Level of competition: Djokovic era vs. Federer era

[AnOctorokForDinner]

What are those era arguments supposed to achieve? I thought it was about determining which player had it easier and faced weaker opposition. But the level of opposition a player meets in a particular match is determined by the level of play the opponent player shows in that match, since level of play is not a constant thing, and it is not entirely pre-determined by ranking or consistency. Hence, the only way to correctly measure which player had it easier, having to deal with less resistance, is to somehow work out a method of measuring the level of play of the opponent against the level of play of the player in question in every match during the analysed time span. 2011 is likely to come out on top, but I don't expect 2015 will, albeit likely neither will 2004-2007. And although 2012-2014 might've been more difficult, were they really so much stronger than 2004-2007 that Djokovic couldn't possibly do better? He's duly compensating for it now, though. It might even out in the end. So why bicker?

 

[The Fedfather]

Murray satisfied his seeding expectations as the number 2 player in the world and somehow this means he's "not necessarily more difficult to defeat in a big match"? Uh, yes, it does mean he's more difficult to defeat in a big match. If consistency of strong play doesn't matter, then I guess players shouldn't care about seeding and tournaments can be complete random draw, right? Somehow I don't think that will go over too well. As for Wawrinka, yes, he's 2-6 against Djokovic in the last 2 years while Murray is 1-11, but Murray has the better overall head-to-head against Djokovic 9-22 instead of Wawrinka's 4-19! Somehow Wawrinka getting 1 more win than Murray in the past 2 years suddenly means Wawrinka is a much bigger threat. That's not really the case. Who just lost to Raonic and who in turn beat Raonic?

Yeah, now that you mentioned Raonic. He was playing better than Murray in this AO and was 2 sets to 1 up against Andy. Then he injured his hip and lost the 4th and 5th sets. If it hadn't been for the injury there would've been a high chance of consistently-going-further-in-the-majors Murray losing to a player who doesn't have the consistency but has the game and, most importantly, guts to challenge any player including Djokovic.

 

[mattosgrant]

Yeah, now that you mentioned Raonic. He was playing better than Murray in this AO and was 2 sets to 1 up against Andy. Then he injured his hip and lost the 4th and 5th sets. If it hadn't been for the injury there would've been a high chance of consistently-going-further-in-the-majors Murray losing to a player who doesn't have the consistency but has the game and, most importantly, guts to challenge any player including Djokovic.

I mostly agree but FWIW Raonic has not actually proven he can challenge Djokovic. Would he have here? We will never know, but I guess we will have to wait until later this year to see for sure if he is now capable of doing this. He hasn't yet.

 

[zvelf]

Yeah, now that you mentioned Raonic. He was playing better than Murray in this AO and was 2 sets to 1 up against Andy. Then he injured his hip and lost the 4th and 5th sets. If it hadn't been for the injury there would've been a high chance of consistently-going-further-in-the-majors Murray losing to a player who doesn't have the consistency but has the game and, most importantly, guts to challenge any player including Djokovic.

What if's don't really matter, and the health of one's body is a very important factor for an athlete. If Raonic is more prone to injury whether due to his style or genetics, that takes away from Raonic, not Murray. Murray won and there shouldn't be an asterisk next to this win.

 

[zvelf]

What are those era arguments supposed to achieve? I thought it was about determining which player had it easier and faced weaker opposition. But the level of opposition a player meets in a particular match is determined by the level of play the opponent player shows in that match, since level of play is not a constant thing, and it is not entirely pre-determined by ranking or consistency. Hence, the only way to correctly measure which player had it easier, having to deal with less resistance, is to somehow work out a method of measuring the level of play of the opponent against the level of play of the player in question in every match during the analysed time span. 2011 is likely to come out on top, but I don't expect 2015 will, albeit likely neither will 2004-2007. And although 2012-2014 might've been more difficult, were they really so much stronger than 2004-2007 that Djokovic couldn't possibly do better? He's duly compensating for it now, though. It might even out in the end. So why bicker?

Here's the problem with trying to evaluate the level of play one player shows in one particular match:

1. You only know whether that player is playing better or worse than usual if you have the context of how they've played in the rest of the tournament, the year, and their career, so suddenly it's not the one match that you're actually looking at.

