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

[nolefam_2024]

If freaking djokovic keeps having 115 hold + break post 2026, he and raz would be in same era. Raz and he are sparring off since 2022.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Yes. So why raise the question this thread poses?

For debate and to learn different points of views and discuss those views.

After reading many posts, my original options were not even the ones I would categorize eras by.

I would categorize eras by peaks of each player. How much of their peak did they play together in.

Obviously Djoker was never peak during Feds peak, and Fed was never peak during Djokers. So they had different eras.

This is of course an opinion, but one that makes logical sense after seeing the statistics on the subject.

 

[zakopinjo]

Federer was not in his prime when he was losing to Soderling at RG, Tsonga or Berdych at Wimbledon. Don't be ridiculous.

Of course he was in his prime, look at his entire season

 

[Lleytonstation]

The stats clearly show, if you look at peak levels, Fed and Djoker never even shared an era. Rafa and Fed did however.

 

[FlyingSaucer]

Longevity hurt Feds career in a sense. I mean, I am insanely glad he did not retire around 30, nor should he have.

If you view it in 'loser of the slam/'GOAT' race' terms, then sure. Looked to me as though he was still carrying the sport through his 30s, long after he'd stopped dominating.

But if he had, I think he might be more respected by some fans and might have left a different aura and legacy.

Do you mean his own fans? 'Cos non-Fed fans would not view him any differently. They'd simply accuse him of running away once the competition got too stiff and building his career and status on fraudulent achievements. As I've said before, if Fed did not hang around, I am sure we would have been hearing about how lucky he was to escape Wawrinka during his peak.

Not getting the aura bit, in all honesty. I can't see what different aura he needs.

 

[toby55555]

Different era altogether

Federer by tobyjug5, on Flickr

 

[Lleytonstation]

They'd simply accuse him of running away once the competition got too stiff and building his career and status on fraudulent achievements. As I've said before, if Fed did not hang around, I am sure we would have been hearing about how lucky he was to escape Wawrinka during his peak.

lol, yeah, you are right about that.

 

[Razer]

Primarily yes, although Rafa already denied hin slams from 2006 and on, and won 9 slams before 2011

Yeah, Nadal was causing dents from mid 00s itself

The point is Fed having 16 and Nadal having 9 while Novak having 1 does not really matter, if you are marketing someone of 16 to be a next gen to the person on 1 then someone on 9 can also be marketed as a next gen to 1, today when we look back at thing from 2024 we see a larger picture and that is 1 single era of 2003-2023.

 

[Neptune]

Fed has 24 seasons on tour, with 18 of them overlapping with Nole's. But... but... maybe some of those 18 seasons don’t count because one of them was a non-factor?

Sure, 10 of Fed’s 15 year-end Top 3 finishes overlap with Nole’s—so, yes, there are 10 seasons they both finished in the Top 3.

Enough?

 

[Lleytonstation]

Fed has 24 seasons on tour, with 18 of them overlapping with Nole's. But... but... maybe some of those 18 seasons don’t count because one of them was a non-factor?

Sure, 10 of Fed’s 15 year-end Top 3 finishes overlap with Nole’s—so, yes, there are 10 seasons they both finished in the Top 3.

Enough?

Never played during peak years. PRetty easy for a Djoker fan to like this argument lol

 

[duaneeo]

Djokovic didn't start consistently winning slams until 2011. Federer had already won 16 by then, so it's quite ridiculous to say they're from the same era.

 

[NatF]

Same era but different generation.

 

[mike danny]

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.

That's more to do with them playing the weakest generations ever rather than still playing peak tennis.

 

[Mustard]

Millennials are people born from 1981 to 1996, so using that criteria, the big 4 are all Millennials. Federer could be described as a Xennial, born from 1977 to 1985, who are often described as having traits of both Millennials and the previous Generation X.

Older Millennials tend to remember analogue childhoods, i.e. without the internet and perhaps very few TV channels in some countries, which Generation X had through to adulthood at least. Younger Millennials, i.e. 1990s born, tend to remember the early internet from their childhoods, i.e. pre-social media.

