If Federer dominated a weak era, then so have Nadal and Djokovic

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 307496
  • Start date Start date
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Weak eras don't exist. But if they did, Nadal and Djokovic are as guilty of dominating a "weak era" as Federer is.

Actually, in comparison Federer might have had it harder than these two.

1) Federer had to compete against at least three players who are either as good as Andy Murray, slightly worse or better by a sizeable amount.
2) When Nadal won 3 majors in 2010, Novak Djokovic was already his best competition and at that time he only had 1 major to his credit and a string of bad results.
3) When Novak peaked in 2011, Nadal lost 7 straight times, proving he too couldn't handle his main rival.
4) Nadal still has a losing record against Djokovic dating back to 2011.
5) Novak Djokovic has Andy Murray as his best competition, which makes me laugh when fans of the man claim Federer beat weak opposition, when in reality Novak's is not much different.
6) Federer was never given a break and had to contend with these guys at full strength after he was done dominating the game.

I respect all of these players, but claiming "weak era" is subjective and fairly easy to do. One could legitimately make an argument for Laver, saying he played a bunch of All-Time Greats and shut down Sampras at the same time, claiming he played in a "weak era" and that Marcelo Rios and Patrick Rafter were his best competition.

That will be all.
 
It's no coincidence that in matches when one player is playing well the other is playing badly. The same can be said about form.
 
You're describing the first era as "Federer". You're describing the next era as "Nadal and Djokovic". Do you see how two greats is a tougher era than one?
 
bjsnider said:
You're describing the first era as "Federer". You're describing the next era as "Nadal and Djokovic". Do you see how two greats is a tougher era than one?
Click to expand...
But Djokovic wasn't a "great" player in 2010 when he was Nadal's best opposition.
 
bjsnider said:
You're describing the first era as "Federer". You're describing the next era as "Nadal and Djokovic". Do you see how two greats is a tougher era than one?
Click to expand...

Nadal was very much a part of the Federer era, he's been a top tier player since 2005 so that's 3/4 seasons when Federer dominated, you can also add 2007 to the list cause that's when Djokovic joined the party.
 
Toughest thing in tennis: When players YOUNGER THAN YOU start to beat you! From that moment on, there's no ways to improve. Federer had it the toughest possible way. Straight after he was off the physical peak age 22-26, he had to start competing with great players (Djokovic/Nadal/Murray) who were like 5 years younger than him. As for Djokovic/Nadal, they only had TOMIC (LOL) as a younger challenger for them. No other player from the early 90s born players was strong enough to ever challenge them in slams.

If any one era had weak challenge, it was that 2010-2015! Things are only starting to change now, with the late 90s born generation rising with Kyrgios/Coric et.al. Weak era is soon over.
 
tennis_pro said:
Nadal was very much a part of the Federer era, he's been a top tier player since 2005 so that's 3/4 seasons when Federer dominated, you can also add 2007 to the list cause that's when Djokovic joined the party.
Click to expand...


True, some players are very successful as teens, but the age difference between Federer and Nadal makes for very little meaningful crossover -- quite unlike Nadal and Murray/Djokovic, since there's only one year difference there.
 
Weak era is when old declined players can still succeed, with no challenge from younger players. Average age of slam semifinalists through open era: http://www.tennis28.com/charts/sf_age.GIF
sf_age.GIF

You clearly see three distinct weak eras when there was absolute zero challenge for old declined players: 1968-1974, 2000-2001 and 2011->
 
Sabratha said:
Weak eras don't exist. But if they did, Nadal and Djokovic are as guilty of dominating a "weak era" as Federer is.

Actually, in comparison Federer might have had it harder than these two.

1) Federer had to compete against at least three players who are either as good as Andy Murray, slightly worse or better by a sizeable amount.
2) When Nadal won 3 majors in 2010, Novak Djokovic was already his best competition and at that time he only had 1 major to his credit and a string of bad results.
3) When Novak peaked in 2011, Nadal lost 7 straight times, proving he too couldn't handle his main rival.
4) Nadal still has a losing record against Djokovic dating back to 2011.
5) Novak Djokovic has Andy Murray as his best competition, which makes me laugh when fans of the man claim Federer beat weak opposition, when in reality Novak's is not much different.
6) Federer was never given a break and had to contend with these guys at full strength after he was done dominating the game.