2. Maybe it's not your opponent that defeats you but you defeat yourself. You had a bad day. Or maybe the way your opponent played made you have a bad day. Or maybe it was both. That makes it extremely hard to know how much to credit your opponent.

3. Styles matter. Maybe your opponent has a style that exploits your weaknesses or inhibits your usual advantages than other styles or vice versa.

When Lukas Rosol beat Nadal at Wimbledon in 2012, he played the match of his life (then he lost his very next match to Kohlschreiber in straight sets). But what does that mean? Was his performance better than any performance ever by Nadal? How would you measure that? Would he have been able to beat Federer or Djokovic on that day or maybe their styles are different enough from Nadal's that just blitzing them with power wouldn't work? It's easy to tell how good a player is over time. It's very hard to gauge any single match.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Here's the problem with trying to evaluate the level of play one player shows in one particular match:

1. You only know whether that player is playing better or worse than usual if you have the context of how they've played in the rest of the tournament, the year, and their career, so suddenly it's not the one match that you're actually looking at.

2. Maybe it's not your opponent that defeats you but you defeat yourself. You had a bad day. Or maybe the way your opponent played made you have a bad day. Or maybe it was both. That makes it extremely hard to know how much to credit your opponent.

3. Styles matter. Maybe your opponent has a style that exploits your weaknesses or inhibits your usual advantages than other styles or vice versa.

When Lukas Rosol beat Nadal at Wimbledon in 2012, he played the match of his life (then he lost his very next match to Kohlschreiber in straight sets). But what does that mean? Was his performance better than any performance ever by Nadal? How would you measure that? Would he have been able to beat Federer or Djokovic on that day or maybe their styles are different enough from Nadal's that just blitzing them with power wouldn't work? It's easy to tell how good a player is over time. It's very hard to gauge any single match.

I believe matches offer enough statistical data that can be worked with, although it's anything but easy and straightforward. Strokes can be analysed. Of course, that could be a work of a lifetime. I wouldn't put my trust in anything else, though, or else I may end up clinging to an opinion that is not only wrong but also foolishly disrespectful. Which is why I'm not into that goat debate stuff much, it makes you hate people who've done nothing to earn it. I contend myself with measuring and comparing accomplishments, which is easy enough and based on pure facts, and doesn't necessarily provoke judgment, since greater accomplishments don't automatically translate to being 'better'.

 

[tennisaddict]

I guess you can't read because the only people who were high achievers in both Federer's era and Djokovic's era are Nadal and Federer and Djokovic.

This is your logic, right ?

Andy Roddick loses R1 of FO and reaches finals of wimbledon. He is a poor player.

Berdych makes QF of FO and SF of Wimb to get beat in straight sets to the big 4. He is a phenomenal player because he is consistent.

 

[VexlanderPrime]

So who Federer plays has no impact on how difficult his matches are and whether he is likely to win or lose? Good to know this is your stance. Would putting up a bunch of first graders against Federer say anything about his achievements if he beats them? Do you really believe this stuff?

Again, as numerous posters have tried to explain to you. IT DOESN"T MATTER WHAT THE COMPETITION IS. All that maters is the level of play of the particular ATG you're evaluating. Fed and Djoker have no control over who they face. Thus, the level of comp is completely irrelevant to judging a player's true greatness.

The best way to evaluate Fed and Djoker is to look at thier respective levels of play throughout their career and judge them on their heights and how long they sustained them.

 

[VexlanderPrime]

How can players who consistently reach the QF of majors and beyond not say anything about the quality of these tennis players? I already refuted NatF, who's saying stuff like "The toughness and level of play of an opponent in a match or tournament can't be gauged from how well they performed consistently across 5 years." Really? You two are just completely denying reality now. So Federer making it to 23 straight slam semis or better doesn't say anything about the quality of his tennis? That it only says something about his consistency? That's effectively what you two are saying. That's ridiculous on its face.

The fact that you can't grasp this very basic concept just destroys your credibility. As multiple posters have now tried to explain to you, if ERA1 has 1 10, and 9 6s and ERA 2 has 3 10s, a 9 and 6 6s. Which Era is stronger if both groups have identical consistency? Think about it for a few minutes and you'll see the gaping hole in your logic from the OP. Consistency tells you nothing about a players quality. Only that they had consistent results WITHIN THEIR ERA.

