Is Fed in a different Era than djoker? How do we define eras?
- Thread starter Lleytonstation
- Start date
wangs78
Legend
Fed and Djokodal overlapped for roughly 2/3 of their careers. During that overlapping period of maybe 12-13 years, Fed had the upper hand for maybe the first three or so years but the two younger players broke through convincinly, first Nadal, then Djokovic. But I give a lot of credit to Fed for really raising the bar. Firstly, he achieved a level of dominance over a multi-year period (three slams per year almost every year for 4-5 years). Secondly, he sustained top level performance into his late 30s. Nadal and Djoker have matched Fed, but quite frankly it’s easier to do something when you know it’s doable and has been done before (by Fed).
Lleytonstation
Bionic Poster
The point isn't to say they didn't play in the same Era, but that fed played in another Era as well.
Baseline_Bungle
Legend
Like everything in history, the idea of "eras" is a flawed convention that fails to capture the fluid reality of things.
Rosewall started playing in the age of frukken Jack Kramer and Don Budge, and he played his last slam finals against Connors - who in turn made a US Open semifinal AFTER Pete Sampras had won his first slam.
All of the greats - but in fact, ALL tennis players - traverse different "eras" and phases of tennis, and in doing so create the magic and lustre that make the game what it is. Trying to draw demarcation lines is just an exercise in futility.
Rosewall started playing in the age of frukken Jack Kramer and Don Budge, and he played his last slam finals against Connors - who in turn made a US Open semifinal AFTER Pete Sampras had won his first slam.
All of the greats - but in fact, ALL tennis players - traverse different "eras" and phases of tennis, and in doing so create the magic and lustre that make the game what it is. Trying to draw demarcation lines is just an exercise in futility.
Last edited:
Lleytonstation
Bionic Poster
Well said.
You're right it's impossible and Russel Crowe agrees.We can never agree on eras and their level. I'm not so sure we can even define eras.
Think about this:
So how do we define Eras?
- Fed had won 11 slams by the time djoker reached a slam final and fed bloomed late
- At one point their slam totals were 1-16
- Fed beat sampras on WC while djoker never played him
- Fed played Agassi in a slam final and 14 years later played djoker in a final
- Djoker won all his slams except one after fed turned 30.
Is it by age?
If so, what is the age gap we make? Is it 5 years? 10 years? 10 seems way too high. A 22 year old playing a 30 year old seems odd to be in the same Era? 25 year old vs a 33 or 35 year old? Nah. Even if it is 5, then how would djoker be in fed Era? That surely doesn't make sense.
What about amount of matches played?
David Nalbandian: Fed 19 djoker 5
Nikolay Davydenko: Fed 21 djoker 8
Tommy Haas: Fed 19 djoker 9
Roddick: Fed 24 djoker 9
Lleyton Hewitt: Fed 27 djoker 7
Safin: Fed 12 djoker 2
Henan: Fed 13 djoker 1
Agassi: Fed 11 djoker 0
Sampras: Fed 1 djoker 0
So obviously that is odd. We know djoker and fed played 51. So what now?
Is it by decade?
Do we just randomly start at the beginning of the decade? 2000 matches and 2009 matches the same Era? Maybe, but Agassi only played in half the decade. Sampras a couple years. Djoker only a few years.
What about overlap?
FAA, shapo, tsits, tiny Carlos, berr, med, etc. are apart of the big 3 Era? Where does raonic, dimitrov, nishi, del po, and others fall?
As you can see, defining an Era is impossible and not something everybody can agree on. I honestly think fed played in 3 eras, Rafa in 2/3 eras, and djoker in 2 and possibly 3 down the road.
The main thing that comes to my mind with this debate is that I have no idea.
Razer
G.O.A.T.
Depends on how you define an era and in what context.
You could say Federer played a bit in the SNV era too while Djokovic and Nadal didnt, then again Djokovic and Nadal played in the new era of Alcaraz/Sinner gang but Federer hasn't...
then again if you are talking of eras in terms of domination then Federer had his own era in the 2000s when he was Tennis while Djokovic's 2010 onwards period is more of a Big 3 era than his own in entirety.
Then again if you are talking of strong and weak eras then you could say 2001-2007 was a weak era, 2008-2015 was a strong era and 2016 onwards is an inflation until 2022. then 2023 onwards is a new era..
So many ways of defining eras, so these definitions change depending on what you re discussing....
