#### The_Mental_Giant

##### Hall of Fame

Djokovic prime 2008-2014

Nadal prime 2005-2011

Murray prime 2012-2013

Federer Prime 2003-2009

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter The_Mental_Giant
- Start date

Djokovic prime 2008-2014

Nadal prime 2005-2011

Murray prime 2012-2013

Federer Prime 2003-2009

Nadal was not winning anything big off-clay before 2008, so primes are like this:

Federer: prime 2003-2009

Nadal: prime 2007-2013

Djokovic: prime 2008-2014

Murray: prime 2008-2013

So yes, Nadal/Djokovic/Murray are of the same generation. Federer is of the past generation.

I think generations should be defined in terms of age. If Milos Raonic peaks in his late 20s would anyone consider him part of Coric's generation?

Ferrer peaked in 2011-2013. Is he part of Djokovic's generation?

Raonic will be a mug forever. There is no peaking with serve only players. He has limited talent

Last edited:

Also his body's mileage is much higher and closer to Fed's than to Djokovic/Murray's - Especially Djokovic's who plays more offensive flavor of tennis i.e less taxing on the body, than Nadal and Murray.

Djokovic prime 2008-2014

Nadal prime 2005-2011

Murray prime 2012-2013

Federer Prime 2003-2009

BTW,

Novak's prime is 2011-now

Murrays prime is 2012-2013

Federer's prime is 2003-2009

Nadal's prime is 2005-2011

You completely missed Novak's prime.

So clearly Djokovic and Murray are the same generation and Nadal's gneration is much closer to Federer than to Djokovic/Murray

Nadal was not winning anything big off-clay before 2008, so primes are like this:

Federer: prime 2003-2009

Nadal: prime 2007-2013

Djokovic: prime 2008-2014

Murray: prime 2008-2013

So yes, Nadal/Djokovic/Murray are of the same generation. Federer is of the past generation.

I agree. For once, me and Torpie agreed. Sweeet:twisted:

Nadal was not winning anything big off-clay before 2008, so primes are like this:

Federer: prime 2003-2009

Nadal: prime 2007-2013

Djokovic: prime 2008-2014

Murray: prime 2008-2013

So yes, Nadal/Djokovic/Murray are of the same generation. Federer is of the past generation.

Nadal has indoor title in 2005, he won quite a few hardcourt titles in 2005/2006.

Compare the amount of titles nadal has from 2004-2010 and those of djokovic and murray

The bulk of Djokovic and Murray titles are from 2011+

Lets see djokovic 2011-2014

15 m1000, 6 slams , 2 (3?) WTF , 3YE1 ,29 (30?) titles

Djokovic until 2010

1 slam, 5 m1000, 1wtf, 18 titles.

Nadal 2011-2014

5 slams ,9 m1000 ,1 YE1 ,21 titles

Nadal until 2010

9 slams ,18 m1000 ,2 YE1 ,43 titles

Last edited:

BTW,

Novak's prime is 2011-now

Murrays prime is 2012-2013

Federer's prime is 2003-2009

Nadal's prime is 2005-2011

You completely missed Novak's prime.

So clearly Djokovic and Murray are the same generation and Nadal's gneration is much closer to Federer than to Djokovic/Murray

Yeah 2008 wasnt prime djokovic lol

Djokovic prime started in 2008, now his absolute peak was 2011-early 2012.

'Some people get very confused about my game,’ he argued. ‘They think it’s better if the court is slow, because I have a good defence. But the faster it is, the better for me. My spin is more painful for my opponents, my aggressive game works better.'

More: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/te...rs-Novak-Djokovic-isnt-one.html#ixzz3G3sEnaEY

I think generations should be defined in terms of age. If Milos Raonic peaks in his late 20s would anyone consider him part of Coric's generation?

Ferrer peaked in 2011-2013. Is he part of Djokovic's generation?

Pretty much sums it.

The correct statement would be:

D

Nadal was not winning anything big off-clay before 2008, so primes are like this:

Federer: prime 2003-2009

Nadal: prime 2007-2013

Djokovic: prime 2008-2014

Murray: prime 2008-2013

So yes, Nadal/Djokovic/Murray are of the same generation. Federer is of the past generation.