The bottom line is this: BOTH Fed and DJoker have experienced stretches of their careers where they did not have ATG opponents. Both ALSO had a stretch of years where they were part of 3/4 ATGs fighting it out during an incredibly competitive time. Thus, its fair to compare their slams results b/c their career arcs are relatively even.

 

[VexlanderPrime]

How can players who consistently reach the QF of majors and beyond not say anything about the quality of these tennis players? I already refuted NatF, who's saying stuff like "The toughness and level of play of an opponent in a match or tournament can't be gauged from how well they performed consistently across 5 years." Really? You two are just completely denying reality now. So Federer making it to 23 straight slam semis or better doesn't say anything about the quality of his tennis? That it only says something about his consistency? That's effectively what you two are saying. That's ridiculous on its face.

Which is totally irrelevant to me. I didn't post this because I'm a big Djokovic fanboy. I like Djokovic but he wouldn't be in a list of my 5 favorite tennis players. I posted this to stop claims that Djokovic has played in a weak era. 2015 may be comparatively weak, but so many people are acting like 2015 is the entire Djokovic era, which is ridiculous.



Right, but you also shouldn't expect Stan to beat three of the greatest players of all time. There's elite and then there's the very top. ot everyone can be at the very top.



Your criteria is nonsensical. If a bunch of players can beat Djokovic, who is arguably a top 5 player of all time, when Djokovic is playing very well, then we don't just have a strong era, we have the strongest era of all time. That standard shouldn't be necessary to say Djokovic played in a strong era. That said, 2008-2013 is a contender for strongest era of all time.

I don't even understand what we're arguing about then. By any measure we saw Fed dominate a weaker period without a ATG competitor, then we saw an incredibly competitive era with Fed/Rafa/Djoker, now its tailed off to just Djoker. Stats about consistency don't have any impact on that reality.

 

[nmanimaran15]

Just bc they don't slug around running behind the baseline doesn't mean anything. You don't make 4 and 5 FO finals sucking on clay. This opinion is based more on their style than reality.

I just can't understand. Are you coming to say fed&djoko are great clay court players? Federer won 10 while djokovic won just 7 in clay.

 

[zvelf]

@OP
Well, it’s a nice informative statistic and I appreciate it, but it doesn’t have any decisive meaning in considering which era is weak or not.

That’s simply because a slam result is always just a relative thing compared to the abilities of all other players in the same era.

Theoretically, all the players 2-12 from 2004-2008 can be better than all the players 2-12 from 2011-2015 and vice versa, and still a statistic like this won’t be the slightest indicator of which is the case in reality.

It’s the same with the dominance of one player against all others. A player who wins every match in a season can be mediocre himself and just play in a weak era OR can be the GOAT with even the 2nd best player of all time in his own era, if he is just so much ahead of anyone.

So such relative comparisons never mean too much.

News alert! All comparisons are relative. Your post rises to the how-do-you-know-everything-is-not-a-dream level of skepticism. Theoretically, anything is possible. In actual practice, your theoretical is virtually impossible unless a plane with players ranked 2-12 all happen to die in a plane crash. You think you sound smart, but all you're really saying is anything is possible so we shouldn't pay too much attention to evidence that you don't like because there is some very slight possibility it's wrong even if it's highly probable in being right.

 

[zvelf]

This is your logic, right ?

Andy Roddick loses R1 of FO and reaches finals of wimbledon. He is a poor player.

Berdych makes QF of FO and SF of Wimb to get beat in straight sets to the big 4. He is a phenomenal player because he is consistent.

Ha ha ha! Funny strawman, tennisaddict. I think Roddick was a very good player, and if you consider his whole career, he's definitely better than Berdych. However, the data shows that Berdych performed very narrowly better in the majors 2011-2015 than Roddick did 2004-2008. If you want to make up stuff and accuse me of believing your made-up stuff in order to attack something I didn't even say, well, that just makes you look bad.