I respect all of these players, but claiming "weak era" is subjective and fairly easy to do. One could legitimately make an argument for Laver, saying he played a bunch of All-Time Greats and shut down Sampras at the same time, claiming he played in a "weak era" and that Marcelo Rios and Patrick Rafter were his best competition.

That will be all.
Click to expand...

First sentence is the correct answer.
 
Djokovic in the last 2 years has had little competition. Wawrinka who is inconsistent, Murray who is his lapdog and 33-34 year old Fed.

Of course his fans will deny this.
 
Ummmmmm...



Wake up..


If Weaker Eras didn't exist than all eras are the same.. Meaning guys like Johannson/Gaudio would win slams in ANY era. Does anyone really believe that? If you do you are an absolute MORON!!!

If a weak Era didn't exist, Grandma Serena williams (Who is winning tournament after tournament) would easily sweep ANY era. We all know that nonsense. A weak era like the one we are seeing in the WTA Is why Serena is still allowed to Inflate the crap out of her resume because there is NO TALENT around. Would she be doing the same if we still had Henin, Davenport, Prime Venus, Caprirati, Clijster etc. around? HELL NO!!!!


There are stronger eras (Resulting in tougher opposition to the title) and there was WEAKER eras.
Federer dominated a weaker era in terms of prime/Peak for Prime/Peak. We all know if Nadal didn't have to deal with Peak Nole during his peak stride years, he would have more than 14 slams. Give Nadal, Fed's 04-07 competition with no Peak Nole around, he wins far more slams. Just like Fed did because of it.


Fed got to inflate his resume due to 03-07 and his main competition being Roddick and Sampras Era holdover Agassi with a bad back. If Nadal/Nole primed years early, Does anyone really believe Fed would be cakewalking through 3 slams a year like he did in 04-07? ROFLMAO!!! Would Fed cakewalk through 3 slams a year if guys like Mac, Borg, Edberg, Wilander, Becker etc. were all in their primes? Hell to the no.


There are weak eras and there are stronger eras with more talent. Its the way its always been in pro sports.. It will always be that way. Certain eras will ALWAYS produce more talent than others..


Could you imagine how many slams Nadal/Nole would have now if they didn't have to battle each other in all those tourney finals and instead got Roddick, Hewitt, Underachiever slam clown Nalbandian, 32-35 year old Agassi?
... Yea a lot more than 14/9 respectively.
 
Last edited:
bjsnider said:
True, some players are very successful as teens, but the age difference between Federer and Nadal makes for very little meaningful crossover -- quite unlike Nadal and Murray/Djokovic, since there's only one year difference there.
Click to expand...
Age isn't the main issue here. Nadal won his first major less than two years after Federer won his first. In comparison, Djokovic took nearly 3 years after Nadal's first to win his own first, and Murray didn't win his first until 4 years after that. So the gap between Nadal and Federer in terms of peak performance and first wins at majors is closer than Nadal and Djokovic, for instance.

Nadal has made 2 finals, 1 win and 1 loss, since his 2013 USO title. Nearly two years ago. He's a non issue for Djokovic at the moment.. and has been for some time now. Djokovic's best competition is Federer.
 
mike danny said:
Djokovic in the last 2 years has had little competition. Wawrinka who is inconsistent, Murray who is his lapdog and 33-34 year old Fed.

Of course his fans will deny this.
Click to expand...
Murray has defeated Djokovic in two major finals -- something none of Federer's contemporaries did even once. Also, Murray's head-to-head against Djokovic is nearly .500, something not close to true of Federer's contemporaries.
 
bjsnider said:
Murray has defeated Djokovic in two major finals -- something none of Federer's contemporaries did even once. Also, Murray's head-to-head against Djokovic is nearly .500, something not close to true of Federer's contemporaries.
Click to expand...