You could say Federer played a bit in the SNV era too while Djokovic and Nadal didnt, then again Djokovic and Nadal played in the new era of Alcaraz/Sinner gang but Federer hasn't...
then again if you are talking of eras in terms of domination then Federer had his own era in the 2000s when he was Tennis while Djokovic's 2010 onwards period is more of a Big 3 era than his own in entirety.
Then again if you are talking of strong and weak eras then you could say 2001-2007 was a weak era, 2008-2015 was a strong era and 2016 onwards is an inflation until 2022. then 2023 onwards is a new era..
So many ways of defining eras, so these definitions change depending on what you re discussing....
Last edited:
These are my rules of thumb, which I think fit well here:
Both eras and generations can overlap, typically more significantly in the latter case. E.g., Federer and Djokovic are from different generations, but their careers have overlapped enough to produce a large number of direct encounters, as discussed in this thread. Federer and Sampras are from different eras. Their careers also overlapped, but less extensively, and they had only one head-to-head encounter. Obviously, players with unusually long careers will tend to meet up more often with players from different generations and eras. E.g., Djokovic and Alcaraz are clearly from different eras, but have played each other seven times already. But Federer, a generation ahead of Djokovic, never played Alcaraz even though Fed's career was also quite prolonged. Generations do make a significant difference, though not as dramatically as eras do.
- Tennis Generation = ~5 years
- Tennis Era = ~10 years
Both eras and generations can overlap, typically more significantly in the latter case. E.g., Federer and Djokovic are from different generations, but their careers have overlapped enough to produce a large number of direct encounters, as discussed in this thread. Federer and Sampras are from different eras. Their careers also overlapped, but less extensively, and they had only one head-to-head encounter. Obviously, players with unusually long careers will tend to meet up more often with players from different generations and eras. E.g., Djokovic and Alcaraz are clearly from different eras, but have played each other seven times already. But Federer, a generation ahead of Djokovic, never played Alcaraz even though Fed's career was also quite prolonged. Generations do make a significant difference, though not as dramatically as eras do.
Razer
G.O.A.T.
4-5 years is a 1/2 a generation in Tennis, not a full generation. When it reaches 9-10 years then a full generation is completed.
When a player is 19-20 and another player is 29-30 then you 2 athletes, one is going to enter his prime and the other is going to exist his prime, both around the same time... thats how a generation is defined.
Federer could never dodge Nadal because Nadal is from his own generation, he could not dodge Djokovic too but since Djokovic himself struggled a lot in the beginning the overlap is less meaningful unlike Nadal's case. You cannot just separate them like that. You are mistaking for peer group, Federer's peer groups is Safin/Hewitt/Roddick while Nadal's Wawrinka/Djokovic/Murray/JMDP etc etc, this way you could separate them but flat out calling them "generation" is wrong.
Take another example in real life which will make it more clear : When you are 22 years then a girl in school who is 10 years old is literally a kid at that time, sure why not? We have many siblings in our big families who are like 10-12 year apart. .... now this age dynamics changes when you are 32 and that girl is 20, both of you meet, fall in love, marry despite the big age gap... lets say you are 34 and your wife is 22, you are now married you have 2 kids in due course of time. 40 years later you both are celebrating your 40th anniversary .... you are 74 ... she is 62 ... your kids are 35 and 37 years old .... So whats the catch here ???... Is your wife a next gen to you ??? Nope.... thats make no sense, no ???
Federer vs Nadal-Djokovic is a similar marriage in tennis terms, Federer is that school boy who was older (turned pro) and played some years in the snv era with gut while Nadal-Djokovic are those little girls who were still growing up in tennis terms... so today when we look at the large picture then yes, they are all of the same generation after 40 or in some cases even 50 years of marriage... surely if you are 84 and your wife is 72 then you will have 50 years of marriage no ???
So thats the catch here, even in real life despite gen classification of millenial, boomer, z etc etc being 15-16 years apart, in real life pragmnatically speaking the classification is around 22-25 years....thats a proper generation gap in real life ... and by that same logic, in tennis I would say 10 years.... at 20 a guy enters his prime, at 30 a guy leaves his prime....no overlap... .thats your 2 generation for you,.