 

[zvelf]

Again, as numerous posters have tried to explain to you. IT DOESN"T MATTER WHAT THE COMPETITION IS. All that maters is the level of play of the particular ATG you're evaluating. Fed and Djoker have no control over who they face. Thus, the level of comp is completely irrelevant to judging a player's true greatness.

Since you respond that the competition doesn't matter even in the face of my hypothetical of Federer beating a bunch of first graders, I can only respond with incredulity. As for judging a player's true greatness based on the level of competition, I'm not doing that at all. That you construe it this way just shows you have some ulterior motive that you're bringing into this discussion. Again, my only point here is to say that Djokovic 2011-2015 is not playing in a weaker era and that 2004-2008 had top players who achieved less against their peers relative to 2011-2015. I have already gone on record in this thread that I believe Federer and Sampras are greater players than Djokovic. I think Djokovic hasn't caught up to Nadal yet either. So no, this is not at all some roundabout way to prove Djokovic is "greater" which you seem to think I'm doing. Now Djokovic may well catch up and surpass all of them, but he hasn't done it yet in my opinion and I think he only has 3 years left to do it if he's going to.

 

[zvelf]

The fact that you can't grasp this very basic concept just destroys your credibility. As multiple posters have now tried to explain to you, if ERA1 has 1 10, and 9 6s and ERA 2 has 3 10s, a 9 and 6 6s. Which Era is stronger if both groups have identical consistency? Think about it for a few minutes and you'll see the gaping hole in your logic from the OP. Consistency tells you nothing about a players quality. Only that they had consistent results WITHIN THEIR ERA.

I already stated previously in this thread that consistency alone doesn't mean anything. Being consistent at losing in the 1st round is consistently bad. Consistently getting past the QF is consistently good. Players who are consistently good are better than players who are only occasionally good. Do you really deny that?

 

[zvelf]

Again, as numerous posters have tried to explain to you. IT DOESN"T MATTER WHAT THE COMPETITION IS.

Let me ask you one more question if you believe level of competition is irrelevant. Who do you think achieved more in winning their 2 Australian Opens - Stan Wawrinka or Johan Kriek?

 

[MichaelNadal]

I just can't understand. Are you coming to say fed&djoko are great clay court players? Federer won 10 while djokovic won just 7 in clay.

They are great CC players, but how do you get a CC title from Peakdal? It's like saying no one on tour is good on HC bc they can't win HC titles with peak Novak around.

 

[5555]

tennis_pro got owned by zvelf.

 

[beast of mallorca]

tennis_pro got owned by zvelf.

Hahaha, it appears that you don't like tennis_pro, 5 guy ?

 

[mattosgrant]

Hahaha, it appears that you don't like tennis_pro, 5 guy ?

I don't think anyone really does.

 

[I am the Greatest!]

Both federer and Djokovic are not great clay court players.If there was someone like Borg, it would be a different story. Nadal had the benefit of clay weak era.

Let's stop the weak era please. Learn to give credit.

 

[I am the Greatest!]

Not everything is about Novak vs. Federer or some GOAT war.

Some of us are fond of past generations. I can guarantee that prime Roddick would be a way bigger threat to Novak and Federer right now than Murray is. Roddick was pushing peak Federer at Wimbledon way more than Murray did last year. And even started beating Federer again in 2008 after Federer started to slip slightly.

That's just one example. The early 2000s had a bunch of young guys in their primes. Imagine if Sampras had no new generation to deal with and was still a top player in 2006. People would consider it a stronger era based on name recognition. That's the logic people are using.

+1000!

 

[Noelan]

I just can't understand. Are you coming to say fed&djoko are great clay court players? Federer won 10 while djokovic won just 7 in clay.

Actually Novak won 11 titles on clay (7 Masters and 4 ATP 250)

 

[nmanimaran15]

Actually Novak won 11 titles on clay (7 Masters and 4 ATP 250)

Thank you. Actually, l was arguing about whether nadal used the clay weak era, because there wasn't a clay GOAT like Borg to challenge him.

 

[I am the Greatest!]

Thank you. Actually, l was arguing about whether nadal used the clay weak era, because there wasn't a clay GOAT like Borg to challenge him.