Used to be....
 
90's Clay said:
If Weaker Eras didn't exist than all eras are the same.. Meaning guys like Johannson/Gaudio would in slams in ANY era. Does anyone really believe that? If you do you are an absolute MORON!!!

If a weak Era didn't exist, Grandma Serena williams (Who is winning tournament after tournament) would easily sweep ANY era. We all know that nonsense. A weak era like the one we are seeing in the WTA Is why Serena is still allowed to Inflate the crap out of her resume because there is NO TALENT around


There are stronger eras (Resulting in tougher opposition to the title) and there was WEAKER eras.
Federer dominated a weaker era in terms of prime/Peak for Prime/Peak. We all know if Nadal didn't have to deal with Peak Nole during his peak stride years, he would have more than 14 slams.


Fed got to inflate his resume due to 03-07 and his main competition being Roddick and Sampras Era holdover Agassi with a bad back
Click to expand...
Nadal won half of the major matches between the two SINCE djokovic has come into the scene, and is 1-1 against him even after the big slump started post-AO 2014. Djokovic hasn't gotten the better of him in the matches that really count until this last RG match. Before that, when Nadal was very clearly not at his best, Rafa had the advantage in the majors. So don't act as if Djokovic is somehow preventing Nadal from having more than 14. Nadal has a 10-2 h2h in the majors against Federer, but Fed still won 17 majors.. weird.
 
bjsnider said:
Murray has defeated Djokovic in two major finals -- something none of Federer's contemporaries did even once. Also, Murray's head-to-head against Djokovic is nearly .500, something not close to true of Federer's contemporaries.
Click to expand...
So Federer is faulted for never losing to his contemporaries? Well I didn't know Djokovic gets bonus points for losing.

Federer should have allowed himself to lose some more matches to seem greater.

And btw Federer never lost a major final to Murray and even now at almost 34 he still beats Murray in majors.
 
Cup8489 said:
Nadal won half of the major matches between the two SINCE djokovic has come into the scene, and is 1-1 against him even after the big slump started post-AO 2014. Djokovic hasn't gotten the better of him in the matches that really count until this last RG match. Before that, when Nadal was very clearly not at his best, Rafa had the advantage in the majors. So don't act as if Djokovic is somehow preventing Nadal from having more than 14. Nadal has a 10-2 h2h in the majors against Federer, but Fed still won 17 majors.. weird.
Click to expand...
That's not weird at all. Most all Fedal slam matches were when Federer was on decline and Nadal was in his own peak. Nadal should've basically won all their matches from 2008 on, solely due to age difference.
 
All this weak era talk is tiresome now. Nadal played in the same era as Federer before 2011. Weak era is available to him as well
 
mike danny said:
All this weak era talk is tiresome now. Nadal played in the same era as Federer before 2011. Weak era is available to him as well
Click to expand...

Difference is, Nadal didn't get to spend his peak years with primary opposition being mid 30s Agassi/Roddick. Where he could inflate his resume for 3 slams a year.

Nadal's peak years were spent battling peak Nole.

Big difference from Sciatica ridden Andre (Who was apart of the 90s Sampras era and early 00's) and Roddick
 
mike danny said:
So Federer is faulted for never losing to his contemporaries? Well I didn't know Djokovic gets bonus points for losing.

Federer should have allowed himself to lose some more matches to seem greater.

