The Big Three Slam Race In Age

[Hitman]

They keep shooting themselves in the foot. If he's the GOAT, how can his prime be that short?

Straight setted both Kafelnikov and Safin in DC as well who were both higher ranked at the time.

I forgot about the Guga losses and those were in 2003 and 2004, so he's backed himself into a corner and no waving those away. Guga owned Federer's arse and that's final. lol

Again, it's just grasping and not arguing in good faith.

Exactly.

In 2002 Federer also made his first masters final in Miami where he outplayed the world number one Hewitt, only to be outplayed by that old man Agassi again...and then won Hamburg. The fact he ended 2002 inside the top ten....why should we turn a blind eye to it?

And yes, Guga is in fact 2-1 against Federer, and one of those wins, the biggest win of them all, at RG 2004 was after Federer had won two slams and was world number one and favorite to win RG....so what happened? Why did Guga own him while being past his prime?

Too bad Guga didn't stick around like Henman and Agassi for Federer to vulture some wins against him.

Of course he is not arguing in good faith, he is simply hating, because Djokovic won the slam race. Most here don't argue in good faith, they are just bitter and want to trash Djokovic, call him this and call him that to feel better.

 

[NoleFam]

Exactly.

In 2002 Federer also made his first masters final in Miami where he outplayed the world number one Hewitt, only to be outplayed by that old man Agassi again...and then won Hamburg. The fact he ended 2002 inside the top ten....why should we turn a blind eye to it?

And yes, Guga is in fact 2-1 against Federer, and one of those wins, the biggest win of them all, at RG 2004 was after Federer had won two slams and was world number one and favorite to win RG....so what happened? Why did Guga own him while being past his prime?

Too bad Guga didn't stick around like Henman and Agassi for Federer to vulture some wins against him.

Of course he is not arguing in good faith, he is simply hating, because Djokovic won the slam race. Most here don't argue in good faith, they are just bitter and want to trash Djokovic, call him this and call him that to feel better.

I should have thought about Guga from the beginning and shut his whole schtick down from the jump. Like I said before though, bringing up h2hs as a Federer fan isn't the path you want to take.

Of course he's hating. He's hating on Djokovic 24/7 everyday. I've yet to see a day when he's not posting something negative about Djokovic because he's mad he's #1 on every major record.

 

[Hitman]

I should have thought about Guga from the beginning and shut his whole schtick down from the jump. Like I said before though, bringing up h2hs as a Federer fan isn't the path you want to take.

Of course he's hating. He's hating on Djokovic 24/7 everyday. I've yet to see a day when he's not posting something negative about Djokovic because he's mad he's #1 on every major record.

Yep, but not just, but how stupid does it sound to say Wawrinka's prime started when he was 28 after he won his first slam, using that dumb logic....I guess Stan wasn't prime in that epic AO 2013 match against Djokovic then....the highest non prime level ever. LMAO

As for him hating, he does it consistently, but he is not the only one. We know there are quite a few who walk that line, and want to stick the knives in because how dare he do his job and win titles?

Too bad for the haters that Djokovic got all the biggest records.

 

[mike danny]

Federer should have won more in 2010-2015. No excuses. He showed he still had the level to win slams in 2017.

Djokovic should’ve won more in 2012-2014 in his actual prime years

 

[NoleFam]

Yep, but not just, but how stupid does it sound to say Wawrinka's prime started when he was 28 after he won his first slam, using that dumb logic....I guess Stan wasn't prime in that epic AO 2013 match against Djokovic then....the highest non prime level ever. LMAO

As for him hating, he does it consistently, but he is not the only one. We know there are quite a few who walk that line, and want to stick the knives in because how dare he do his job and win titles?

Too bad for the haters that Djokovic got all the biggest records.

Yea it makes no sense like it's not the player's fault he didn't push forward enough to start winning big at a younger age. So they move the goalpost to fit their hypocritical point of view.

Yep too bad, so sad. I guess trolling and hating everyday is cathartic though.

