Is Fed in a different Era than djoker? How do we define eras?

[Razer]

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.

So it is Roger's words against Evert's ?

Shall I bring in Sampras and Becker's interviews to be a tie breaker where they are calling themselves same gen along with other players??? Sampras called edberg his gen, becker called sampras his gen.

What we need to understand is that great players rising every 5 years is not happening anymore, it is more like 10, so a gen is also 10... in WTA it's been that for ages.
Look at GOAT candidates there, Court,.. then Nav/Evert... then Graf/Seles... then Serena ... the gap of 10+ has always been there.

 

[fedfan24]

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

Lots of talk about ELO rating. Such a system ranking 2015 over 2004.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Honestly, after reading all the comments, I truly believe it should be based on peak tennis.

Fed was peak from 04-09. That is 6 years, and that is an era. Djoker did not play in this era during his own peak.

So they shared eras but did not share peak eras. Just as Sampras and Agassi shared eras with Fed, but did not share peak eras.

Rafa shared peak eras with both Djoker and Rafa.

 

[GoatNo1]

Lots of talk about ELO rating. Such a system ranking 2015 over 2004.

he talk about rankings and slams QFs and SFs. all measurable stats. point that he played at the same, or almost the same, level but lost only against better players that played on much higher level than competition from his era.

 

[OldschoolKIaus]

By winning USO02 Pistol Pete is closer to Fedr's era than "Come on!"-Hewitt.

Damn ...

 

[GoatNo1]

Honestly, after reading all the comments, I truly believe it should be based on peak tennis.

Fed was peak from 04-09. That is 6 years, and that is an era. Djoker did not play in this era during his own peak.

So they shared eras but did not share peak eras. Just as Sampras and Agassi shared eras with Fed, but did not share peak eras.

Rafa shared peak eras with both Djoker and Rafa.

YES of course! especially sampras who played a whole match vs fed! just 50 less than nole.
to say that fed was not a part of noles or rafas era is simple silly. he played 90 matches vs duo. and has OE top3 rivalries vs them (the biggest rivalry being nole-rafa of course)!

 

[Razer]

Honestly, after reading all the comments, I truly believe it should be based on peak tennis.

Fed was peak from 04-09. That is 6 years, and that is an era. Djoker did not play in this era during his own peak.

So they shared eras but did not share peak eras. Just as Sampras and Agassi shared eras with Fed, but did not share peak eras.

Rafa shared peak eras with both Djoker and Rafa.

My perception of eras (strictly speaking on perception only) always was

2000s - Federer's era when he was above everyone with just bull providing him some resistance to him on clay and inflicting some big dents here and there.

2010s - Era when all 3 fought on equal terms, sure Novak won more than Nadal because he has more consistency and bursts of peak, Novak+Nadal won more than Federer because he was truly old, but the perception never existed that it was Novak's era, reason is Fed and Nadal were above him, it was never a certainty that Novak would end up above them, infact he was seen as 3rd wheel for most of this period. It is revisionist ways to do this 2011 to present as Novak's era by public, this is not how people perceived it.

2020 onwards - This is the period when reality started to dawn... It became certain that Djokovic would now reach the top and Federer would end up 3rd, Bull remained in the conversation.

I am sure most fans of tennis from 2000s would see it like this, this is how it actually was, however there are many ways to twist and dissect stats.

 

[Lleytonstation]

YES of course! especially sampras who played a whole match vs fed! just 50 less than nole.

They played in a slam and Sampras was still winning slams, so yes.

 

[Lleytonstation]

My perception of eras (strictly speaking on perception only) always was

2000s - Federer's era when he was above everyone with just bull providing him some resistance to him on clay and inflicting some big dents here and there.

2010s - Era when all 3 fought on equal terms, sure Novak won more than Nadal because he has more consistency and bursts of peak, Novak+Nadal won more than Federer because he was truly old, but the perception never existed that it was Novak's era, reason is Fed and Nadal were above him, it was never a certainty that Novak would end up above them, infact he was seen as 3rd wheel for most of this period. It is revisionist ways to do this 2011 to present as Novak's era by public, this is not how people perceived it.