Clearly, we are using these terms in different ways. Your "full generation" is my "era." I don't see any benefit in describing a substantial period of time as "half a generation." Federer's and Djokovic's careers plainly included both a large period of overlap and substantial periods of separateness at both ends. I mentioned above that while Djokovic and Alcaraz have played seven times (possibly with more to come), Fed never played Alcaraz. Similarly, at the other end, Federer and Agassi played 11 times, including six matches in slams or the WTF. But Djokovic never played Agassi. These are not trivial differences in terms of competitive arcs. The best way to acknowledge them is to recognize that Fed and the Djoker are from different tennis generations, though not different eras.
Oh, and comparisons to "natural" generations, i.e., of parents and offspring, are irrelevant. That's an utterly different context.
Razer
G.O.A.T.
If my gen is your era then how will you distinguish between Thiem, Medvedev and Alcaraz?
Both Thiem and Med were next gens to Federer and thats why he played less against them but did play, Alcaraz is a full 2 generation down the line, thats why overlap is 0.
If we start classification 5 years as gen then we have to say Nadal played 7 generations of players ??? Agassi, Moya, Federer, Djokovic, Thiem, Zverev and Alcaraz ?
We cannot have so many generation IMO, we are making fun of the word generation by all these classifications at such minute level. Stan Wawrinka won his 1st slam in 2013, Nadal had like 13 slams before Stan won his 1st ? So stan being older than Nadal is a next gen ??? See the conundrum here??? We cannot classify by 5 years or evcen 6, it has to approach 10 or something as big as 9 to be rounded off to 10. Lendl and Connors were 8 years apart, granted that their peaks were in 2 diff decades but they played 35 matches together, they are of the same generation when seen today in the larger picture, the next gen for connors would becker/edberg/wilander, not lendl because lendl despite that big gap is still not entirely outside that domain to not forge a long rivalry.
Last edited:
Razer
G.O.A.T.
Agassi, Moya, Federer, Djokovic, Thiem, Tsitsipas and Alcaraz
Nadal played these 7 players, I have colored them in generation with respect to Nadal.
For Nadal Agassi-Moya are previous gen, whether he played less or more of them does not matter, he played them.
Federer, Djoker and Thiem are his generation, just because Thiem is a loser who could not do anything in slams until his late 20s doesn't mean he is a next gen, if he was as good as Nadal then he would be winning his 1st slam in 2011, there would have been enough time for him to beat Nadal like a drum for a decade or more, but he just wasn't good enough.
Tsitsipas and Alcaraz are next gens
Now if you ask this same question to Thiem then he would say Nadal/Novak are like a 1/2 gen older to him but Federer was a full gen older. So there are overlaps but gen classification also varies from player to player. The general idea is, you are not supposed to forge long rivalries of 20-25 matches with any next gen, then that person is not a next gen.
Nadal played these 7 players, I have colored them in generation with respect to Nadal.
For Nadal Agassi-Moya are previous gen, whether he played less or more of them does not matter, he played them.
Federer, Djoker and Thiem are his generation, just because Thiem is a loser who could not do anything in slams until his late 20s doesn't mean he is a next gen, if he was as good as Nadal then he would be winning his 1st slam in 2011, there would have been enough time for him to beat Nadal like a drum for a decade or more, but he just wasn't good enough.
Tsitsipas and Alcaraz are next gens
Now if you ask this same question to Thiem then he would say Nadal/Novak are like a 1/2 gen older to him but Federer was a full gen older. So there are overlaps but gen classification also varies from player to player. The general idea is, you are not supposed to forge long rivalries of 20-25 matches with any next gen, then that person is not a next gen.
Why not?
Who says? We're not counting on our fingers.
The question is whether the divisions make sense based on players' experiences and careers as we observe them. There's no hard-and-fast rule that any particular length of time is either too short or too long. My observations have been that an age difference of ~5 years is definitely meaningful in most cases. Hence my definition of "generation." Whether someone else is afraid of having "too many generations" (like the anxious Emperor in Amadeus) frankly does not matter to me.
No way. Connors and Lendl unquestionably were from different generations. What's the point in trying to lump them together unnaturally?
Razer
G.O.A.T.
Connors & Lendl peaked in 2 different decades but their overlap is a massive 35 matches.
1979 to 1992 they played, they are same generation players. Diff gen but same era example would be Connor vs Wilander/Becker/Edberg who played very less matches.
Connors's rivals classification
01. Nastase -> Different peer group to Connors, same gen and same era
02. Vilas - Gerulatis - Tanner -> They are same peer group of Connors, same gen and same era.
03, Borg-Mcenroe-Lendl -> They are different peer group of Connors, same gen and same era.