And btw Federer never lost a major final to Murray and even now at almost 34 he still beats Murray in majors.
Click to expand...
But they think Murray is so much "better competition" than Hewitt LOL. I say, Murray is NO BETTER than Hewitt (actually slightly lesser), but the weak era 2011-2015 allowed him to stay at top easily. And doesn't that say something of the weakness of 2011-2015 than an old declined grandfather is staying at #2, and occasionally even #1 LOL.
 
torpantennis said:
That's not weird at all. Most all Fedal slam matches were when Federer was on decline and Nadal was in his own peak. Nadal should've basically won all their matches from 2008 on, solely due to age difference.
Click to expand...
bjsnider said:
Murray has defeated Djokovic in two major finals -- something none of Federer's contemporaries did even once. Also, Murray's head-to-head against Djokovic is nearly .500, something not close to true of Federer's contemporaries.
Click to expand...
LOL

LOLOLOL

Djokovic is 9-8 in major finals. Federer has won nearly twice as many majors with only 2 more lost finals. Federer is 17-10. Djokovic actually is rather pedestrian when he makes the final. Losing to Murray isn't really prooof of Murray being tough competition.. just that Djokovic doesn't get up for the biggest matches like both Federer and Nadal do (17-10, 14-6).
 
torpantennis said:
That's not weird at all. Most all Fedal slam matches were when Federer was on decline and Nadal was in his own peak. Nadal should've basically won all their matches from 2008 on, solely due to age difference.
Click to expand...
torpantennis said:
But they think Murray is so much "better competition" than Hewitt LOL. I say, Murray is NO BETTER than Hewitt (actually slightly lesser), but the weak era 2011-2015 allowed him to stay at top easily. And doesn't that say something of the weakness of 2011-2015 than an old declined grandfather is staying at #2, and occasionally even #1 LOL.
Click to expand...
Such amazing fkin bs smh...
 
90's Clay said:
Difference is, Nadal didn't get to spend his peak years with primary opposition being mid 30s Agassi/Roddick. Where he could inflate his resume for 3 slams a year.

Nadal's peak years were spent battling peak Nole.

Big difference from Sciatica ridden Andre (Who was apart of the 90s Sampras era and early 00's) and Roddick
Click to expand...
You act like Federer didn't have to deal with Djokovic. This argument now is useless because Fed would still have more majors than Nadal without Nole.
 
Cup8489 said:
Age isn't the main issue here. Nadal won his first major less than two years after Federer won his first. In comparison, Djokovic took nearly 3 years after Nadal's first to win his own first, and Murray didn't win his first until 4 years after that. So the gap between Nadal and Federer in terms of peak performance and first wins at majors is closer than Nadal and Djokovic, for instance.

Nadal has made 2 finals, 1 win and 1 loss, since his 2013 USO title. Nearly two years ago. He's a non issue for Djokovic at the moment.. and has been for some time now. Djokovic's best competition is Federer.
Click to expand...

People tend to use age and results selectively in arguments -- when it helps their case, they talk age -- when it doesn't, they talk results.
 
mike danny said:
You act like Federer didn't have to deal with Djokovic. This argument now is useless because Fed would still have more majors than Nadal without Nole.
Click to expand...


Actually Fed would have far less majors if his prime/peak coincided with Nadal/Nole's so...

Point is. Fed got to inflate his resume at 3/4 slams from 03-07 because at the time Nadal was not yet in his prime/peak 08-post all surface years. And Nole would not win his first slam until Fed was on like slam #11 or #12.

Basically, Fed came along at the perfect time
 
Cup8489 said:
LOL

LOLOLOL

Djokovic is 9-8 in major finals. Federer has won nearly twice as many majors with only 2 more lost finals. Federer is 17-10. Djokovic actually is rather pedestrian when he makes the final. Losing to Murray isn't really prooof of Murray being tough competition.. just that Djokovic doesn't get up for the biggest matches like both Federer and Nadal do (17-10, 14-6).
Click to expand...

It isn't? What better proof do we have?
 
90's Clay said:
Actually Fed would have far less majors if his prime/peak coincided with Nadal/Nole's so...
Click to expand...
I was talking about the Federer of now. Federer would still have more majors than Rafa because he would have won more from 2011-present without Nole.
 
90's Clay said:
Actually Fed would have far less majors if his prime/peak coincided with Nadal/Nole's so...

Point is. Fed got to inflate his resume at 3/4 slams from 03-07 because at the time Nadal was not yet in his prime/peak 08-post all surface years. And Nole would not win his first slam until Fed was on like slam #11 or #12.