2020 onwards - This is the period when reality started to dawn... It became certain that Djokovic would now reach the top and Federer would end up 3rd, Bull remained in the mix.

I am sure most fans of tennis from 2000s would see it like this, this is how it actually was, however there are many ways to twist and dissect stats.

That is what it was meant to be.

That is why I say Fed had his era, Djoker had his, and then they shared an era.

 

[Razer]

That is what it was meant to be.

That is why I say Fed had his era, Djoker had his, and then they shared an era.

Of course Federer had his own era, infact Federer is the only guy who actually had his own era when everyone was all over him, praising him.

But today I look at Tennis is a more total way, not like that.

 

[Sputnik Bulgorov]

So it is Roger's words against Evert's ?

Shall I bring in Sampras and Becker's interviews to be a tie breaker where they are calling themselves same gen along with other players??? Sampras called edberg his gen, becker called sampras his gen.

What we need to understand is that great players rising every 5 years is not happening anymore, it is more like 10, so a gen is also 10... in WTA it's been that for ages.
Look at GOAT candidates there, Court,.. then Nav/Evert... then Graf/Seles... then Serena ... the gap of 10+ has always been there.

Roger is much more in touch with modern tennis than Evert, Sampras and Becker since he only retired recently. That and he had a longer career than all of them so experienced the differences in generations firsthand. His take deserves more weight.

Great players haven’t risen in even 10 years. More like 15. The gap between Djokovic and Sinner is 14 years. But that has nothing to do with generations. If we believe Federer, it gives credence that there were 2 weak generations after Djokovic, Nadal gen. Makes sense.

 

[GoatNo1]

That is what it was meant to be.

That is why I say Fed had his era, Djoker had his, and then they shared an era.

fed had his era, and nole 2 of his. noles first era was shared by all big4 and some more great players as wawa and potro. 11-16RG, is noles era, but also the greatest era in tennis with toughest competition and the GOAT dominated it.

 

[Razer]

Roger is much more in touch with modern tennis than Evert, Sampras and Becker since he only retired recently. That and he had a longer career than all of them so experienced the differences in generations firsthand. His take deserves more weight.

Great players haven’t risen in even 10 years. More like 15. The gap between Djokovic and Sinner is 14 years. But that has nothing to do with generations. If we believe Federer, it gives credence that there were 2 weak generations after Djokovic, Nadal gen. Makes sense.

Federer is that fool who trolled himself by saying he is better in 2015 than he was in 2005.

Why would I take everything Federer says seriously ?

I have my own views, I will not listen to Federer or Novak just because they won 20+ slams.

 

[JMR]

Roger himself said a generation is 5 years just last Wimbledon if you skip to 7:32 of this video.

Bravo Fed!

 

[Third Serve]

I think it’s just as simple as the fact that their primes never overlapped. Fed’s was late 2003 to early 2010, Djokovic’s was 2011 to early 2016.

Fed kinda had a near-prime period from 2010-2012 and Djokovic did in late 2018 to early 2019, but again their primes never overlapped.

Because Nadal peaked earlier than Djokovic and also left his prime earlier, he did have a little overlap with Federer. 2007-2009 are years within both players’ primes.

 

[Lleytonstation]

fed had his era, and nole 2 of his. noles first era was shared by all big4 and some more great players as wawa and potro. 11-16RG, is noles era, but also the greatest era in tennis with toughest competition and the GOAT dominated it.

I can get behind that. As long as you acknowledge he also dominated a weak era after dominating a strong one.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Of course Federer had his own era, infact Federer is the only guy who actually had his own era when everyone was all over him, praising him.

But today I look at Tennis is a more total way, not like that.

Of course. As it should be.

But for me, who lived it, it was awesome. But you have to look at totality.

