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

What is an Era?

  • Can't be defined logically

  • By age

  • By matches played

  • By decade

  • Other

  • By names such as: Club tennis, juice box, and weak

Results are only viewable after voting.
Lleytonstation said:
While we are on the subject of age.

Djoker won 12% of his slams while Fed was in his 20s.

Fed won 40% of his slams while Djoker was in his 20s.
Click to expand...
Yeah this is where their careers differs the most imo.

You can make a point that Federers closest ATGs are 10/11 years older than him (Pete/Agassi), and therefore he had an easier breakthrough than for example Novak.

But then you must also see that Federer already in 2006 was being chased and denied slams by a younger hungry ATG, and later by another one.

I always find it interesting when people claim Federer had it easiest, when he was denied slams almost every year from 2006 and on, by two younger players which turned out to be two of the greatest players in history.
 
Jonas78 said:
Yeah this is where their careers differs the most imo.

You can make a point that Federers closest ATGs are 10/11 years older than him (Pete/Agassi), and therefore he had an easier breakthrough than for example Novak.

But then you must also see that Federer already in 2006 was being chased and denied slams by a younger hungry ATG, and latet by another one.

I almost find it interesting when people claim Federer had it easiest, when he was denied slams almost every year from 2006 and on, by two younger players which turned out to be two of the greatest players in history.
Click to expand...
Yeah.

But @Razer is right. In the end, they played so many matches against each other that it will all be looked at as one era and blended in. Only us TTW gods can ever know the real truth lol
 
Razer said:
Don't talk nonsense

When Agassi made his international debut, Federer was 4 years old, Rafael Nadal was a 5 months old embryo inside his mother's stomach and Novak Djokovic was yet to be conceived.

When Federer made his debut in 1998, Djokovic was 11 years old, Rafael Nadal was 12 years old.

They are not comparable in any way, Agassi is 11 years older to Federer, a full generation above Big 3 and from another era entirely.
Click to expand...
6 years is usually enough to call a player from a different generation.

People usually refer to Djokovic and Thiem as players from different generations and they are. 6 years is the difference between them.
 
Jonas78 said:
Ofc, Federer will be considered third, and thats ok. All records should be broken, Noles will be too. Not so sure about some of Rafas though lol.
Click to expand...
Yeah, 14 FO not happening.

I do think Djokers will stand, as some point soon they will change up scoring and add slams and stuff.

I am A-ok with it all, cause I got to experience it. Only thing I wish I could change is the WC19 tie.
 
duaneeo said:
Federer's era is quite obvious. It was when he won 16 slams, 5 WTFs, 16 Masters, 5 YE#1s, and was ranked #1 for 285 weeks. 2003 was the ascent into his peak, and 2010 was the descent into his past-prime.
Click to expand...
Soooo... When Nole didnt turn into a monster before 2011, does that put them in the same era?
 
Lleytonstation said:
Yeah, 14 FO not happening.

I do think Djokers will stand, as some point soon they will change up scoring and add slams and stuff.

I am A-ok with it all, cause I got to experience it. Only thing I wish I could change is the WC19 tie.
Click to expand...
Will be interesting. Sincaraz are both ahead of Novak so far, and the field doesnt look too scary.
 
Racquet_smash said:
6 years is usually enough to call a player from a different generation.

People usually refer to Djokovic and Thiem as players from different generations and they are. 6 years is the difference between them.
Click to expand...

6 year is enough on TTW, sure, but not in the real world. 10 years is a generation for the professionals.
 
zakopinjo said:
Federer turned 30 on August 8, 2011, before August 8, 2011 he and Novak played 23 matches.
Click to expand...
You're splitting hairs. Federer wasn't in his prime in june and then magically in august became old.

Point is, 2011 was when Fed's prime well over and he was getting older while Djokovic was only starting.
 
Racquet_smash said:
Everyone would disagree with you if you called Thiem and Djokovic from the same gen.
Click to expand...
Djokovic is from 1980s born gen, Thiem is 1990s gen

Who said they are same ?

Get out of the age gap fetish, Federer lost, no amount of damage control will make him a winner.
 
Lleytonstation said:
Yeah.

But @Razer is right. In the end, they played so many matches against each other that it will all be looked at as one era and blended in. Only us TTW gods can ever know the real truth lol
Click to expand...

Perceptions change and they should.