Basically, Fed came along at the perfect time
Click to expand...
If Fed's peak coincided with Djokovic/Nadal, Federer would have 25 slams. He would've won most that he already did, PLUS many slams in 2010-2015 if Djokovic/Nadal didn't have that age advantage. Don't tell me you deny the fact that Fed would've beaten Djokovic AT LEAST in 2010/2011 USO, 2014/2015 Wimby and Nadal in RG11, AO14.
 
HewittAlwaysDisappoints said:
Such amazing fkin bs smh...
Click to expand...
Murray isn't better than Hewitt..

2015 Wimbledon should be proof of that.

And I'm a fan of both guys.. People usually think I like Hewitt more, but I end up DEFENDING him more because people make absurd statements about the guy..
 
Disagree about it being weaker in that post though.

Today is probably roughly the same as 2006/7.
 
90's Clay said:
Actually Fed would have far less majors if his prime/peak coincided with Nadal/Nole's so...

Point is. Fed got to inflate his resume at 3/4 slams from 03-07 because at the time Nadal was not yet in his prime/peak 08-post all surface years. And Nole would not win his first slam until Fed was on like slam #11 or #12.

Basically, Fed came along at the perfect time
Click to expand...

Federer of 34 is losing only to Novak at WImbledon (2014, 2015). If their peaks aligned, then whatever Fed loses in the peak he would make up more than enough when they all decline together. Peak Novak is barely beating old Fed.
 
bjsnider said:
It isn't? What better proof do we have?
Click to expand...
As another poster showed.. it actually makes Djokovic look worse. Murray is a HORRIBLE 2-6 in majors. In other words, Nadal has won 12 more majors with the same number of lost finals as Murray has. The ONLY two wins Murray has are against Djokovic. So if someone who has lost 3/4ths of the major finals he's reached can beat Djokovic.. it doesn't say Murray is tough competition, but rather that Djokovic choked or played like garbage. If Roddick is criticized for being a 'mug' for losing several finals to Federer, (the only man he's lost finals to, btw.), then Murray is no better. At least Roddick has done the best he can to hang tough, rarely losing in straights to Federer. (4 setters in 2004 Wimbledon, 2006 USO, and a 5 setter in 2009 Wimbledon). How many sets has Murray won against Djokovic in the finals he's lost? 2. Roddick has done better than this, despite being Federer's whipping boy.

Honestly.. you using Murray as proof of tough competition actually indicates that Roddick should ALSO be considered tough competition. LOL.
 
Cup8489 said:
As another poster showed.. it actually makes Djokovic look worse. Murray is a HORRIBLE 2-6 in majors. In other words, Nadal has won 12 more majors with the same number of lost finals as Murray has. The ONLY two wins Murray has are against Djokovic. So if someone who has lost 3/4ths of the major finals he's reached can beat Djokovic.. it doesn't say Murray is tough competition, but rather that Djokovic choked or played like garbage. If Roddick is criticized for being a 'mug' for losing several finals to Federer, (the only man he's lost finals to, btw.), then Murray is no better. At least Roddick has done the best he can to hang tough, rarely losing in straights to Federer. (4 setters in 2004 Wimbledon, 2006 USO, and a 5 setter in 2009 Wimbledon). How many sets has Murray won against Djokovic in the finals he's lost? 2. Roddick has done better than this, despite being Federer's whipping boy.

Honestly.. you using Murray as proof of tough competition actually indicates that Roddick should ALSO be considered tough competition. LOL.
Click to expand...

2-6 is horrible in major finals? Most players never get to a major final. I think Gilles Simon or Tomas Berdych, or Jo Tsonga, or thousands of other pros would love to be 2-6 in major finals, because it means they've been in 8 major finals. So, you said Murray's two victories in major finals vs. Djokovic don't mean Murray's great, but only that Djokovic choked. How do you know that? Where's your proof?
 
torpantennis said:
It's "amazing fkin bs" when facts disagree with you. :D Just a reminder of how few young challengers there are for Djokovic/Nadal/Murray in 2011-2015, TOMIC was the only young challenger in slams before Kyrgios LOL
Click to expand...
Why are you defining the strength of an era by "young challengers"? Experienced players at their prime age would obviously pose a bigger threat to the big 4 then young challengers who haven't reached their physical peak.