 

[mike danny]

Millennials are people born from 1981 to 1996, so using that criteria, the big 4 are all Millennials. Federer could be described as a Xennial, born from 1977 to 1985, who are often described as having traits of both Millennials and the previous Generation X.

Older Millennials tend to remember analogue childhoods, i.e. without the internet and perhaps very few TV channels in some countries, which Generation X had through to adulthood at least. Younger Millennials, i.e. 1990s born, tend to remember the early internet from their childhoods, i.e. pre-social media.

The thing is that the generation intervals seem too long. As a 93 born I don't think I can relate to an 81 born.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Fed has 24 seasons on tour, with 18 of them overlapping with Nole's. But... but... maybe some of those 18 seasons don’t count because one of them was a non-factor?

Sure, 10 of Fed’s 15 year-end Top 3 finishes overlap with Nole’s—so, yes, there are 10 seasons they both finished in the Top 3.

Enough?

It is enough for anyone with triple digit

 

[Mustard]

The thing is that the generation intervals seem too long. As a 93 born I don't think I can relate to an 81 born.

There is a term, Zillennials, to describe people born from 1990 to 2000, having traits of Millennials (1981-1996 born) and Generation Z (1997-2012 born).

 

[Razer]

There is a term, Zillennials, to describe people born from 1990 to 2000, having traits of Millennials (1981-1996 born) and Generation Z (1997-2012 born).

For practical purposes a generation should be 18+ years IRL

When you are an adult then your body is almost grown up completely vertically, if you have a kid at 19 then by the time you are 37 that kid will be 18

So in multiples of 19 or make it like 20 for simple classification

20 40 60 80 100 can be your gen cut off

a 40 years old can be like a father figure for a 20 year old

Federer can be a father figure to Alcaraz & Sinner. Lendl can be a father figure for Federer.

So Lendl is 2 generations above Alcaraz/Sinner

 

[droliver]

"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"?

Objective results absolutely matter. It's bizarre to suggest winning 80%+ of matches and multiple master/major titles suggest a player is outside of their peak or prime years. The big 3 were the best players on the planet into their mid 30's.

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.

IF you're the #1 player in the world, you are still at your peak by definition in any sane discussion.

That's more to do with them playing the weakest generations ever rather than still playing peak tennis.

Is it though?

 

[Lleytonstation]

IF you're the #1 player in the world, you are still at your peak by definition in any sane discussion.

Or... it shows how weak that era was.

Fed had 14+ years separating his number ones, which is the most ever. This shows longevity at a high level, not necessarily HIS peak. Fed held it for a total of 8 weeks after 2012. If you want to say Fed was peak in 2012... fine. But the only reason he gained those other 8 weeks was because that era was so weak (2018).

Fed didn't peak for 14 years lol

 

[JMR]

Objective results absolutely matter.

Results of matches and tournaments are objective. But the determination of a player's "peak" is not entirely objective. That is why it's quite possible to dispute your contention that the Big 3 all had 10-year peaks.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Ultronians need so much validation lol

 

[MichaelNadal]

Same era but different generation.

Like Macho man and Shawn Michaels, they got to wrestle but they're from diff gens

 

[gamelovergold]

If fedrer and novak are of diffrent era then what about nadal .only 1 year elder than novak and gave competition to roger .
Then roger rafa rivaliry is not rivaliry because fedrer is diffrent era player. You will better know fedrer nadal rivialiry was as good as any other rivaliry. Novak didnt do anything noticable till roger won 16 but still he was playing since 2003.

 

[Lleytonstation]

If fedrer and novak are of diffrent era then what about nadal .only 1 year elder than novak and gave competition to roger .
Then roger rafa rivaliry is not rivaliry because fedrer is diffrent era player. You will better know fedrer nadal rivialiry was as good as any other rivaliry. Novak didnt do anything noticable till roger won 16 but still he was playing since 2003.

Rafa had 9 slams when Fed had 16. They were losing slams against each other years before Djoker won his second. Rafa had a early start to his peak and Djoker had a late one. Add that Rafa is a year younger and this is what you get.