 

[Hitman]

Djokovic should’ve won more in 2012-2014 in his actual prime years

Djokovic from 2011 to 2016 RG - Basically five and half seasons won 11 slams

Federer from 2003 W to 2008 - Basically five and half seasons won 13 slams

There isn't that much difference.

 

[mike danny]

Djokovic from 2011 to 2016 RG - Basically five and half seasons won 11 slams

Federer from 2003 W to 2008 - Basically five and half seasons won 13 slams

There isn't that much difference.

Yes, but this was in response to the poster who said Fed should’ve done better in 2010-2015 like Djokovic has no faults of his own

 

[Hitman]

Yea it makes no sense like it's not the player's fault he didn't push forward enough to start winning big at a younger age. So they move the goalpost to fit their hypocritical point of view.

Yep too bad, so sad. I guess trolling and hating everyday is cathartic though.

Yes, it is sad, if that is what takes for you to get your kicks.

And all these goalpost shifts are like dominos, a slight flick and they collapse in spectacular fashion. Like it is being used against Djokovic that he he won a slam early to lay the boots into him.

 

[Hitman]

Yes, but this was in response to the poster who said Fed should’ve done better in 2010-2015 like Djokovic has no faults of his own

They all can do better, but they are only human, and it is absurd.

 

[vix]

Mm that’s not apples to apples though. 2011 was basically Djoker’s peak and he was turning 24 at the time. Fed was emerging in 03 and was turning 22. A more accurate comparison is 2005 Fed to 2011 Djokovic (same age, coincidentally both pretty peak). Likewise 2009 Djoker vs 2003 Fed, 2010 Djoker vs 2004 Fed.. things get very ugly for Djoker here, at least prime for prime. Ties into...

It's also not apples to apples to compare Novak's and Roger's results in their 20s. BTW, you could replace Federer 2003 with Novak 2018/19 and I think he still would do a lot of damage.

PS: It'll basically never be apples to apples in these GOAT discussions, because it involves age, form, competition, etc. Which is extremely unlikely to overlap. And then there are some people that link form to results, for example, some people would consider Nadal 2012 AO peak had he won, but since he lost, the same people will say it was not his peak. So in a sense, everything but results are subjective.
Also, it's pointless to put such a range like success before and after 30. Why not 29? 31? 32?

 

[manley0702]

Djokovic won Slam 13 finals against Nadal, Federer, Murray who were better than Roddick, and 4 finals against Medvedev, Thiem and Del Potro who were as good as Roddick.

Medvedev, Thiem, and old Delpo were not on Roddick's level. Give me a break.

 

[junkieballer]

Medvedev, Thiem, and old Delpo were not on Roddick's level. Give me a break.

29-30 years is old now?

Grand Slam wins over top10s:

Medvedev 12
Del Potro 12
Thiem 9
Roddick 6

 

[GoatNo1]

Medvedev, Thiem, and old Delpo were not on Roddick's level. Give me a break.

they were better! "old" potro was no3 and 29 YO when nole won vs him at USO18 final! nole was himself 31!

rodick elo vs fed: 2142, 2251, 2238, 2192, 2188
hewitt: 2207, 2258, 2279, 2271
agassi: 2213, 2219, 2235
denko: 2121
safin: 2103
rafa: 2405, 2410 (the only one over 2300, 2nd highest being 2279)

nole vs
med: 2266, 2300
thiem: 2239
raz: 2285
tsitsi: 2208, 2267, 2181
zver: 2187
sinner: 2146, 2155
potro: 2298
kyrgios: 2136
fed: 2340, 2394
rafa: 2388, 2419, 2424

 

[manley0702]

29-30 years is old now?

Grand Slam wins over top10s:

Medvedev 12
Del Potro 12
Thiem 9
Roddick 6

they were better! "old" potro was no3 and 29 YO when nole won vs him at USO18 final! nole was himself 31!

Maybe you two haven't been around tennis for very long, but people age at different speeds. In Delpo's case, he had 4 wrist surgeries before the age of 26. So yes, he was shot by 29 years old, and everyone back then knew it.