But I'll be honest. It's like those videos of zooming out from a home to a country to the world to the solar system to the galaxy. Yes, we are looking at the very small windows, but it's the window I care about most. Let the universe do it's thing. I worry about me.

 

[fedfan24]

he talk about rankings and slams QFs and SFs. all measurable stats. point that he played at the same, or almost the same, level but lost only against better players that played on much higher level than competition from his era.

Complete and utter nonsense. 2005-2009 Federer reached 18 slam finals and 1 semi final. 2011-2016 never came close to this and lost to a number of lesser players, including Berdych, Gulbis, Seppi, Wawrinka, Murray, Tsonga etc.

he also didn’t make a dent on clay at all after 2012, while between 2002-2009 reached 4 RG finals, won Hamburg/Madrid 4 times, reached a number of Rome/MC titles. A clear sign of his physical decline.

 

[Razer]

Of course. As it should be.

But for me, who lived it, it was awesome. But you have to look at totality.

But I'll be honest. It's like those videos of zooming out from a home to a country to the world to the solar system to the galaxy. Yes, we are looking at the very small windows, but it's the window I care about most. Let the universe do it's thing. I worry about me.

Yes, then the window of Federer's best years is the best window in that universe for us. In pure tennis terms, that was the best era we ever saw and probably will ever see (unless Carlos the Shepherd becomes another Federer next year onwards raising to another gear?..unlikely). Djokovic has always been respected for his mental toughness and for emerging at the right time to halt Nadal, but he will never replace Federer in our hearts/fond memories associated with that period.

 

[FlyingSaucer]

he talk about rankings and slams QFs and SFs. all measurable stats. point that he played at the same, or almost the same, level but lost only against better players that played on much higher level than competition from his era.

I've never encountered a sportsman such as Federer whose level of play was virtually unchanged for over 10 years while everyone else around him was maturing, peaking, declining, etc.

 

[TMF]

One of the most hilarious and ridiculous channels I have to say, lol

It's another Djoker fan who started watching tennis in 2011

 

[mike danny]

I can get behind that. As long as you acknowledge he also dominated a weak era after dominating a strong one.

Did he dominate a strong one though?

 

[Sputnik Bulgorov]

Federer is that fool who trolled himself by saying he is better in 2015 than he was in 2005.

Why would I take everything Federer says seriously ?

I have my own views, I will not listen to Federer or Novak just because they won 20+ slams.

Fed had an agenda when he said that, but this time he’s retired and can speak more objectively. But fair enough. Im just saying it’s not clear cut how long a generation is. I’m with Federer on this one.

 

[Razer]

Fed had an agenda when he said that, but this time he’s retired and can speak more objectively. But fair enough. Im just saying it’s not clear cut how long a generation is. I’m with Federer on this one.

What agenda? Federer should have never spoken of his level at all, by saying that he gave ammunition for trolls to troll him using that.

Federer is speaking in the context of 6 years peak periods of top athletes after which they see dips in their levels rapidly, new athletes also come up (at least they did until late 2010s) 5-6 years, but this changed and for 10 years ATGs did not emerge, this was first seen after Sampras when Fed took 10 years to emerge, later Alcaraz took 16 years after Djokovic to be born, so by that logic tennis is moving towards a phase where a gen gap is like 10 years. This was applicable for WTA, it is applicable for ATP also now. You see, Sinner nd Alcaraz might be dominant till they are both 29-30, then it will become more clear to us that 5 years is no longer a gen gap because athletes are having longer careers now.

 

[GoatNo1]

I can get behind that. As long as you acknowledge he also dominated a weak era after dominating a strong one.

yes. his second era was almost as week as feds era.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Did he dominate a strong one though?

I think the argument can be made.

yes. his second era was almost as week as feds era.

Weaker.

 

[Razer]

yes. his second era was almost as week as feds era.