 

[fedfan24]

Objective results absolutely matter. It's bizarre to suggest winning 80%+ of matches and multiple master/major titles suggest a player is outside of their peak or prime years. The big 3 were the best players on the planet into their mid 30's.

IF you're the #1 player in the world, you are still at your peak by definition in any sane discussion.

Is it though?

Why? You can still be number 1 at 80% of your powers if the generations following you are weak enough.

 

[zakopinjo]

Why? You can still be number 1 at 80% of your powers if the generations following you are weak enough.

The generations that follow him are not weak. A funny myth made up by Federer fans.

 

[TMF]

The generations that follow him are not weak. A funny myth made up by Federer fans.

It's true. The period between 2016-2023 is the weakest era of all time. Non-Fed fans have agreed that Djokovic inflated so many slams against the 90's born

 

[zakopinjo]

It's true. The period between 2016-2023 is the weakest era of all time. Non-Fed fans have agreed that Djokovic inflated so many slams against the 90's born

It is unlikely that there will be a weaker era than 2000-2006.

 

[fedfan24]

It is unlikely that there will be a weaker era than 2000-2006.

We’ve already seen one between 2016-2023. One that was even weaker and went on for longer.

 

[zakopinjo]

We’ve already seen one between 2016-2023. One that was even weaker and went on for longer.

 

[fedfan24]

The generations that follow him are not weak. A funny myth made up by Federer fans.

Tsitsipas, Ruud, Zverev, Berretini, Norrie is not weak?

 

[Razer]

Federer had 1 era (2003-2009) - weak era
Novak had 1 era (2018-2023) - super weak career inflation era

2011-2016 was Big 4 Era

2010 and 2017 were 2 anomalic years for vulturing cheap titles.

Is this a fair analysis ? @Lleytonstation

 

[Lleytonstation]

Federer had 1 era (2003-2009) - weak era
Novak had 1 era (2018-2023) - super weak career inflation era

2011-2016 was Big 4 Era

2010 and 2017 were 2 anomalic years for vulturing cheap titles.

Is this a fair analysis ? @Lleytonstation

Yes, this would be the correct answer.

While also acknowledging that the totality is what will be remembered, and what is ultimately all that matters.

But, it is also why Fed has a great argument for greatest ever if you only want to compare peaks. But I do not think having the best peak makes you the best ever.

 

[Razer]

Yes, this would be the correct answer.

While also acknowledging that the totality is what will be remembered, and what is ultimately all that matters.

But, it is also why Fed has a great argument for greatest ever if you only want to compare peaks. But I do not think having the best peak makes you the best ever.

Having best peak alone cannot be the criteria to be the GOAT, the final journey completion is what matters. If you drive your car like a god for 50% of the journey and then struggle after that, you will still lose to the car which drives slowly and with difficulty but finishes the journey,

 

[Mustard]

Or Federer and Agassi you could say.

There's the same age gap between Agassi and Federer as there is between Agassi and McEnroe, i.e. 11 years.

 

[SonnyT]

Djokovic didn't start consistently winning slams until 2011. Federer had already won 16 by then, so it's quite ridiculous to say they're from the same era.

But they played the second most slams of all time, only exceeded by 1 by Nadal-Djokovic! If Federer hadn't been 2-9 slams post-11 against Djokovic, he would've taken lots more slams! Federer had 8-12 non-slams post-11 against Djokovic BTW, so we couldn't say Djokovic took advantage of being younger! But we could say Djokovic was more clutch!

 

[TMF]

It is unlikely that there will be a weaker era than 2000-2006.

Don't be silly now. There has never been such a weak era like the CIE in the open era. We have gone through this before

 

[robert.s]

Different generations, but their paths overlapped when they were both excellent for 4-5 years. Young Djokovic gave prime Fed problems on HC, while older Fed also gave prime Djokovic problems. Very balanced match-up.

 

[Donkus_Reborn]

when Federer beats Djokovic it's the same era
when Federer loses to Djokovic it's a different era, even in 2007

 

[Unseeded Player]

Novak and Fed played H2H 50 matches, so yes, they are from the same era. Fed is from the older age group.