Poor old Murray has had to contend with 2 ATGs while Hewitt was the beneficiary of being in a transitional period between Sampras and Federer.

Sabratha said:
Murray isn't better than Hewitt..

2015 Wimbledon should be proof of that.

And I'm a fan of both guys.. People usually think I like Hewitt more, but I end up DEFENDING him more because people make absurd statements about the guy..
Click to expand...
What, Murray made yet another GS semi and Hewitt lost R1 again?
 
tennisaddict said:
Federer of 34 is losing only to Novak at WImbledon (2014, 2015). If their peaks aligned, then whatever Fed loses in the peak he would make up more than enough when they all decline together. Peak Novak is barely beating old Fed.
Click to expand...
How do you expect Novak to beat old Fed easily these days? What's he supposed to do exactly?
 
torpantennis said:
Weak era is when old declined players can still succeed, with no challenge from younger players. Average age of slam semifinalists through open era: http://www.tennis28.com/charts/sf_age.GIF
sf_age.GIF

You clearly see three distinct weak eras when there was absolute zero challenge for old declined players: 1968-1974, 2000-2001 and 2011->
Click to expand...


Wow a cogent argument. This is a first for TT. Certainly a lot more rational than the 99.999999999999999999999999999999% opinions (I had onions for lunch, so I believe...) that are presented.
 
Sabratha said:
Weak eras don't exist. But if they did, Nadal and Djokovic are as guilty of dominating a "weak era" as Federer is.
Click to expand...

Not a weak era. The era of abrupt changes in tour conditions. Surfaces, balls and strings ~2002-2004.

He dominated the beginning period of baseline era. He lead the whole change and set the standard.

Probably somewhat chaotic to find right game on new conditions, not necessarily easy to dominate.
 
Federer had easier competition in the later stages of slams in 2004-07 (outside clay of course) compared to Nadal and Djokovic simply because Nadal/Djokovic had each other plus Federer in semi/final. Nadal has played Federer/Djokovic in semi/final 18/20 times he has reached a slam final and Djokovic has played Federer/Nadal 15/17 times. That is where Federer faced easier competition compared to Nadal/Djokovic. He went 8-0 in hard court slam finals (faced a new opponent every time) until he met Nadal in AO 2009. That would not be the case if he was facing Djokovic/Nadal consistently. There is not much difference in rest of the field.
 
mike danny said:
All this weak era talk is tiresome now. Nadal played in the same era as Federer before 2011. Weak era is available to him as well
Click to expand...

Especialy since it is now clear despite the age gap, given his natural physical course Nadal's prime/peak years are going to be fairly close to Roger's. I mean right now he looks much further past his prime than Roger. His prime probably began in 2005 where he won 11 titles and was already fully capable of a straight sets win over Federer in a best of 5 on hard courts (the Miami final which he lost in 5 but was up 2 sets to 0, up in the 3rd, and very close to a straight sets win) vs 2004 for Federer, and his last prime-ish year will probably be 2013 vs 2012 for Federer.
 
About the Roddick discussion, I think no one is denying he was a very good player.
He was, but as your main rival yes anyone objective would say it's better to have Roddick as your main rival during a few years than a guy like Djokovic or Agassi. That's the truth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sport
Andy Murray Weak Era
Replies
8
Views
860
Zardoz7/12
Zardoz7/12
M
There is a certain irony in the whole "weak era" concept
2 3 4
Replies
150
Views
6K
Chanwan
Chanwan
S
Is 2015 and beyond a weak era?
Replies
1
Views
316
K-H
K-H
D
Weak Era or Strong Era?
2 3
Replies
120
Views
12K
Deleted member 77403
D
P
Myth : Federer thrived in a "weak era"
Replies
28
Views
4K
TMF
T
Back
Top