04. Wilander-Becker-Edberg -> Different Generation, players from a different era whom he played less
05. Agassi-Sampras -> Different generation, players from an entirely different era whom he played very less
So you see, Nastase to Lendl are all same generation for Connors, he face them all a lot in his career, they are his generation.
Match overlap is incidental, not definitional. It depends heavily on factors such as career length and level of play. Two players born 10 years apart might play each other two dozen times, while two other players born in same year might meet just once or twice, or not at all.
TearTheRoofOff
G.O.A.T.
Is there a way to unbump? Asking for a friend.
GoatNo1
Legend
so fed played 115 matches + some WOs with 3 players that are born in one year period.
feds (81) 10 biggest rivalries (and his all 20+ matches rivals):
1. nole (87) 51: 23-27
2. rafa (86) 41: 16-24
...
3-4. hewitt (81) 27: 18-9; wawa (85) 27: 23-3
5. berrdich (85) 26: 20-6
6-7. muzza (87) 25: 14-11; del potro (88) 25: 18-7
8. roddick (82) 24: 21-3
9-10. denko (81) 21: 19-2; gasquet (86) 21: 19-2
so in his top10 rivalries 3 was from 81-82 (he is 81) and 7 from 85-88 (nole is 87)
vs those 3 players born 81-82 he played 72 matches (24 average), 58-14 (80,6%)
just vs nole and rafa he played 92 matches (incl WO), 39-51 (43,3%)
and vs big4 he played 117 matches, 53-62 (46,1%). vs big4 in his own era (04-09): 20-24 (45.5%). vs big4 2010 and after: 33-38 (46.5%) better than in his own era!
he played totally 216 matches vs players born 85-88 with at least 20 matches.
vs other 4 (not big4) players from 85-88 he has played 98 matches (24,5 average), 80-18 (81,6%) so better W% than vs 3 from 81-82.
Last edited:
Lleytonstation
Bionic Poster
Very good point. That said, maybe it shows an era crossover at the very least. This affects peak arguments surely. As well as prime. Hence the 1-16 ratio early on.
Ken Rosewall and John Newcombe were 10 years apart and played each other 22 times. And it would have been more than 22 times if Rosewall hadn't been on the pro tour before 1968, and thus unable to meet Newk.
Never say never. It's difficult, but not impossible. As I said, a lot depends on career length and level of play. Djokovic and Medvedev are nine years apart and have played 15 times. Djokovic and Tsitsipas are 11 years apart and have played 14 times. If the Djoker plays two more full years -- thus entering Rosewall age territory -- he could conceivably hit 20 matches with either of these guys. He and Tsitsipas played four times in 2022 alone.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
So why is seven suddenly more significant than 6? Convenient.
Nobody disputes that they're from the same era, it's the same generation part that many disagree with.
Razer
G.O.A.T.
Perhaps a generation classification is no different from the career of a player at the top level ?
If a player plays at the highest level for lets say 16 years (age 20 to 35) then we have to assume that the odds of he forming a long rivalry with someone younger is same as that with someone older, so that means Fed could forge a big rivalry with someone 6 years younger like Djokovic spanning 50 matches then he could have also forged a similar long rivalry with lets say Carlos Moya if Moya was as great as Rafael Nadal with a career spanning from lets say mid 90s till mid 2010s, a long rivalry of 50 matches ?
Similarly Djokovic could also have forged a rivalry of 50 matches with someone 6 years younger like Thiem if Thiem turned pro in 2009-2010 and started to win slams by lets say 2012-2013 forging a long rivalry from 2011 till 2025 spanning 50 matches.
So this means a generation gap to forge such a long rivalry has to be 16/2 = 8 years difference only, I mean if Lendl-Connors could play 35 matches with 8 years gap then that much the limit if we are looking to such a long rivalry that would require 1 of these players to take a beating for years and still not retiring because he just doesnt wanna give up. So if that gap goes to 9-10 years then a proper rivalry is not even forged, the Med/Tsitsipas examples would never happen.
8 years gap is the limit, nobody with 9 even forges a proper decade long rivalry.... and 10 is actually a different gen... see what I said perfectly matches.
Martin J
Hall of Fame
Depends how you define an era.
Their best periods (2003-2009 for Fed, 2011-2016 for Djok) didn't overlap obviously and there is a not that small age gap of six years between them, so if you measure it by these factors, then the answer is no.