 

[junkieballer]

Maybe you two haven't been around tennis for very long, but people age at different speeds. In Delpo's case, he had 4 wrist surgeries before the age of 26. So yes, he was shot by 29 years old, and everyone back then knew it.

If anything he played less so he had less mileage on his body.

 

[GoatNo1]

Maybe you two haven't been around tennis for very long, but people age at different speeds. In Delpo's case, he had 4 wrist surgeries before the age of 26. So yes, he was shot by 29 years old, and everyone back then knew it.

he was no3 and had elo of 2298 that is higher than any feds rival in 03-07 beside of rafa

 

[manley0702]

If anything he played less so he had less mileage on his body.

Surgery puts more miles on a body than any amount of tennis.

he was no3 and had elo of 2298 that is higher than any feds rival in 03-07 beside of rafa

That's great, but everyone knew the clock was ticking. He couldn't stay healthy long so he had to be awesome in short bursts.

 

[TMF]

29-30 years is old now?

Grand Slam wins over top10s:

Medvedev 12
Del Potro 12
Thiem 9
Roddick 6

Roddick had strong competition and is 5-4 against Djokovic

 

[GoatNo1]

Surgery puts more miles on a body than any amount of tennis.

That's great, but everyone knew the clock was ticking. He couldn't stay healthy long so he had to be awesome in short bursts.

still he played the USO final being no3 and having higher ELO than any feds opponent not named rafa in 03-07 era! so that potro was better player than any player bar rafa that fed faced in 05-07 period and he was better than rafa (who did not reach any HC slam final before 2008) on HC in that period too!

 

[GoatNo1]

Roddick had strong competition and is 5-4 against Djokovic

roddick about his competition and facing real no1e:

"At the 2012 London Olympics, I was unseeded and faced Novak Djokovic in the second round. I had won two of the previous three tournaments before the Olympics, and I felt that Wimbledon is the place where I can still catch lightning in a bottle and make a bit of run, feeling great at practice that week. At that point, I had a decent record against Novak, but he beat me like a drum; I felt like a child on the court, winning just three games on grass! I served average, which is never smart against Novak, but I was walking off the court thinking that I didn't play bad; he was simply that better. I started to think this game is getting a bit different from what I have been used to and that the guys from the top are like from another planet; that was an eye-opening moment for me,"

 

[TMF]

roddick about his competition and facing real no1e:

"At the 2012 London Olympics, I was unseeded and faced Novak Djokovic in the second round. I had won two of the previous three tournaments before the Olympics, and I felt that Wimbledon is the place where I can still catch lightning in a bottle and make a bit of run, feeling great at practice that week. At that point, I had a decent record against Novak, but he beat me like a drum; I felt like a child on the court, winning just three games on grass! I served average, which is never smart against Novak, but I was walking off the court thinking that I didn't play bad; he was simply that better. I started to think this game is getting a bit different from what I have been used to and that the guys from the top are like from another planet; that was an eye-opening moment for me,"

5-4 buddy, no excuses is going to change the fact that Roddick can beat your boy

 

[junkieballer]

Roddick had strong competition and is 5-4 against Djokovic

Thiem 5-2 vs Federer

 

[TMF]

The logic was to win the mots slams in his time, whatever that number may be.

Sampras and Federer didn't race each other, because Sampras won his last slam in 2002 and didn't play a single match. His slam race run was over. Federer's first slam was W 2003. They didn't really overlap.

Federer, Nadal and Djokovic were all directly taking slams off of each other.

It seems you don't like the term Race - You should talk to ATP/ITF about it, this is their coined term, not mine.

And neither is Federer and Djokovic were racing against one another. Federer end is dominance with 16 slam by the end 2010 and Djokovic start to take over in 2011.

I don't need to talk to anyone because I know how to use "race" correctly, you don't.

 

[manley0702]

still he played the USO final being no3 and having higher ELO than any feds opponent not named rafa in 03-07 era! so that potro was better player than any player bar rafa that fed faced in 05-07 period and he was better than rafa (who did not reach any HC slam final before 2008) on HC in that period too!