In 2009 we thought Federer will retire in some years because he is in late 20s, will have to go at 32-33, we also expected his record to be safe because when Fed was 33 we expected Nadal at 27-28 to also stop winning because we thought he is the new Borg. We thought a new next gen will replace this next gen Nadal, but what we saw was Djokovic rise in 2011, unexpected turn of events. Then we saw Nadal have a huge slump in 14-16 period, it looked like he would never win a slam again affirming our believes of 2009 being intact even then, then what happened in 2017 ? Nadal bounced back and Federer bounced back too instead of a youngster replacing Djokovic/Murray at the top. Then we saw second win for Djokovic too. Thus the second wind for all 3 members of big 3 made us believe in great age shift, weak inflation eras and what not. Perceptions changed. The way we saw eras, generations all changed.

SO 15 years apart 2009 and 2024 the beliefs are different, you cannot be stuck in the 2009 school of though of 5 years being a generation. This is 2024.
 
You can’t play someone 50 times and call them as being from different eras. I’m not a believer in peaks, primes etc.defining the era of a player for only a short period - if you play on tour for a long period, the players you played a lot are your main rivals from your era. Federer won at a high match winning % throughout his career except maybe a couple of years as a teen and when he got injured in the end - he was also good enough to make Slam finals from 2003-2019.
 
Racquet_smash said:
6 years difference is the same regardless on the decade a player is born in.
Click to expand...

Generations are not labels tatted your forehead, it can vary from person to person on how you compare with whom.

1985 to 1994 is a decade but why do we call 1985 in the 1980s decade and 1994 in the 1990s decade ?

Sameway, Thiem is only 1/2 a gen apart from Djokovic but he is a fiull generation+ ahead of Federe, thats why Federer found it harder to tackle Thiem due to age than Nadal/Novak, same way Tsitsipas is 1/2 a gen apart from Thiem but Tsitsipas is a full gen apart from Djokovic.

Djokovic is 1/2 older to Thiem and 1/2 gen younger to Federer but thiem and Federer are 1 generation apart. Thiem and Federer could never have forged a rivalry because not just their peak, even their primes would have no overlap at all, but in Djoker-Thiem case they are not a full gen apart and so they could have forget a long rivalry if thiem was more talented to turn pro in 2009, clash with NOvak for the first time in 2012 and then win his first slam by 2014, but he wasn't... so that's that.
 
socallefty said:
You can’t play someone 50 times and call them as being from different eras. I’m not a believer in peaks, primes etc.defining the era of a player for only a short period - if you play on tour for a long period, the players you played a lot are your main rivals from your era. Federer won at a high match winning % throughout his career except maybe a couple of years as a teen and when he got injured in the end - he was also good enough to make Slam finals from 2003-2019.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I think most people will see it that way, and that is likely how it will be remembered... in totality.

thanks-tropic-thunder.gif
 
Racquet_smash said:
6 years difference is the same regardless on the decade a player is born in.
Click to expand...

This is such a terrible logic

It is like asking why are 1984 and 1989 counted in the 1980s decade while 1994 is counted in 1990s decade? It is just 5 years apart, so count them all together ?

Thiem is a flat out next gen to Fed and thiem is a 1/2 gen younger to Novak, but classification puts Novak-Fed in 1980s gen while Thiem is 1990s gen, thats clear to anyone
 
Racquet_smash said:
You're splitting hairs. Federer wasn't in his prime in june and then magically in august became old.

Point is, 2011 was when Fed's prime well over and he was getting older while Djokovic was only starting.
Click to expand...
Of course not, he plays until the end of 2012 at the prime level, but here on the forum there is a law that when a player turns 30 years old, he has to drop immediately, so that's why I divided Federer into the one before August 8, 2011 and the one after that date.
 
zakopinjo said:
Of course not, he plays until the end of 2012 at the prime level, but here on the forum there is a law that when a player turns 30 years old, he has to drop immediately, so that's why I divided Federer into the one before August 8, 2011 and the one after that date.
Click to expand...
Federer was not in his prime when he was losing to Soderling at RG, Tsonga or Berdych at Wimbledon. Don't be ridiculous.
 
Razer said:
This is such a terrible logic

It is like asking why are 1984 and 1989 counted in the 1980s decade while 1994 is counted in 1990s decade? It is just 5 years apart, so count them all together ?