I don't understand your logic. Nadal's prime started in 2007 because "he didn't win anything big off-clay before 2008", but Murray and Djokovic hit their primes in 2008..why? Because they won something big off-hard court in 2008? That's not correct.

In fact, after winning his first Major, Djokovic didn't reach another Major final until USO 2010 (that's two and a half years later) and Murray lost his next Major final (AO 2010), year and a half after he reached his first. By this logic, Nadal was already in his prime in 2005.

Up until 2008, Nadal had won three Masters titles on hard court and had reached two Wimbledon finals. The reason why he didn't win at Wimbledon lies in the fact that he had to play Federer, seven time champion now, but he would have beaten anybody else. Compare this to Djokovic's and Murray's resume until 2011/2012 respectively and you'll see the difference. His 2005/2006/2007 seasons were much, much better than any of Djokovic's and Murray's between 2008-2010.

Last edited by a moderator:

Djokovic prime 2008-2014

Nadal prime 2005-2011

Murray prime 2012-2013

Federer Prime 2003-2009

Djoko had only 1 slam up to 2011.

Results in 2007 >>>results in 2010.

In both these years he reached a slam final,but in 2007 he won 2 masters titles vs no masters final in 2010, had more top 10 victories in 2007 than in 2010 and in 2007 he reached 2 additional slam semis vs only 1 in 2010.

If 2010 Djokovic is prime, then so is 2007 Djokovic.

You could argue Djokovic started his prime in the summer of 2007, when Montreal began.

2007 and 2008 are pretty similar outside of clay. It's just that in 2007 Djokovic was unlucky to face peak Federer at the USO, otherwise he would have won his first slam at USO 2007.

Nadal is not a generation; Nadal is a decade.

Yeah 2008 wasnt prime djokovic lol

Djokovic prime started in 2008, now his absolute peak was 2011-early 2012.

LOL 2009 and 2010 Djokovic is nowhere near his prime. Only because he won a slam in 2008 does not mean that his prime started.

LOL 2009 and 2010 Djokovic is nowhere near his prime. Only because he won a slam in 2008 does not mean that his prime started.

You cant be number 2-3 in the world at any sport if you are not in your PRIME.

You cant be number 2-3 in the world at any sport if you are not in your PRIME.

Why not? Of course you can.

So according to you current #2 Federer and #3 Nadal are still in their prime now? i.e. If Djokovic was in his prime in 2008 than Federer is in his prime now and Nadal is in his prime now as well.

So everyone above, please change Fed's and Nadal's primes to include present time. :roll:

Last edited:

BTW,

Novak's prime is 2011-now

Murrays prime is 2012-2013

Federer's prime is 2003-2009

Nadal's prime is 2005-2011

You completely missed Novak's prime.

So clearly Djokovic and Murray are the same generation and Nadal's gneration is much closer to Federer than to Djokovic/Murray

His prime is from 2008-now. He won a grand slam title that year and WTFs title.

It was from there his career started to become something more (winning the biggest titles) than before.

He finally got his breakthrough/peaked in late 2010 and started to beat the top, top players more consistently, hence winning just more and more of the biggest titles.

Djokovic prime 2008-2014

Nadal prime 2005-2011

Murray prime 2012-2013

Federer Prime 2003-2009

Yes they are. Tennis is a physical sports first and foremost. Thousands years of evolution determines human male's peak performance physically is around 24. After 24 the tennis game can still evolve or improve from the mental part. But it is impossible to have an objective measure of mental peak. So I think when we talk about prime we should be meaning the physical prime. Fortunately the physical prime coincide with the results pretty well.

Why not? Of course you can.

So according to you current #2 Federer and #3 Nadal are still in their prime now? i.e. If Djokovic was in his prime in 2008 than Federer is in his prime now and Nadal is in his prime now as well.

So everyone above, please change Fed's and Nadal's primes to include present time. :roll:

If you are in top 3 present time than you are clearly in your Prime. We are talking about a sport that had reached the very highs of its evolution. Considering your logic than a 33 old Zlatan Ibrahimovic is not a top 5 footballer in the world because of his age. Age is just a number, two centuries ago people had life expentency 35-40, now you look some chick at 35 and you are "Damn I want to bang her so bad" when in the past at this age he was considered a grandma.

Results in 2007 >>>results in 2010.