No. Delpo in 2018 was not a better opponent than 06-07 Rafa. That's absurd.

5-4 buddy, no excuses is going to change the fact that Roddick can beat your boy

Yeah. Even with the statement from Roddick, the man is so self-deprecating, it's hard to take him seriously.

 

[GoatNo1]

5-4 buddy, no excuses is going to change the fact that Roddick can beat your boy

as long as it is 31-29 and 27-23 i am just fine with those 5-4!

 

[Hitman]

And neither is Federer and Djokovic were racing against one another. Federer end is dominance with 16 slam by the end 2010 and Djokovic start to take over in 2011.

I don't need to talk to anyone because I know how to use "race" correctly, you don't.

You clearly do need to talk to the ATP/ITF because they coined the phrase. If you don't like it, write them a letter and explanation your frustration and stance.

Federer's dominance ended and Djokovic's started....and you think they are 100% independent events. OK.

Federer could potentially have had a multi slam season in 2011 if not for Djokovic.

These three directly impacted each other's slam count, it doesn't matter when you think one's dominance ends and the other's starts,

 

[GoatNo1]

No. Delpo in 2018 was not a better opponent than 06-07 Rafa. That's absurd.

Yeah. Even with the statement from Roddick, the man is so self-deprecating, it's hard to take him seriously.

i said better than any other feds opponent in 03-07 and rafa ON HC!!! rafa did not have any HC slam SF before 08!!!

rafa at HC slams in 06-07 period:

AO: DNP and QF (lost to gonzales no9)
USO: QF (youzhny no54) and 4R (lost to ferrer no15)

nole played potro at USO!

 

[PilotPete]

yes fed is a miracle. late bloomer that wilted too early! "prime" djokovic was "owned" of "old" rodick but nole was still "young and prime" when he beat pre prime "baby sinner" in 2022 and 2023!

so
05 and 08 safin owned peak (17-21 YO) nole and 08-10 post prime and old (26-28 YO) roddick owned peak (20-23 YO) nole
while still peak nole (35-36 YO) won vs pre prime and baby (21-22 YO) sinner! and of course pre prime and post prime but never prime fed!

You mean the way Djokovic wilted after he bloomed in 2008?

 

[PilotPete]

Another cheap shot from you!

Safin retired when Djokovic was 21; they played in exactly 2 matches. Roddick and Djokovic played in exactly 2 slam matches, the last one when Djokovic was 21 years old. It's like saying Zverev owned Federer, because he won their personal series 4-3.

The important is this: the two players that Federer played the most in slams, both had staggeringly positive results against him. Djokovic and Nadal had 11-6 and 10-4 against Federer, the 2nd and 3rd most of all time.

Safin and Roddick didn't own Djokovic, but it could be said that Djokovic and Nadal did own Federer.

Djokovic was prime by the time the second Safin match happened, so no excuse for that.

Djokovic was also prime by the time most matches occurred with Roddick so no excuses for those either.

Djokovic was owned by both, case closed.

 

[PilotPete]

I guess Wawrinka was not prime until he was 28 and won his first slam. Let have a good laugh here.

If Federer wasn't in his prime, that is his freaking inadequacies. He doesn't get a free pass for sucking for so long before he won a slam. Losing H2H against Rafter 0-3, losing H2H against Agassi 0-3, losing H2H against Nalbadian -0-5, losing H2H against Henman 1-6, losing H2H against Hewitt 2-7.....

I don't buy your explanation. But you are entitled to it.



Nadal STILL won RG from 2017 to 2020, and then again in 2022. In that process of winning 5 freaking RG titles, one less than Borg's entire count, he beat everybody including Djokovic twice....his only loss from 2017 to 2022 was an epic clash with Djokovic that had one of the most brutal sets of tennis ever played....One hour forty minutes. Nadal might not at his absolute best, but he was still playing well enough to dominate RG and like it or not, Djokovic was tangoing with the clay GOAT there until the bitter end.