Thiem is a flat out next gen to Fed and thiem is a 1/2 gen younger to Novak, but classification puts Novak-Fed in 1980s gen while Thiem is 1990s gen, thats clear to anyone
Click to expand...
Classification is only a human thing tough. Biologically speaking, Federer and Djokovic are as close to each other as Djokovic and Thiem, that's the only objective difference. And nobody would say that a player who hit his best years only after the other one was well past his own ones belongs to the same era.
 
Lleytonstation said:
Even crazier when you realize Djoker only played Fed a few times in his peak but Fed played Djoker throughout his entire peak.
Click to expand...
Well this raises the age-old argument of what constitutes the peak period, but I guess you mean relatively anyway so I take your point.

It would have been interesting to see takes on the best Big 3 rivalry had Fed-Djo ended that way.
 
FlyingSaucer said:
Well this raises the age-old argument of what constitutes the peak period, but I guess you mean relatively anyway so I take your point.

It would have been interesting to see takes on the best Big 3 rivalry had Fed-Djo ended that way.
Click to expand...
Longevity hurt Feds career in a sense. I mean, I am insanely glad he did not retire around 30, nor should he have.

But if he had, I think he might be more respected by some fans and might have left a different aura and legacy.
 
Racquet_smash said:
Classification is only a human thing tough. Biologically speaking, Federer and Djokovic are as close to each other as Djokovic and Thiem, that's the only objective difference. And nobody would say that a player who hit his best years only after the other one was well past his own ones belongs to the same era.
Click to expand...

Djokovic could have peaked earlier, 2011 was too late, this doesn't mean he is a next gen. He has been facing Federer since 2006, just because he was not winning slams for next 5 years thats his problem, not anyone else's. Nadal's rise proved it that they are same generation, just 1/2 gen apart. Federer's true next gen is Grigor Dimitrov who turned pro in 2008, Federer was going down at a time when another athlete shows up (Grigor), this means by the time Grigor enters his prime in 2010s Federer was in 30s, so if they are equal skilled players then there is no overlap of any sort of prime level performance. That is how you classify generation.

In other words --- Roger Federer could have avoided Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic entirely if they were born 10 years and 11 years after him respectively instead of the standard 5 & 6. In the 10-11 scenario Nadal+Nole would be actual next gens, their 1st slams would come in 2010 and 2013 respectively, Federer would already be in his 30s by then and he would just not be able to forge long rivalries with them, he would lose almost all the matches from the beginning (he already be on 22 slams in 2010, so it wouldn't matter anyway) and he could have retired by lets say 2016 citing that I went down to next gens Nadal and Djokovic, now it is their times and so I leave. This would have Federer's state ..... However IRL he could not avoid Djokodal because are only 1/2 apart from him, not a full gen. Nadal was taking clay slams from Federer in Federer own peak because that is how it was always meant to be, next gens don't beat you at a slam when you are not even 24 years old.
 
JMR said:
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
Click to expand...
That notion is now obsolete. The big 3 had objectively peak careers each well over a decade. Ignore their h2h, just look at the performance agianst the tour. Federer was no 1 in the world as late as 2018, Novak in 2023. Arguing that’s not within their “peak” is kind of absurd.
 
Rafa is in the same era as Novak and Fed but those two are in different era’s basically. Peak Novak never played Peak Federer.
 
droliver said:
That notion is now obsolete. The big 3 had objectively peak careers each well over a decade.
Click to expand...

"Objectively" of course does not apply here. But beyond that, the concept of "peak" would be obliterated by your approach. Maybe "prime" is what you're after? How about "years of manageable decline"?
 
KingCarlitos said:
Rafa is in the same era as Novak and Fed but those two are in different era’s basically. Peak Novak never played Peak Federer.
Click to expand...

Peak Wawrinka never played Peak Nadal either despite Wawrinka being an year older. This is not Nadal's problem either for Wawrinka peaking later. Novak should have peaked earlier if he at his peak wanted to play peak Federer.
 
droliver said:
That notion is now obsolete. The big 3 had objectively peak careers each well over a decade. Ignore their h2h, just look at the performance agianst the tour. Federer was no 1 in the world as late as 2018, Novak in 2023. Arguing that’s not within their “peak” is kind of absurd.
Click to expand...
Federer’s 2017-2018 level is below his own peak but still higher than any 90s born player ever so he was able to reach number 1. Same with Djokovic for 2021-2023.
 
droliver said:
That notion is now obsolete. The big 3 had objectively peak careers each well over a decade. Ignore their h2h, just look at the performance agianst the tour. Federer was no 1 in the world as late as 2018, Novak in 2023. Arguing that’s not within their “peak” is kind of absurd.
Click to expand...
Still Federer had the greatest career in tennis history after AO10, when Nole was still a one slam wonder.