On a scale of 0 to 10 in toughness

- Novak's 1st phase (age 20-29) was like 7 in toughness for him
- Federer's 1st phase (age 20-26) was like 5 in toughness for him

- Federer 2nd phase (age 27-36) was like 9 in toughness for him [I am giving Federer 9 in toughness because this is Novak's period and since Fed is older this era is tougher for him...hence 9]
- Djokovic's 2nd phase (age 30-36) was like 4 in toughness for him [Djokovic is in his 30s and yet the era is 4 only for him because his younger rivals were just far worse than Fed's in Fed's peak years..Nadal/Fed challenged him for some years and then they were gone]

So if you do a weighted calculation of sorts I guess Fed had it slightly harder overall

Scores would be as follows

Djoker - 7*(10 years) + 4*(7 years) = 98 for 17 years
Federer - 5*(7 years) + 9*(10 years) = 125 for 17 years

So Federer got punished more in the end while Djokovic got overcompensated.

 

[Neptune]

Fed 04-09 T5 and T10 weight in totally different tier vs Nole's 1st era, and obvious lower than Nole's 2nd era.
Same observation here

Peak​	vs Top5​	T5 Weight​	vs Top10​	T10 Weight​	vs T11+​	T11+ Weight​	vs All​	Opp Rank​	Opp Elo​
Nole 11-16​	91 (66-25) 72.53%​	19.08%​	174 (140-34) 80.46%​	36.48%​	303 (287-16) 94.72%​	63.52%​	477 (427-50) 89.52%​	18​	2086​
Fed 04-09​	67 (44-23) 65.67%​	13.59%​	121 (91-30) 75.21%​	24.54%​	372 (351-21) 94.35%​	75.46%​	493 (442-51) 89.66%​	26​	2017​
Nole 18-23​	54 (37-17) 68.52%​	15.25%​	102 (76-26) 74.51%​	28.81%​	252 (228-24) 90.48%​	71.19%​	354 (304-50) 85.88%​	23​	2045​

 

[sliceroni]

Yeah they are.

1980-1984 = Fed gen (ft. Federer, Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Ferrer, Nalbandian, Ferrero, etc.)

1985-1989 = Djokodal gen (ft. Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka, Del Potro, Cilic, Tsonga, Berydch, etc.)

1990-1994 = Lost gen (ft. Thiem, Raonic, Dimitrov, Goffin, Schwartzman, Sock, PCB, Pouille, etc.)

1995-1999 = Next gen (ft. Medvedev, Zverev, Stefanos, Kyrgios, Matteo, Shapo, Rublev, Ruud, etc.)

2000-2004 = Zoomer gen (ft. Alcaraz, FAA, Sinner, Rune, Nakashima, Brooksby, etc.)

Great post. Once of the best I’ve seen on here. That lost and next gen lol

 

[Razer]

I've never encountered a sportsman such as Federer whose level of play was virtually unchanged for over 10 years while everyone else around him was maturing, peaking, declining, etc.

It is amazing that people say Federer played at the same level for 10 years and yet everyone born in close vicinity of Federer was either retiring or declining rapidly year after year in those 10 years (2005-2015). Federer sounds like a robot and not a human to perform at a same level without decline, heck even machines have performance issues year after year, donno how Federer is playing at same level from 24 till 34. As I said above, many of the younger fans of the game are yet to see what decline from late 20s actually looks like, to demonstrate that only a younger all time great can do. Average players cannot expose the slow movement, slow reflexes, reduced stamina in long rallies, lack of peak level explosiveness all in the older ATGs, only the elite young guys can do it and the absence of that is what has convinced these younger fans that 24 to 34 is same level.

 

[KingCarlitos]

Fair. Open Era. But we see things like golden Era and weak Era and Greek Era and juice box Era and all kinds of shortening eras

Juice box era?

 

[KingCarlitos]

Great post. Once of the best I’ve seen on here. That lost and next gen lol

Hilarious the lack of achievements for an entire decade, 90s players were basically suffocated from birth by the Big Three.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Juice box era?