On the other hand, their primes definitely overlapped during the period from 2007 to 2012 (though many fans would disagree that Fed was in his prime as late as in 2012 or that Djoko's breakthrough year should be considered as a prime year, but I would definitely include those years) and they played lots of matches, especially in the late stages of the biggest tournaments, so it's not wrong to say that they are from the same era, especially if you take into consideration the rivalry they'd developed during that time.
McEnroe is almost 7 years younger than Connors, but I'm not sure if people would see them as the players from different eras because they had a (hot) rivalry and were part of some epic matches.
Their best periods (2003-2009 for Fed, 2011-2016 for Djok) didn't overlap obviously and there is a not that small age gap of six years between them, so if you measure it by these factors, then the answer is no.
On the other hand, their primes definitely overlapped during the period from 2007 to 2012 (though many fans would disagree that Fed was in his prime as late as in 2012 or that Djoko's breakthrough year should be considered as a prime year, but I would definitely include those years) and they played lots of matches, especially in the late stages of the biggest tournaments, so it's not wrong to say that they are from the same era, especially if you take into consideration the rivalry they'd developed during that time.
McEnroe is almost 7 years younger than Connors, but I'm not sure if people would see them as the players from different eras because they had a (hot) rivalry and were part of some epic matches.
The statement you just made works just as well (actually better, IMO) if we substitute "era" for "gen": "... nobody with 9 even forges a proper decade long rivalry ... and 10 is actually a different era."
Another advantage of defining a tennis generation as ~5 years is that this period roughly coincides with the average peak period of a top player, which I'd say is 4 to 6 years. When a star or pair of stars is "ruling tennis," after five years so people starting asking, "OK, when is the next generation of stars going to arrive to challenge this guy / these guys?" They typically do not ask, "When will the next half-generation of stars get here?"
As of now, the eight leaders in the Race to the ATP Finals have an average age of 25.125. https://www.atptour.com/en/rankings/singles-race-to-turin. The Next Generation ATP Finals (note: not the "Next Half-Generation ATP Finals") have an age cut-off of 20. Perfect!
Last edited:
Neither pair of players are from different eras! However, both pairs involve players from different generations. See how well this works?
Razer
G.O.A.T.
Yes thats a good point...,..... From a ruling perspective / athletic peak to peak perspective I agree, 4-6 would be the mark. 21 vs 26 or 20 vs 26 is not a level playing field after 28.... I would still like the gap to approach 9-10 because it is very hard to sell the diff gen argument to public when these guys are playing like 40-50 matches against each other. At some people will be like dude they played in their primes so much, how can you say diff gen? Big 4 same gen... thats how people think... so the ruling tennis in peak way of classification does not always work anymore.
It's easy for people to draw unwarranted inferences about commonality while the players in question are still playing. In other words, while the Big 3 were all active and doing well, I suppose it might have been natural for some casual fans to assume that they were all in the same generation. But perceptions get clarified over time. At the end of 2006, Federer had nine slam titles and three WTF championships! No one was saying, "And can you believe he did all that in the same generation as Djokovic!" because the Djoker had just recently turned pro and many people barely knew his name. Similarly, in 2025 such people may notice that Djokovic is still out there competing strongly while Federer has been off the tour for years.
When all these careers are finally done and dusted, then I hope everyone will agree that we had substantial years of overlap in the middle, but also significant years of nonoverlap on each end. I.e., different generations but not different eras.
Razer
G.O.A.T.
The biggest failure to the Federer-Djokovic equation is Nadal himself. If Djoker is a next gen then so should Nadal to Fed, but then Fed and Played so much starting from 04, even though Nadal was not there in 98-03 playing Fed that still does not change anything. Infact any perception which we had of Nadal being a next gen in 2000s died in 2010s when Fed played for so long, Novak dominated, all in all they were all proven to be together. Blame it on Nadal to actually diluting the difference between Fed & Novak in people's memories.
They never met each other at their peak. 2003W-2007 for Federer and 2011-2016Rg for Djokovic. Best h2h comparison we have is 07 Montreal - 12 YEC.
Federer turned pro in 98 or something then Nadal 03 and Djokovic 05. Different generations but thanks to big 3 longevity huge overlap in matches played as they dominated the sport completely from 2004-2019.
Federer turned pro in 98 or something then Nadal 03 and Djokovic 05. Different generations but thanks to big 3 longevity huge overlap in matches played as they dominated the sport completely from 2004-2019.