I know Nadal and Djokovic had mileage, between it all the same between equals. Nadal wasn't losing to anyone else there and you know it. Only Djokovic could beat him. And before you tell me he wasn't competition for Djokovic outside of HC, well, Nadal only stopped Federer on clay during Federer's absolute peak also. Federer didn't lose to Nadal until several years later. So what is the difference?



No, I am telling you what happened, because everyone talked about if you pay attention you can see how Djokovic's serve among other things changed. Don't intentionally be blind and ignorant, I already told you Djokovic served significantly more DF than Aces, that has not to do with competition, that has everything to do with your serve breaking down and putting you at a disadvantage.

In 2009 Djokovic burnt himself out trying to beat Nadal on clay, if it wasn't for Djokovic weakening Nadal up, Federer might not have won RG that year, because we know he cannot beat Nadal at RG.



Yet you tell me how Agassi was valid competition at 34-35 against Federer, despite a freaking 11 year difference. Do you admit then Federer's wins were vulturing over Agassi?

What you fail to understand is that Djokovic's best years were 2011 to 2016, these are the years he played his best tennis, had his biggest wins, dominated the top ten, and out of those years, Roddick only was around for two of them. So Djokovic didn't get a Roddick for his full run.

I mean, it has been point out then Henman was 6-3 against Federer when he turned 30, the only reason Federer barely turned the H2H around was, unlike Roddick who gave up and admitted the game has passed him by, Henman stuck around allowing Federer some cheap wins.

Looks like Federer vultured significantly himself, he was owned by several players until they got too old. But at least you admit that Federer had not ATG up to ten years older than him and didn't have no ATG up to five year younger than him, allowing his peak to be in the middle of a 15 barren period of zero ATG that allowed him to inflate his numbers. So we made some progress.



The analogy does work, because you are telling me Roddick could handle Djokovic better than your GOAT Federer could, you would think your GOAT would be able to rise above all that and not let a one slam wonder outperform him against his numerically biggest rival. Fair enough, if you feel Roddick is superior to Federer when it comes to Djokovic.

Yes, Fed had a lot of anger issues in his younger years, they were indeed inadequacies which is why he bloomed much later when he got his mental issues under control. You don't have to buy the truth when it doesn't suit your narrative of things, it's a common occurrence.

Sure, of course Nadal could lose to Djokovic even when he was playing well, it almost happened closer to Nadal's peak in 2013. And Djokovic completely owned Nadal across all surface from 2011 to early 2012. So what? I'm mainly talking about Fed. When Fed is at his peak Djokovic would have very little chances pretty much anywhere.

It doesn't matter if everyone talked about it, it doesn't mean it happened like that. It's still an interpretation and a far fetched one IMO.

LOLLLL, Djokovic burnt himself out in 2009??? LOLLL talk about excuses. No he didn't burn himself out. 2009 was a stellar year in terms of competition, you had to be really elite that year to win. Hell, even Nadal, the highest level on any surface ever lost at the FO, that's how strong the competition was that year, and Djokovic with his limited talent even after reaching prime just couldn't hack it.

Every case has nuances, if Agassi was typical and played throughout his career regularly, then no he probably wouldn't be considered great competition at 35, but Agassi took a lot of breaks and played irregularly, he still had a lot left in him in his later ages due to lower overall mileage. Unlike Fed who winning 80-90 matches per year in his peak, which Djokovic could only dream of doing in the wettest of them all.

I don't fail to understand that, I agree Djokovic's best years were 2011-2016, which is what wholly bolsters my point. A non-best Djokovic won more slam after his peak, which proves he played in the weakest era of all time. But what you fail to understand is yes Djokovic was not peak in playing Roddick, but he was PRIME! And what you are missing is that Roddick was also not peak then, he was old, which further values the 5-4 H2H more than it is.

Fed didn't vulture anywhere near as much as Djokovic. Fed only reached prime in late 2003 and soon after Djokovic and Nadal were on the scene. Djokovic had no one for almost 15 years in the context of a YOUNGER ATG. No one, Nada. This is how he was able to take the slam record, through the weakest competition in the history of all sports, LOLLLL Berreterrible, Zverev, Shapo, pathetic. Unfortunately you cannot counter with Roddick and Safin because as I showed, they OWNED prime Djokovic. Those are the data.