Yeah, the kids era. The gen after the next gen. Med, Tsits, Zverev, Rublev, Khach, Fritz, Tiafoe, and others.

 

[fedfan24]

It is amazing that people say Federer played at the same level for 10 years and yet everyone born in close vicinity of Federer was either retiring or declining rapidly year after year in those 10 years (2005-2015). Federer sounds like a robot and not a human to perform at a same level without decline, heck even machines have performance issues year after year, donno how Federer is playing at same level from 24 till 34. As I said above, many of the younger fans of the game are yet to see what decline from late 20s actually looks like, to demonstrate that only a younger all time great can do. Average players cannot expose the slow movement, slow reflexes, reduced stamina in long rallies, lack of peak level explosiveness all in the older ATGs, only the elite young guys can do it and the absence of that is what has convinced these younger fans that 24 to 34 is same level.

Bingo. Djokovic plowing through a field of Tsitsipas, Ruud and berretini in his mid 30s with very little resistance has fuelled this nonsense. I’m convinced his 20-23 slam haul would’ve been drastically cut down in the presence of 2024 Alcaraz / Sinner. Look at 2014-2019 Federer, lost 5 times to a 6 years younger atg in his prime.

 

[FlyingSaucer]

It is amazing that people say Federer played at the same level for 10 years and yet everyone born in close vicinity of Federer was either retiring or declining rapidly year after year in those 10 years (2005-2015). Federer sounds like a robot and not a human to perform at a same level without decline, heck even machines have performance issues year after year, donno how Federer is playing at same level from 24 till 34.

As many Federer fans have already pointed out likely numerous times now, Federer's losses in 2008 were not just to Djo and Nadal in slams, but also to players from his own gen at BO3 level, players he either never lost or hadn't lost to in years. So, those players must have been improving while Federer was completely static. But I think some non-Fed fans explain away these losses as Fed being due them anyway. It's especially amazing when Djokovic went from a 3-slam year to 1 slam a year for three straight years and this is explained as Well his level was so high it had to come down or He didn't have Becker yet or whatever else.

As I said above, many of the younger fans of the game are yet to see what decline from late 20s actually looks like, to demonstrate that only a younger all time great can do. Average players cannot expose the slow movement, slow reflexes, reduced stamina in long rallies, lack of peak level explosiveness all in the older ATGs, only the elite young guys can do it and the absence of that is what has convinced these younger fans that 24 to 34 is same level.

Could be. Or, it could be that they just dismiss it the case of Fed. How often is there any argument over Nadal declining physically? Hardly ever, I'd say. There is some quibbling over when, but I don't see much resistance over the argument that he was already declined by age 30.

 

[mike danny]

I think the argument can be made.

Weaker.

He only dominated in 2011 and that’s it

 

[Lleytonstation]

Look at 2014-2019 Federer, lost 5 times to a 6 years younger atg in his prime.

2 ATP finals and SF to Djoker at AO20. Plus 2 to Rafa at RG and AO during this time.

 

[Lleytonstation]

He only dominated in 2011 and that’s it

Well, of course he did not dominate as good as Fed did. But I don't want to get into all of that again lol

 

[Razer]

Bingo. Djokovic plowing through a field of Tsitsipas, Ruud and berretini in his mid 30s with very little resistance has fuelled this nonsense. I’m convinced his 20-23 slam haul would’ve been drastically cut down in the presence of 2024 Alcaraz / Sinner. Look at 2014-2019 Federer, lost 5 times to a 6 years younger atg in his prime.

I dont think Sinner could have stopped Djokovic even in the late 2010s and early 2020s until 2022 but Alcaraz could. He has the speed and power to cause problems. Djokovic would probably have tackled him too given how reckless he can be but at least we've got some chance, Sinner just could not have. Stefan, Casper and Matteo type fellas definitely gave the impression that once can be in prime at 35-36, having a 3 slam year at 36 would have been impossible in the presence of great young players.

