good as Novak and rafa is fair assesment
But playing 6 year younger player vs
Playing 16 year younger player is not comparable.
Unless you are giving statements like Roger did "I AM BETTER PLAYER IN 2015 THAN I WAS IN 2005 BECAUSE I HAS 10 MORE YEAR OF EXPERIENCE ".
Something like that

33 and 34 vs 27 and 28 is still not an even playing field. A 6 year age gap becomes a disadvantage once you reach a certain age.

Especially as you face a fully-fledged prime player, not someone still developing

 

[mike danny]

Sinner Alcaraz not good as Novak and rafa is fair assesment
But playing 6 year younger player vs
Playing 16 year younger player is not comparable.
Unless you are giving statements like Roger did "I AM BETTER PLAYER IN 2015 THAN I WAS IN 2005 BECAUSE I HAS 10 MORE YEAR OF EXPERIENCE ".
Something like that

And the only reason the age gaps are 14 and 16 years is because there was no one else before them who was any good so it worked to Novak’s advantage more than anything

 

[gamelovergold]

33 and 34 vs 27 and 28 is still not an even playing field. A 6 year age gap becomes a disadvantage once you reach a certain age.

Especially as you face a fully-fledged prime player, not someone still developing

If 34 vs 27 is almost disadvantage than
39 vs 25 is double disadvantage.

 

[mike danny]

If 34 vs 27 is almost disadvantage than
39 vs 25 is double disadvantage.

Depends on the quality of the player on the other side of the net.

Sinner is definitely no Djokovic

 

[gamelovergold]

Depends on the quality of the player on the other side of the net.

Sinner is definitely no Djokovic
[/QUOTE]
SINNER AND ALCARAZ are 2 best player of this generation.
Their competition is with their generation and not with the player who is 14 year older than both.

 

[a10best]

Interesting, Fed was 38 for 5 years?

He doesn't look 44 now either. Otoh, Djokovic does look 44 but he plays like a 33 yr old.

Whatever his physical and mental training is, it must be copied because it doesn't make sense to be beating these younger ATGs

Beat peak Carlos for OG
Beat Sinner in AO semis with remarkable break point saves. Sinner is absolute sh*t for breaking serve. 0-40 against Mochisuki and Brooksby and can't convert.

I expect Djokovic to beat BO3 #1 Sinner but maybe lose to Zverev which will finally legitimize him and more dog kissing.