 

[PilotPete]

You're just confirming what we've already said. The comparison shows them at the same age right? Then it's a double standard to wave away those losing h2h's because according to you, Djokovic was in his prime and Federer wasn't. Pretty rich to say 2010 Djokovic was playing prime tennis anyway with a shoddy serve and a 4-8 record against the top 10. 2002 Federer was 10-5 against the top 10 but he had yet to win a Slam so those matches don't count. Ok fine, then Nalbandian and Henman owned Federer's arse. Poor Federer entered his prime at 22 and left it at 28. He must have had the shortest prime in history.

I'm not waving away the H2H against Nalbandian, he was a great player proving Fed had strong competition. In the same manner I don't wave away the losing H2Hs Djokovic had against Safin and Roddick, which you seem to want to do. Djokovic lost to them during his prime in slams which again confirms the strong competition of Fed's era. 2010 Djokovic was not peak but he was prime. After you win a slam, you are at least prime. Henman did not own Federer because he has losing H2H against him, do you know how H2H works? If you have lower number of wins it means you have a losing H2H. Djokovic has losing H2Hs against Safin and Roddick, Fed does not against Henman, so do not mention Henman name again alongside those two. Nalbandian also has a losing H2H against Federer so why do you keep bring these up? Nalbandian played Federer hard, once against supporting the idea of strong competition of Fed's era. Nonetheless Fed was able to overcome them. Whereas prime Djokovic could not overcome old guys from Fed's era.

 

[Hitman]

Yes, Fed had a lot of anger issues in his younger years, they were indeed inadequacies which is why he bloomed much later when he got his mental issues under control. You don't have to buy the truth when it doesn't suit your narrative of things, it's a common occurrence.

Sure, of course Nadal could lose to Djokovic even when he was playing well, it almost happened closer to Nadal's peak in 2013. And Djokovic completely owned Nadal across all surface from 2011 to early 2012. So what? I'm mainly talking about Fed. When Fed is at his peak Djokovic would have very little chances pretty much anywhere.

It doesn't matter if everyone talked about it, it doesn't mean it happened like that. It's still an interpretation and a far fetched one IMO.

LOLLLL, Djokovic burnt himself out in 2009??? LOLLL talk about excuses. No he didn't burn himself out. 2009 was a stellar year in terms of competition, you had to be really elite that year to win. Hell, even Nadal, the highest level on any surface ever lost at the FO, that's how strong the competition was that year, and Djokovic with his limited talent even after reaching prime just couldn't hack it.

Every case has nuances, if Agassi was typical and played throughout his career regularly, then no he probably wouldn't be considered great competition at 35, but Agassi took a lot of breaks and played irregularly, he still had a lot left in him in his later ages due to lower overall mileage. Unlike Fed who winning 80-90 matches per year in his peak, which Djokovic could only dream of doing in the wettest of them all.

I don't fail to understand that, I agree Djokovic's best years were 2011-2016, which is what wholly bolsters my point. A non-best Djokovic won more slam after his peak, which proves he played in the weakest era of all time. But what you fail to understand is yes Djokovic was not peak in playing Roddick, but he was PRIME! And what you are missing is that Roddick was also not peak then, he was old, which further values the 5-4 H2H more than it is.

Fed didn't vulture anywhere near as much as Djokovic. Fed only reached prime in late 2003 and soon after Djokovic and Nadal were on the scene. Djokovic had no one for almost 15 years in the context of a YOUNGER ATG. No one, Nada. This is how he was able to take the slam record, through the weakest competition in the history of all sports, LOLLLL Berreterrible, Zverev, Shapo, pathetic. Unfortunately you cannot counter with Roddick and Safin because as I showed, they OWNED prime Djokovic. Those are the data.

Broken hip Guga owned peak Federer, H2H 2-1. Pretty pathetic from Federer to lose to a guy who had a hip replacement, don't you think?

