Novak isn't winning 16 slams. Forget about it.
Exactly this! Why was it that Djokovic couldn't do much of anything in 2008-2010, when both Federer and Nadal were still great? Djokovic is only one year younger than Nadal so he should've been able to do more. Nadal was still great in 2011, so that one year was indeed great from Djokovic. He racked up most of his slams when both Federer and Nadal had declined in 2012->.Then again people would say that Novak is a fake GOAT because he won against his lapdog Andy, a 34 year old Grandpa Federer while Rafa is injured. can go both ways
Nadal isn't exactly GOAT either. He has never dominated 2 majors like other GOAT candidates have. Also he isn't even top 5 on HC and grass and is behind Federer and Djokovic in weeks at no.1 and on 2/3 surfaces. Even in WTF titles against the most elite players.
Remembet at Wimb he almost lost to Kevin Anderson. Maybe as he gets older he won't win these matches anymore.
Why did Djokovic need to do so much more between 2008-2010? He hit his peak at 23, the same age as Federer did.
Federer was great from late 2003 on, age 22 and a couple of months. And Federer is considered a late bloomer! Djokovic was of that age in late 2009, and it still took the decline of Federer for Djokovic to start winning big. Prime Federer owned him in slams.
Actually Djokovic peaked at 24.
Well considering Federer was always the higher ranked player he should've been beating Djokovic in all those slam matches.
So in short, past-peak end-of-prime Federer >> physical-peak Djokovic.
23/24, the same age as Federer. If you Fed fans are gonna penalize him for not hitting his stride sooner and being more of a threat to Fedal prior to 2011 you have to be consistent and also penalize Fed for not achieving more before 2004. You can't have it both ways. Besides, Djokovic between 2008-10 >>> Federer between 2001-03.
Both players primes and peaks never really coincided. You can't blame Djokovic for being born six years later than Federer, that would just be silly.
They have SIX years age difference. So late 2003 of Fed is late 2009 for Djokovic.
Djokovic physical peak and Federer prime coincided in 2009. What did Djokovic do in 2009-2010?
Not sure what your point is. Are you saying that Djokovic should've hit his peak at EXACTLY the same age as Federer did?
Djokovic wasn't at his physical peak in those years. You've obviously forgotten all the times in matches where he could barely breathe and had to retire.
Federer was record LATE hitting his peak. Why was Djokovic even later, if not for prime Federer being too tough for him to handle?Not sure what your point is. Are you saying that Djokovic should've hit his peak at EXACTLY the same age as Federer did?
Serious question. What is your age?
Hewitt was finished after 2005.
Federer is arguably the greatest player of all time so I'm really not sure why you're trying to make it out to be such a bad thing that Djokovic never defeated him in his prime years. You need to help me out here torpan.
Because some claim that Djokovic had any chance, peak-to-peak, against Federer.Federer is arguably the greatest player of all time so I'm really not sure why you're trying to make it out to be such a bad thing that Djokovic never defeated him in his prime years. You need to help me out here torpan.
Actually in 2004 Fed was 22-23. Not very relevant, but something to be pointed out.
You could categorize them like that, although I think that's not really fair to any player (and highly subjective obviously). Achievements matter the most. Weak/Strong/UltraStrong era is just troll food (most of the time).
Yep, and 2006 was a weak year, like 2014-2015. That much I can admit.
Of course Djokovic would still have his chances, especially at the AO and RG.
RG: Not, just see 2011.
You can't say that Djokovic would never beat Federer at RG peak for peak just because of that defeat in 2011. What about Novak's win in straight sets the next year when Roger was just a month away from recapturing the #1 ranking?
You ain't no GOAT when you've been the No.1 significantly less than you're two main competitors. How can you be the greatest of ALL TIME, when you're not even the best of your own generation.
It was a question of PEAK-TO-PEAK. Federer 2006-2007 would crush his 2011 version in 3-4 sets at RG. That 2012 is far from his clay peak.
That is assumed, when the other player is full five years younger than you are. Do I have to explain why? SMH
Now I know you never even watched that 2011 SF if you think his 06-07 version would crush the one that defeated Djokovic. Thanks for confirming it torpan.
That 2011 RG match was one of THE BEST PERFORMANCES. Great performance means, your gameplan is perfect and your execution is perfect. So he took the most out of what he had available in his body. Still, peak Federer was a physical monster in comparison, and that's why 2006-2007 version would beat 2011 Fed easily at RG.
He never plays his best vs. Nadal. Ever heard of matchups?
Agreed, but unfortunately the majority of Fed fans automatically equate youth with better performances. They should know by now that it doesn't always work that way in sports.
I'll leave you to continue living in that bubble of delusion if such is your desire.