If Nadal is not in the picture, Federer could have 5 Roland Garros trophies in his closet now, 6 if we're pushing it, and we would be talking about Federer vs. Borg as the greatest on clay. So no, we should never use the weak era argument.

 

[mattosgrant]

If Nadal is not in the picture, Federer could have 5 Roland Garros trophies in his closet now, 6 if we're pushing it, and we would be talking about Federer vs. Borg as the greatest on clay. So no, we should never use the weak era argument.

What is most confusing to me is I have seen some Federer fans use the weak clay era argument against Nadal, but then turn around and say Federer should be considered a top 3 clay courter all time because "without Nadal". Talk about a contradiction. I wouldn't be surprised if some of those people ranked Fed higher all time on clay than Nadal since Nadal is punished for supposably not facing a clay great or a deep clay field, thus dropping him outside the top 5 all time on clay or something, while Federer is awarded all the FO titles he would have without Nadal and put up in the top 3 all time on clay.

 

[I am the Greatest!]

What is most confusing to me is I have seen some Federer fans use the weak clay era argument against Nadal, but then turn around and say Federer should be considered a top 3 clay courter all time because "without Nadal". Talk about a contradiction. I wouldn't be surprised if some of those people ranked Fed higher all time on clay than Nadal since Nadal is punished for supposably not facing a clay great or a deep clay field, thus dropping him outside the top 5 all time on clay or something, while Federer is awarded all the FO titles he would have without Nadal and put up in the top 3 all time on clay.

The thing I see for Federer fans is that they are rebutting the weak era argument spouted by Nadal fans. If Federer was in the weak era, then Nadal greatly benefitted also as clay has the weakest field back then. You know.

 

[mattosgrant]

The thing I see for Federer fans is that they are rebutting the weak era argument spouted by Nadal fans. If Federer was in the weak era, then Nadal greatly benefitted also as clay has the weakest field back then. You know.

I can understand that logic on its own. However you cant devalue Nadal's historical place on clay due to a "weak clay field" then turn around and then give Federer (Nadal's lapdog on clay especialy) a really high ranking on clay, much higher than his achievements in fact. No way. Unless you want to look like an idiot. Basically if you are going to slant things to try and make a point, you had sure better remember the past slants you were making.

 

[nmanimaran15]

I can understand that logic on its own. However you cant devalue Nadal's historical place on clay due to a "weak clay field" then turn around and then give Federer (Nadal's lapdog on clay especialy) a really high ranking on clay, much higher than his achievements in fact. No way. Unless you want to look like an idiot. Basically if you are going to slant things to try and make a point, you had sure better remember the past slants you were making.

After Borg and wilander, clay has always been a weak field.Because, most of ATP events are in faster courts. So, most of players have been specialists in faster courts and they have not much of interest in clay events.Nadal targeted the weak field where there is no heavy competition obviously.

 

[Djokovic2011]

After Borg and wilander, clay has always been a weak field.Because, most of ATP events are in faster courts. So, most of players have been specialists in faster courts and they have not much of interest in clay events.Nadal targeted the weak field where there is no heavy competition obviously.

You obviously weren't watching tennis in the early to mid '90s. There were a load of great clay courters playing back then - Muster, Bruguera, Courier, Agassi, Corretja, Chang, Costa, Berasategui and Moya to name just a few. It was probably the deepest field of clay court players there's ever been in the men's game.

 

[nmanimaran15]

You obviously weren't watching tennis in the early to mid '90s. There were a load of great clay courters playing back then - Muster, Bruguera, Courier, Agassi, Corretja, Chang, Costa, Berastegui and Moya to name just a few. It was probably the deepest field of clay court players there's ever been in the men's game.

Yes.But, they weren't as great as Borg, even though they have won numerous clay titles including FO.Clay became more weak after 2000.It's sure.I am a djokovic fan but being neutral in this thread.And this thread is an extension of some nadal fan's post that accused both federer's era and djokovic's era are inferior than nadal's era.So, I had to accuse that nadal also used the clay weak era and won almost 46 titles in clay including 9 FO.

 

[5555]

Hahaha, it appears that you don't like tennis_pro, 5 guy ?

Who likes him?