LOL at using Federer's inability to control his mental clarity as a legitimate excuse to protect him. That is hilarious. That is his problem he sucked so much..

And no, you don't get to use that lame excuse for Agassi, when you know full well he had back pain and was taking injections. His mobility continued to worsen when Federer started vulturing wins against a 33 year old plus man. Funny how you scoff at Djokovic's reasons but use double standards when it comes to propping up Federer.

 

[PilotPete]

Broken hip Guga owned peak Federer, H2H 2-1. Pretty pathetic from Federer to lose to a guy who had a hip replacement, don't you think?

LOL at using Federer's inability to control his mental clarity as a legitimate excuse to protect him. That is hilarious. That is his problem he sucked so much..

Agreed, Fed lost to a former FO juggernaut at the FO, boo hoo. Clay was not Fed's best surface, Guga was great.

Fed sucked nowhere near as much as Djokovic AFTER reaching prime, which is what you fail to understand. Winning your first slam is a really big deal, it means you have arrived on the scene and are a legitimate threat anywhere. It means prime whether you like it or not. Poor Djokovic got owned by Fed's competition after reach prime LOLLLLL

 

[Hitman]

Agreed, Fed lost to a former FO juggernaut at the FO, boo hoo. Clay was not Fed's best surface, Guga was great.

Fed sucked nowhere near as much as Djokovic AFTER reaching prime, which is what you fail to understand. Winning your first slam is a really big deal, it means you have arrived on the scene and are a legitimate threat anywhere. It means prime whether you like it or not. Poor Djokovic got owned by Fed's competition after reach prime LOLLLLL

Federer lost to a past his prime, hip replaced player...not the clay court titan who won the title three years earlier.

I guess if Guga is a clay court juggernaut with a broken hip for peak Federer, then Federer was a grass court juggernaut when Djokovic beat him all those Wimbledon finals. Solid wins in the end then....unless you want to cry double standards again.

And you fail to answer the question I posed to a few posts earlier....Did Wawrinka hit his prime at 28 when he won AO 2014? I'd like you to say with a straight face that he wasn't prime in 2013 or earlier. Go on, I'm waiting.

 

[GoatNo1]

Djokovic was prime by the time the second Safin match happened, so no excuse for that.

Djokovic was also prime by the time most matches occurred with Roddick so no excuses for those either.

Djokovic was owned by both, case closed.

yes as fed was prime in all matches vs nole

and rafa too

and nole has positive h2h + ALL main stat playing 110 matches vs prime fed and rafa!

prime fed had negative h2h vs his 2 biggest rivals.

even in his own era he had 7-13 record vs baby rafa! and 4-6 vs baby muzza!

nole owned all players in both his eras!!!!

no excuses!

 

[Mustard]

Federer lost to a past his prime, hip replaced player...not the clay court titan who won the title three years earlier.

Hmm. But Kuerten on that particular day, when he beat Federer 6-4, 6-4, 6-4, in their 2004 French Open third round match, did play like it was 2001 again.

 

[Hitman]

Hmm. But Kuerten on that particular day, when he beat Federer 6-4, 6-4, 6-4, in their 2004 French Open third round match, did play like it was 2001 again.

So, what you are saying is, that players can turn back the clock, heck even after hip surgery, yes?

Perfect.

 

[Mustard]

So, what you are saying is, that players can turn back the clock, heck even after hip surgery, yes?

Perfect.

It wasn't Murray bad for Kuerten, at least not in 2002-2004. Later on, it was.

 

[Hitman]

It wasn't Murray bad for Kuerten, at least not in 2002-2004. Later on, it was.

So what you are saying is that everyone is unique and we shouldn't pain them all with the same brush. I agree.

 

[Mustard]

So what you are saying is that everyone is unique and we shouldn't pain them all with the same brush. I agree.

Kuerten had more than one hip surgery. The February 2002 surgery was just the first.