In both these years he reached a slam final,but in 2007 he won 2 masters titles vs no masters final in 2010, had more top 10 victories in 2007 than in 2010 and in 2007 he reached 2 additional slam semis vs only 1 in 2010.

If 2010 Djokovic is prime, then so is 2007 Djokovic.

You could argue Djokovic started his prime in the summer of 2007, when Montreal began.

2007 and 2008 are pretty similar outside of clay. It's just that in 2007 Djokovic was unlucky to face peak Federer at the USO, otherwise he would have won his first slam at USO 2007.

Result-wise yes. But we should give it a rest. Prime should be assessed from development point of view. 2007 is not prime Djokovic. That's his first major year on tour. Age 19-20. Bit unfair to him. He was a better player from 2008. If he performed worse in 2010, that's his mistake. If he performed worse in 2007, its not his mistake. That's my criterion to judge whether a player was in prime or not.

If you are in top 3 present time than you are clearly in your Prime. We are talking about a sport that had reached the very highs of its evolution. Considering your logic than a 33 old Zlatan Ibrahimovic is not a top 5 footballer in the world because of his age. Age is just a number, two centuries ago people had life expentency 35-40, now you look some chick at 35 and you are "Damn I want to bang her so bad" when in the past at this age he was considered a grandma.

So much win in this post.

Result-wise yes. But we should give it a rest. Prime should be assessed from development point of view. 2007 is not prime Djokovic. That's his first major year on tour. Age 19-20. Bit unfair to him. He was a better player from 2008. If he performed worse in 2010, that's his mistake. If he performed worse in 2007, its not his mistake. That's my criterion to judge whether a player was in prime or not.

He finished 2006 in top 20!!! 2007 is clearly in his Prime, 3 Masters + a Slam final.

Djokovic had his 3rd best American HC season in 2007, behing only his peak years 2011 and 2012.Result-wise yes. But we should give it a rest. Prime should be assessed from development point of view. 2007 is not prime Djokovic. That's his first major year on tour. Age 19-20. Bit unfair to him. He was a better player from 2008. If he performed worse in 2010, that's his mistake. If he performed worse in 2007, its not his mistake. That's my criterion to judge whether a player was in prime or not.

2014 is his worst American HC season since he came to the top.

If in 2007 he had better results than in 2010, he was a worthy opponent in 2007 as well

D

He finished 2006 in top 20!!! 2007 is clearly in his Prime, 3 Masters + a Slam final.

It's hard to say when someone's prime has started and what exactly 'being in prime' means. If it's determined by player's results, then you could argue that Federer was in his prime in 2012 and in 2014, because his results in those years are really impressive and he finished/finishes as world's No. 2, but that's far from reality, IMO.

Last edited by a moderator:

BSNadal was winning early on clay, because he's simply so great on it and competition like Coria folded after 2005.

Nadal was not winning anything big off-clay before 2008, so primes are like this:

Federer: prime 2003-2009

Nadal: prime 2007-2013

Djokovic:prime 2008-2014

Murray:prime 2008-2013

So yes, Nadal/Djokovic/Murray are of the same generation. Federer is of the past generation.

if Nadal pre 2007 doesn't count then Djoko before 2011 doesn't count and Murray before 2012 doesn't count.

1. "Generation" is a chronological concept. In tennis terms, it equals ~5 years. If you start tinkering with the definition of a tennis generation based on when different players experience success, the term becomes meaningless. It's always been the case that some players are precocious, while others are average for their age, or even late bloomers. Tennis players of roughly the same age should not be included in, or excluded from, a particular generation merely because of when they happened to start playing well.

2. "Prime" and "peak" are terribly malleable terms that, IMO, are best avoided. Not only are they almost impossible to define, they also tend to be used disingenuously more often than not. In other words, the usual motive for claiming that a player was in his "prime" or "at peak" during a particular time in his career is to try to eliminate excuses for a significant loss. It's always the

3. I mark the boundary between a top player's early, formative years on the tour and his mature phase by the first slam final. (I call this the player's "launch" date.) For Federer, this was 2003; for Nadal, 2005; for Djokovic, 2007; for Murray, 2008. Obviously, there's a lot of overlap in the careers of these players, despite the fact that they represent two distinct generations, but it's also clear that they do not have identical trajectories.