Exceptional precocity can be a confounding factor. Some people may assume that Michael Chang and Pat Rafter are from different generations because Chang emerged in the late 1980s and Rafter emerged in the second half of the 1990s. Yet they were born 10 months apart. This is an instance in which I might be tempted to disregard their birth years and rely instead on the slam results factor I mentioned in a post above. They really did have pretty separate temporal "spheres of influence" on the tour. Fortunately, I don't care enough about the generational status of Chang and Rafter to go through that exercise.
Last edited:
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
The question is whether they played in the same era. Why would it matter if their peak level years matches? Are you defining a player’s era by their peak years?
GoatNo1
Legend
i edited my post with some interesante facts, take a look.
What! Roger Federer Says He’s Better Now Than He Was 10 Years Ago!
Is Roger Federer better now than when he was 24.
www.tennis-x.com
https://www.**************.org/tenn...-a-better-player-now-than-i-was-a-decade-ago/
Roger Federer: I Do Believe I’m Probably A Better Player Now Than I Was 10 Years Ago
Is Roger Federer better than ever?
www.tennis-x.com
Last edited:
Lleytonstation
Bionic Poster
Not a bad idea really. Peak is about 5-8 years. This would separate djoker and Fed as peak Eras.
Razer
G.O.A.T.
As I gave earlier in the real like marriage example, while growing up a 22 year old man and 10 year old girl are heavens apart, one is a a proper adult and the one is still a kid, but when/if they get married at ages 34 & 22 respectively and live together for 40 years and have 2 the distinction creases to exist. On their 40th anniversary nobody really considers them a different generation.
In that documentary of 100 best player ever released in 2012 I think Chris Evert explicitly mentions that she played 3 generations of players.... She says she started off facing previous generation of Margaret Court, Billie Jean King , then middle of her career her own generation of Navratilova, Mandilkova, Evonne & then at the end Monica Seles & Steffi Graf who went on to dominate in their generation
I had made a thread on that topic as well on this here but it looks like that 100 players video itself has been removed from youtube ?
Chris Evert clearly implies that a Generation in Tennis is at least 10+ years
At the timestamp 9:00 onward Legend Chris Evert clearly says she played Tennis for 30 years and she has played 3 generations of players She says she started off facing previous generation of Margaret Court, Billie Jean King , then middle of her career her own generation of Navratilova...
tt.tennis-warehouse.com
Reg our long held beliefs, even in Tennis a lot of things which we earlier believed changes with time.
Back in 2009 I believed that players were all be retired by 30 or retire into the early 30s, Federer has a chance of playing in his 30s but see he is already struggling to a "next gen" in Nadal. Nadal himself was gonna go down some years later to some other next gen because he is like Borg so his career will be over by 27. So a guy of my age or similar will emerge to bring down Nadal. This is how I saw Tennis back in late mid-2000s.
Now what did I get to actually see later on? I saw Federer playing into his 30s completely till his knee blew out close to 40. Nadal the so called Borg prototype of a earlier prodigy burning out also played into his 30s deep winning slams. Instead of a so called next gen to emerge to bring down Nadal it was his peer in Djokovic who emerged in 2011 and see what Novak has done. Believe me these things you are saying about gen classifications were my beliefs too until it all went south, I had to finally change my stance that no a gen is something like 10 years, not 5.
Martin J
Hall of Fame
One of the most hilarious and ridiculous channels I have to say, lol
Last edited:
Rosewall was born 18 years before Connors, they played in ONE slam! Federer was born 6 years before Djokovic, they played in SEVENTEEN slams, the second most of any rivalry in the open era.
Does the job. Baits Federer fans to get views and traffic to the channel and hypes up their hero, Djokovic.
GoatNo1
Legend
i edited this post: https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...er-how-do-we-define-eras.731358/post-18412314
then post the video for some more interesting facts
INDEED! How many top players did Federer play more than Novak?
Sputnik Bulgorov
Hall of Fame
Roger himself said a generation is 5 years just last Wimbledon if you skip to 7:32 of this video. I think we can take this definition from one of the GOATs of the game who played across multiple generations and had one of the longest career.
Razer
G.O.A.T.
It is easy to just say that 2000s was Federer's era and 2010s was Big 3-4 era, 2020s is well a dark era.
In a nutshell you would look at this things way but people are looking back now and clubbing everything together, Federer's rise in 03 to Djokovic's downfall in 23 being seen as a 1 big era.
Revisionism happens all the time, can't help it.
Similar threads