 

[mike danny]

Ha ha ha! Funny strawman, tennisaddict. I think Roddick was a very good player, and if you consider his whole career, he's definitely better than Berdych. However, the data shows that Berdych performed very narrowly better in the majors 2011-2015 than Roddick did 2004-2008. If you want to make up stuff and accuse me of believing your made-up stuff in order to attack something I didn't even say, well, that just makes you look bad.

Did he though? Roddick reached 3 slam finals in 2004-2008 vs 0 that Berdych reached in 2011-2015.

 

[cknobman]

Strong era now? LMAO

As pointed out in another thread this is Andy Murray your current #2:

Since April 2013:

- 1-11 against Djokovic since Wimbledon 2013 as @Djokovic2011 pointed out (only win in Canada 2015)
- 0-5 against Federer (remember this is the same guy Djoker fans claims was product of weak era, oh and btw still was capable of beating Djokovic last year, winning masters, making GS finals, and making WTF all at age of 34)
- 1-3 against Nadal (only win in Madrid 2015)
- 0-3 against Wawrinka

 

[RF-18]

Fedr played in a JOKE era. Gonzales baghdatis ROTLMAO.

Djkovic is in another league

 

[cknobman]

Fedr played in a JOKE era. Gonzales baghdatis ROTLMAO.

Djkovic is in another league

 

[NatF]

Fedr played in a JOKE era. Gonzales baghdatis ROTLMAO.

Djkovic is in another league

I think you mean ROFLMAO.

Ironic that in your post you were talking about jokes...

 

[chjtennis]

Only recently(I think it was 2013), we had Federer, Ferrer, Haas, Youzhny, Robredo, etc., who were from around Fed's era occupying top 20 spots on ATP rankings, at their advanced age in terms of tennis career.

Same players reaching deep stage of slams repeatedly can also be interpreted as less competition, because that may be due to the fact that less quality on the field which ensures a slected group of players doing repeatedly well.

Personally, I think both eras are tougher than what people try to make out to be, and it is difficult to say which was/has been better. Plenty of players gave tough matches in Federer's peak, let's not forget. Federer came out as the winner most of the times, hence people think he had it easy all the way, but he had to win some battles. Same goes with Djokovic. In the end, just a little bit extra made the difference on the results.

 

[Druss]

Fedr played in a JOKE era. Gonzales baghdatis ROTLMAO.

Djkovic is in another league

Gonzalez was a tougher opponent than Tsonga '08. Had he not stopped Nadal in QF, we would have seen another Fedal final, and then suddenly it's not mentioned anymore as a 'weak slam'. So the guy makes 27 slam finals, has one easy slam (AO'06), and he's now cast out as a 'weak era' opportunist. Geez! What is Sampras then, since he had friggin half a dozen 'easier' ones. What a djoke of a poster RF18.

 

[mattosgrant]

Gonzalez was a tougher opponent than Tsonga '08.

I think it is a tough call. Both guys were playing incredibly well. I would say crushing 2008 Nadal on a hard court is tougher than doing likewise to 2007 Nadal though. Gonzalez's most impressive performance of all was probably the semis vs Haas where he had something like 45 winners and 5 unforced. However Tsonga had a super tough draw right from the start and blitzed it until the final. He has a more complete game than Gonzalez too who is pretty much an amazing forehand, but not much else.

 

[chjtennis]

I think it is a tough call. Both guys were playing incredibly well. I would say crushing 2008 Nadal on a hard court is tougher than doing likewise to 2007 Nadal though. Gonzalez's most impressive performance of all was probably the semis vs Haas where he had something like 45 winners and 5 unforced. However Tsonga had a super tough draw right from the start and blitzed it until the final. He has a more complete game than Gonzalez too who is pretty much an amazing forehand, but not much else.

It's tough to compare the two from those tournaments, but I think Gonzo at his peak was something special. When his game clicked, it was really tough to beat it. A bit like Wawrinka on his best days, or Soderling. Gonzalez from 2007 would've done something really big in 2013-2015, like winning slams.