As many Federer fans have already pointed out likely numerous times now, Federer's losses in 2008 were not just to Djo and Nadal in slams, but also to players from his own gen at BO3 level, players he either never lost or hadn't lost to in years. So, those players must have been improving while Federer was completely static. But I think some non-Fed fans explain away these losses as Fed being due them anyway. It's especially amazing when Djokovic went from a 3-slam year to 1 slam a year for three straight years and this is explained as Well his level was so high it had to come down or He didn't have Becker yet or whatever else.



Could be. Or, it could be that they just dismiss it the case of Fed. How often is there any argument over Nadal declining physically? Hardly ever, I'd say. There is some quibbling over when, but I don't see much resistance over the argument that he was already declined by age 30.

Yeah, Hewitt beat Federer after a long time in 2010, Roddick also defeated Federer somewhere in 2012, I think Miami masters? In 2008 Federer lost to all sorts of people, Giles Simon has only 2 wins vs Federer and both came in 2008 in the same year.

 

[fedfan24]

I dont think Sinner could have stopped Djokovic even in the late 2010s and early 2020s until 2022 but Alcaraz could. He has the speed and power to cause problems. Djokovic would probably have tackled him too given how reckless he can be but at least we've got some chance, Sinner just could not have. Stefan, Casper and Matteo type fellas definitely gave the impression that once can be in prime at 35-36, having a 3 slam year at 36 would have been impossible in the presence of great young players.



Yeah, Hewitt beat Federer after a long time in 2010, Roddick also defeated Federer somewhere in 2012, I think Miami masters? In 2008 Federer lost to all sorts of people, Giles Simon has only 2 wins vs Federer and both came in 2008 in the same year.

Thiem got pretty close and sinner bashes more consistently than he did. Sinner could’ve nabbed one of the Australia titles and possibly us23. W21/22 both under threat from Alcaraz if such a player showed up earlier. Clowns like Kyrgios and Berretini never had a sniff of winning.

He will still win slams but no nonsense like 21/23 cygs attempt or 3/4 slam wins in mid 30s will be happening. 8 slams from 20-23 likely cut down to 3-4 at most.

 

[D.Nalby12]

Same era but different generations. Federer had extended career in his thirties. That's why his post prime career overlapped with prime Djokodal. (7-8 years period). Had he retired in 2012 itself which was normal for his generation - he would have played like 20-25 less matches against other two.

 

[adil1972]

Every player era starts with 1st slam final & ends with last slam final

 

[Jonas78]

When player A is 30 years old before player B hits his prime, they are not in the same era, at least thats my opinion.

Because Djokovic didnt have any younger ATGs chasing him before Sincaraz, Federer was definetly one of his main rivals, along with Nadal, but that doesnt put them in the same era.

 

[Razer]

Every player era starts with 1st slam final & ends with last slam final

In Fact at the basic level, when we compare 2 players then we need to see the 1st H2H to the last H2H to know who is from what era/generation.

For example when we discuss Roger Federer

His Rivals (1st match year to last match year)

Safin - 2001-2009
Hewitt - 1999-2013
Roddick - 2001-2012
David Ferrer - 2003-2017
Wawrinka - 2005 to 2019
Berdych - 2004 - 2018
Nadal - 2004-2019
Murray - 2005-2015
Djokovic - 2006 to 2020

I think all of these players could claim they are from Federer's generation becaue they didnt play him too late and if they did meet a bit late then they played just so much afterwards that the distinction became irrelevant.

 

[objection_]

Bingo. Djokovic plowing through a field of Tsitsipas, Ruud and berretini in his mid 30s with very little resistance has fuelled this nonsense. I’m convinced his 20-23 slam haul would’ve been drastically cut down in the presence of 2024 Alcaraz / Sinner. Look at 2014-2019 Federer, lost 5 times to a 6 years younger atg in his prime.