If Roger retired after the 2010 season, would you still put them in the same era?
 
Roger and Novak played in the same era but were not the same generation. Agassi and Roger were not of the same generation but their era's overlapped.
 
Jonas78 said:
Still Federer had the greatest career in tennis history after AO10, when Nole was still a one slam wonder.

If Roger retired after the 2010 season, would you still put them in the same era?
Click to expand...

IF does not exist here

Roger could not have retired at age 28, Roger won too many slams in quick sucession but his main rivals were a bit younger and made life hell for him. You are assuming Federer could have retired in 2010 or even in 2012 at the same age which Sampras played his last match ? Nope, this could never have happened because Roger's 31 is not same as Sampras's 31, Roger was not declined that much at 31 like Sampras was, this is because of the modern era allows greater longevity to players. So Roger retiring at 28.5 or at 31 just does not exist in reality because players only decline a lot and retire, they don't wanna go otherwise.
 
Razer said:
IF does not exist here

Roger could not have retired at age 28, Roger won too many slams in quick sucession but his main rivals were a bit younger and made life hell for him. You are assuming Federer could have retired in 2010 or even in 2012 at the same age which Sampras played his last match ? Nope, this could never have happened because Roger's 31 is not same as Sampras's 31, Roger was not declined that much at 31 like Sampras was, this is because of the modern era allows greater longevity to players. So Roger retiring at 28.5 or at 31 just does not exist in reality because players only decline a lot and retire, they don't wanna go otherwise.
Click to expand...
The point is still valid, Roger had the greatest career in tennis history when Nole was a one-slam-wonder. They won most of their slams in completely different periods.
 
Jonas78 said:
The point is still valid, Roger had the greatest career in tennis history when Nole was a one-slam-wonder. They won most of their slams in completely different periods.
Click to expand...

That's true

Novak was average until 2010 US Open. Shades of peak Novak started to appear at the US Open 2010.

The 2000s was primarily a Federer era while 2010 onwards phase was a Big 3 & Murray era.
 
How do we define era?
There is no era bs.

There is fed era where he dominated and there are djokovic eras where he dominated (2 eras)

But Fed was active in Djokovic1 and Nole was active during Fed era. Both played 50 matches vs each other with highest matches ever played at slams

That means they are same era. That doesn't mean someone like RODDICK * freaking roddick * is in Nole era because he declined very early. Yes there is no hypocrisy in this. That's how real world works.

TTW wants to have the cake and eat it too. You can't.

Having cake - Longevity of 20 years for players like big 3
Eating eat - No matches past age 30 or pre age 20 such ********

NO need to make mathematical models of when a player is 5 years apart then no or 10 years apart then no. Those models are for losers.
Of course Murray is not in Zverev era because he declined so hard.

Now ttw can think Fed dropping from 1 to 2 is huge decline but that's just opinion of some miscreants people we can ignore.

When players decline that means they don't matter. Like Murray post 2016 or Roddick post 09. BOOM
 
BOOM over.

Fed in 2017 was averaging 115+ Hold and return.. that's it i don't want any exuses

he can be freaking 90 and it wont matter at all.
 
Razer said:
That's true

Novak was average until 2010 US Open. Shades of peak Novak started to appear at the US Open 2010.

The 2000s was primarily a Federer era while 2010 onwards phase was a Big 3 & Murray era.
Click to expand...
Primarily yes, although Rafa already denied hin slams from 2006 and on, and won 9 slams before 2011
 
Having cake - Longevity of 20 years for players like big 3

Eating eat - No matches past age 30 or pre age 20 such ********
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Lleytonstation
British crowd: props to Djoker
Replies
47
Views
2K
gamelovergold
G
Lleytonstation
Djoker is big 3: Respect that and cherish it
Replies
10
Views
576
BlueB
BlueB
Lleytonstation
Tell me we are not watching crap tennis
7 8 9
Replies
410
Views
15K
Crazy Finn
C
Lleytonstation
Djoker is the Most Entertaining Athlete in the World
2
Replies
79
Views
2K
cortadew
C
Lleytonstation
Moral victories don't exist. Period.
Replies
8
Views
660
OldschoolKIaus
OldschoolKIaus
Back
Top