This. His trophies are scattered on a longer period because of his precocious start and because of his injuries. Nadal made his first USO final two years after Murray's and 3 years after Djokovic's. That should be a proof he's part of the same generation, regardless of his FO and WIMBLEDON great early performances.

Also, Nadal's first AO win came one year after Djokovic's.

He was a precocious player Nadal, but on FO and Wimbledon mostly.

Last edited:

He finished 2006 in top 20!!! 2007 is clearly in his Prime, 3 Masters + a Slam final.

1. Federer finished inside top 15 in 2001. But 2002 is his prime? Federer had a Masters win and a final show as well. As long as you're fair enough that's OK.

2. Djokovic had 2 Masters and final.

The problem I see with this kind of result based manipulation is that it doesn't vindicate a truly good player for achieving that extra normal players dont. I have known people saying Agassi was in his prime in 2005 because he made a final. As long as people are consistent with their logic it's fine. Federer's performance this year is good enough for him to be in prime too I suppose. Djokovic is a truly good player. Much like Federer. Both of these guys are going to show brilliance in their early career and their late career. The problem when you're not careful when assessing primes is that you fine a player for losing. Since in 2007 Djokovic is prime, it can be argued Federer beat a prime Djokovic in a Slam. It has the implication that it was Djoker's mistake to not have beaten Federer. I find it silly. But as I said, as long as you're consistent. Universe will act from its sense of truth and justice for 19-20 yr old being in prime where as goats need 21-22, two more years to be in prime, I hope!

Last edited:

Djokovic had his 3rd best American HC season in 2007, behing only his peak years 2011 and 2012.

2014 is his worst American HC season since he came to the top.

If in 2007 he had better results than in 2010, he was a worthy opponent in 2007 as well

If Djoker could perform well on those American HCs it has to be assumed he was a natural on hard surface. Worthy opponent? May be. But is 2007 a year in which you count his records or would you consider it as the first sign of truly great champion player emerging? Your pick. This is what I wrote for another post:

The problem I see with this kind of result based manipulation is that it doesn't vindicate a truly good player for achieving that extra normal players dont. I have known people saying Agassi was in his prime in 2005 because he made a final. As long as people are consistent with their logic it's fine. Federer's performance this year is good enough for him to be in prime too I suppose. Djokovic is a truly good player. Much like Federer. Both of these guys are going to show brilliance in their early career and their late career. The problem when you're not careful when assessing primes is that you fine a player for losing. Since in 2007 Djokovic is prime, it can be argued Federer and Nadal beat a prime Djoker in a Slam. It has the implication that it was Djoker's mistake to not have beaten Federer. I find it silly. But as I said, as long as you're consistent. Universe will act from its sense of truth and justice for 19-20 yr old being in prime where as goats need 21-22, two more years to be in prime, I hope!

Last edited:

Federer's generation is with Safin, Hewitt, Roddick who took out Sampras-Agassi's decade.

Simply similar age group who are ~10+ year younger than Sampras-Agassi group.

Federer's prime prime is 2004-2007.

Nadal is same generation with Djokovic and Murray. Similar age group.

5-6 year younger than Federer-Safin-Hewitt-Roddick.

Nadal just crossed with Federer's 2 3rd of prime years because he just

could hang with top players right after debut at the age of 17.

We are still in the era of Nadal-Djokovic-Murray group. We have yet to see

how this group will fare against next generarion (in the mean time, Federer

still hangs around. )

A lot of people have been saying Nadal would not last long but his career

at the top class already lasted a decade or more.

Simply similar age group who are ~10+ year younger than Sampras-Agassi group.

Federer's prime prime is 2004-2007.

Nadal is same generation with Djokovic and Murray. Similar age group.

5-6 year younger than Federer-Safin-Hewitt-Roddick.

Nadal just crossed with Federer's 2 3rd of prime years because he just

could hang with top players right after debut at the age of 17.

We are still in the era of Nadal-Djokovic-Murray group. We have yet to see

how this group will fare against next generarion (in the mean time, Federer

still hangs around. )

A lot of people have been saying Nadal would not last long but his career

at the top class already lasted a decade or more.

Last edited:

- Replies
- 58

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 40

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 39

- Views
- 1K

- Poll

- Replies
- 57

- Views
- 3K