Replacing 2014+ Fed with 2019+ Djoko (age 32 season)
2014 Fed:
2019 AO - Decent chance at winning, no one in djoko's draw would probably stand a chance, Nadal could be a threat because fed just changed racket, but the way Nadal played in the final, I'd favour Fed
2014 RG - Probably loses to Thiem in 4, although he was actually in decent form before choking hard against Gulbis, so we never got to really see his best form - despite this he still made the final at MC
2014 WB - Tossup against 19 Fed, 14 Fed served better, 19 with the better ground game. Would trust 14 Fed to clutch out TB's more, so edge for 14
2014 USO - No idea, he probably beats wawa due to matchup but had some brainfarts in this tourney, Wouldn't back him to win it

1 Slam with decent chance of 2

2015 Fed:
2020 AO - Early upset
2020 RG - Don't think the conditions would suit his 2015 playstyle, probably makes the SF anyways, small chance at beating Tpas and making the final which he'd lose to Rafa
2020 Wim - Didn't happen but if it did, he'd easily be a top 2 favourite
2020 USO - Wins

1 Slam

2016 Fed:
2021 AO - Probably wins
2021 RG - DNP
2021 Wim - Likely wins, the only people on par with 2016 Cilic and Raonic were Berr and Djoke, who is already out here. Fed would beat Shapo before even having the knee injury against Raonic and never goes match points down against Fucsovics
2021 USO - DNP

2 Slams

2017 Fed:
2022 AO - Wins
2022 RG - DNP
2022 Wim - Wins
2022 USO - Back probably acts up, I'd say no

2 Slams

2018 Fed:
2023 AO - Wins
2023 RG - DNP
2023 Wim - Probably makes the SF despite being mediocre, I'd wager he takes out that Sinner and splits 50/50 chances with Raz in the F
2023 USO - Don't recall Djoko playing in particularly the humid conditions of the 2018 4R, makes the F and probably has matchup advantage against madlad who dropped his level in the F from the SF

1 Slam with good chances of 2 more

2019 Fed:
2024 AO - Tpas played inspired in 2019 even though Fed mugged up on BP's, probably loses to Sinner in the SF as that was one of the ****tiest FH and BP performances I've seen
2024 RG - Wouldn't put it past him to reach the SF, considering Ruud's stomach illness. Early rounds might prove to be a problem due to the heavy night conditions though, and I wouldn't favour his stamina at that age to beat Raz or Z back 2 back.
2024 Wim - Steamrolls his way through the final, he'd have a cracker of a match with Alcaraz I think... 50/50 Split here
2024 USO - Could see him making it to the QF's where he'll face Dimitrov as he did IRL in 2019, except Dimi's hip injury gives way before Fed injures his back. Most likely makes the final, although I can't give him this hypothetical.

Good chance at 1 Slam
Worst case scenario, he gets 7 slams, best case 12
Both 32+ Fed and Djoker were at similar levels, Djoker maybe edging it on clay, the competition was the real difference maker in the final slam count.

 

[Racquet_smash]

They're 6 years apart and their primes never overlapped so yeah they're not exact from the same era.

 

[Jonas78]

They're 6 years apart and their primes never overlapped so yeah they're not exact from the same era.

Exactly. Federer was hitting 30y with 16 slams when Djokovic hit his prime and won his 2nd slam. Not same era, but rivals, because there werent any younger ATGs to be Noles rival, at least not until Sincaraz.

 

[Jonas78]

In Fact at the basic level, when we compare 2 players then we need to see the 1st H2H to the last H2H to know who is from what era/generation.

For example when we discuss Roger Federer

His Rivals (1st match year to last match year)

Safin - 2001-2009
Hewitt - 1999-2013
Roddick - 2001-2012
David Ferrer - 2003-2017
Wawrinka - 2005 to 2019
Berdych - 2004 - 2018
Nadal - 2004-2019
Murray - 2005-2015
Djokovic - 2006 to 2020

I think all of these players could claim they are from Federer's generation becaue they didnt play him too late and if they did meet a bit late then they played just so much afterwards that the distinction became irrelevant.