 

[Druss]

I think it is a tough call. Both guys were playing incredibly well. I would say crushing 2008 Nadal on a hard court is tougher than doing likewise to 2007 Nadal though. Gonzalez's most impressive performance of all was probably the semis vs Haas where he had something like 45 winners and 5 unforced. However Tsonga had a super tough draw right from the start and blitzed it until the final. He has a more complete game than Gonzalez too who is pretty much an amazing forehand, but not much else.

How was Tsonga's '08 draw tougher than Gonzo's '07? Ok 1st Rd Murray for Tsonga, that was tough, but then he had an easy draw right through to the SF, Gasquet wasn't playing that well that year, so I will not be calling his 4th rd that tough. Gonzo had: a massive 2nd rd against a rising DelPo, 3rd rd vs Hewitt, 4th rd vs Blake on one of his best years (and playing better than Gasquet at the time), QF Nadal (not much difference to Nadal a year later) and that fantastic SF vs Haas. If you ask me that's a draw from hell, and he still made the final. Hence why I scoff at those dipsticks that say the AO'07 was a 'weak' slam for Fed. I hear your points though, but I'll still go with Gonzo '07 tougher than Tsonga '08 (slightly tougher). I remember watching a few matches of Gonzo back then, he was a beauty to watch, on fire.

 

[tennis_pro]

tennis_pro got owned by zvelf.

Hahaha, it appears that you don't like tennis_pro, 5 guy ?

I don't think anyone really does.

Who likes him?

I almost shed a tear. The world would collapse if my job was to make friends with Djokovic fans here.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Fedr played in a JOKE era. Gonzales baghdatis ROTLMAO.

Djkovic is in another league

Nothing's more joke-like than Stretch's current field.

 

[tennis_pro]

Fedr played in a JOKE era. Gonzales baghdatis ROTLMAO.

Djkovic is in another league

Oh no, not the "Baghdatis, Gonzalez LMAO" argument again. Who cares that 23 out of 27 finals he played against Slam winners when you have the Baghdatis finals that put a "weak era" stamp on Fed's entire career.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Oh no, not the "Baghdatis, Gonzalez LMAO" argument again. Who cares that 23 out of 27 finals he played against Slam winners when you have the Baghdatis finals that put a "weak era" stamp on Fed's entire career.

Not just that, it's coming from a guy who supports someone that's mopping up a field much weaker than the one they tease Fed about.

Honestly, today's field is comparable to 1996-1998.

 

[tennis_pro]

Not just that, it's coming from a guy who supports someone that's mopping up a field much weaker than the one they tease Fed about.

Honestly, today's field is comparable to 1996-1998.

It is, with one exception. A 25-27 year old Sampras wasn't good enough to take full advantage of it the same way Djokovic does now. I mean 1998 alone - Sampras had similar results that year to Del Potro's 2009. Sampras finished the year at no 1, Del Potro barely made the top 5.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

It is, with one exception. A 25-27 year old Sampras wasn't good enough to take full advantage of it the same way Djokovic does now. I mean 1998 alone - Sampras had similar results that year to Del Potro's 2009. Sampras finished the year at no 1, Del Potro barely made the top 5.

Djoker hasn't had to deal with diverse playing conditions though. I also thought Sampras won a Super 9 or 2 + Masters Cup a year at that point? Not too sure on 1998 though.

The point is that today's field is an absolute joke and Nole's fans have no right putting crap on other ATGs for their competition.

 

[tennis_pro]

Djoker hasn't had to deal with diverse playing conditions though. I also thought Sampras won a Super 9 or 2 + Masters Cup a year at that point? Not too sure on 1998 though.

The point is that today's field is an absolute joke and Nole's fans have no right putting crap on other ATGs for their competition.

The one year that they can is 2006 but even there Nadal was in his clay prime (didn't lose a single match that year). The problem is that this weak era is going for more than a year now with absolutele no sight of improvement for at least another year or two.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

The one year that they can is 2006 but even there Nadal was in his clay prime (didn't lose a single match that year). The problem is that this weak era is going for more than a year now with absolutele no sight of improvement for at least another year or two.

2006 was probably a little stronger than today due to Nadal's presence. We also had young guns with real potential in Murray/Djoker/Del Potro/Berdych. Today we have nobody. People talk about 14 year old juniors today because everyone who's 20-25 isn't showing up.