Rivalry isnt the same as era imo. Federer and Nole were definetly rivals, but when one player wins 16 slams and is turning 30 before the other one peaks and wins 2, its not the same era.

 

[Racquet_smash]

Exactly. Federer was hitting 30y with 16 slams when Djokovic hit his prime and won his 2nd slam. Not same era, but rivals, because there werent any younger ATGs to be Noles rival, at least not until Sincaraz.

Yes, they are rivals, but they're definitely not part of the same era. Last year's of Fed's prime is clearly 2009 while Djokovic reached his best only in 2011.

It would be like saying that Djokovic and Zverev are from the same era.

 

[fedfan24]

Replacing 2014+ Fed with 2019+ Djoko (age 32 season)
2014 Fed:
2019 AO - Decent chance at winning, no one in djoko's draw would probably stand a chance, Nadal could be a threat because fed just changed racket, but the way Nadal played in the final, I'd favour Fed
2014 RG - Probably loses to Thiem in 4, although he was actually in decent form before choking hard against Gulbis, so we never got to really see his best form - despite this he still made the final at MC
2014 WB - Tossup against 19 Fed, 14 Fed served better, 19 with the better ground game. Would trust 14 Fed to clutch out TB's more, so edge for 14
2014 USO - No idea, he probably beats wawa due to matchup but had some brainfarts in this tourney, Wouldn't back him to win it

1 Slam with decent chance of 2

2015 Fed:
2020 AO - Early upset
2020 RG - Don't think the conditions would suit his 2015 playstyle, probably makes the SF anyways, small chance at beating Tpas and making the final which he'd lose to Rafa
2020 Wim - Didn't happen but if it did, he'd easily be a top 2 favourite
2020 USO - Wins

1 Slam

2016 Fed:
2021 AO - Probably wins
2021 RG - DNP
2021 Wim - Likely wins, the only people on par with 2016 Cilic and Raonic were Berr and Djoke, who is already out here. Fed would beat Shapo before even having the knee injury against Raonic and never goes match points down against Fucsovics
2021 USO - DNP

2 Slams

2017 Fed:
2022 AO - Wins
2022 RG - DNP
2022 Wim - Wins
2022 USO - Back probably acts up, I'd say no

2 Slams

2018 Fed:
2023 AO - Wins
2023 RG - DNP
2023 Wim - Probably makes the SF despite being mediocre, I'd wager he takes out that Sinner and splits 50/50 chances with Raz in the F
2023 USO - Don't recall Djoko playing in particularly the humid conditions of the 2018 4R, makes the F and probably has matchup advantage against madlad who dropped his level in the F from the SF

1 Slam with good chances of 2 more

2019 Fed:
2024 AO - Tpas played inspired in 2019 even though Fed mugged up on BP's, probably loses to Sinner in the SF as that was one of the ****tiest FH and BP performances I've seen
2024 RG - Wouldn't put it past him to reach the SF, considering Ruud's stomach illness. Early rounds might prove to be a problem due to the heavy night conditions though, and I wouldn't favour his stamina at that age to beat Raz or Z back 2 back.
2024 Wim - Steamrolls his way through the final, he'd have a cracker of a match with Alcaraz I think... 50/50 Split here
2024 USO - Could see him making it to the QF's where he'll face Dimitrov as he did IRL in 2019, except Dimi's hip injury gives way before Fed injures his back. Most likely makes the final, although I can't give him this hypothetical.

Good chance at 1 Slam
Worst case scenario, he gets 7 slams, best case 12
Both 32+ Fed and Djoker were at similar levels, Djoker maybe edging it on clay, the competition was the real difference maker in the final slam count.

Spot on agree with most of this. I think the main difference between them (other than the competition) was physical fitness and Djokovic being a bit better on clay (fed higher level on grass overall). US 16,17,18,19 fed either missed or had physical issues in all these slams. 1-2 winnable ones there.