 

[NoleFam]

I'm not waving away the H2H against Nalbandian, he was a great player proving Fed had strong competition. In the same manner I don't wave away the losing H2Hs Djokovic had against Safin and Roddick, which you seem to want to do. Djokovic lost to them during his prime in slams which again confirms the strong competition of Fed's era. 2010 Djokovic was not peak but he was prime. After you win a slam, you are at least prime. Henman did not own Federer because he has losing H2H against him, do you know how H2H works? If you have lower number of wins it means you have a losing H2H. Djokovic has losing H2Hs against Safin and Roddick, Fed does not against Henman, so do not mention Henman name again alongside those two. Nalbandian also has a losing H2H against Federer so why do you keep bring these up? Nalbandian played Federer hard, once against supporting the idea of strong competition of Fed's era. Nonetheless Fed was able to overcome them. Whereas prime Djokovic could not overcome old guys from Fed's era.

Again moving the goalposts to suit your agenda and acting like you don't understand the main point. They retired which is why Djokovic never had a chance to even the score which is like, duh. Of course you keep saying Federer won the head to heads against those guys while leaving out Federer won those head to heads while playing those guys at his peak, which Djokovic didn't have the chance to do. Also, it's nice to claim Djokovic was in his prime while losing those heads to heads and Federer wasn't, so Federer's matches don't really count. lol. It's laughable and ridiculous. At the end of the day, Federer has 12 losing records against players he played at least twice. Djokovic only has 7 and that's despite the fact he's already played the top ten 37 more times, so you don't have any leg to stand on there.

 

[Mustard]

So what you are saying is that everyone is unique and we shouldn't pain them all with the same brush. I agree.

Murray was in tears and basically announced a "retirement" at the 2019 Australian Open because he was in daily pain in his everyday life. He knew the surgery would likely end his tennis career at the top level.

 

[FlyingSaucer]

Djo is also 1-2 v Karlovic, by the way. 0-2 on HC. For whoever is interested, of course.

 

[Hitman]

Again moving the goalposts to suit your agenda and acting like you don't understand the main point. They retired which is why Djokovic never had a chance to even the score which is like, duh. Of course you keep saying Federer won the head to heads against those guys while leaving out Federer won those head to heads while playing those guys at his peak, which Djokovic didn't have the chance to do. Also, it's nice to claim Djokovic was in his prime while losing those heads to heads and Federer wasn't, so Federer's matches don't really count. lol. It's laughable and ridiculous. At the end of the day, Federer has 12 losing records against players he played at least twice. Djokovic only has 7 and that's despite the fact he's already played the top ten 37 more times, so you don't have any leg to stand on there.

Hypocrisy at its finest - Nothing before W 2003 counts. Then the gall to say Djokovic fans say tennis started in 2011.

 

[Hitman]

Murray was in tears and basically announced a "retirement" at the 2019 Australian Open because he was in daily pain in his everyday life. He knew the surgery would likely end his tennis career at the top level.

It basically did.

 

[NoleFam]

Hypocrisy at its finest - Nothing before W 2003 counts. Then the gall to say Djokovic fans say tennis started in 2011.

Trolling mostly, and of course hypocrisy, and ignoring the rebuttals that kill his argument.

 

[Hitman]

Trolling mostly, and of course hypocrisy, and ignoring the rebuttals that kill his argument.

Because its not really an argument, it is hating.

 

[PilotPete]

Federer lost to a past his prime, hip replaced player...not the clay court titan who won the title three years earlier.

I guess if Guga is a clay court juggernaut with a broken hip for peak Federer, then Federer was a grass court juggernaut when Djokovic beat him all those Wimbledon finals. Solid wins in the end then....unless you want to cry double standards again.

And you fail to answer the question I posed to a few posts earlier....Did Wawrinka hit his prime at 28 when he won AO 2014? I'd like you to say with a straight face that he wasn't prime in 2013 or earlier. Go on, I'm waiting.

Yes, past his prime former two time FO champion. Even with hip gone, Guga was still incredible. Guga would have given even Nadal fits on the clay. That's how good he was.

You must have some logic issues in your brain. Why is Fed a grass court juggernaut if his prime ended in 2012? Peak ended 2007. What double standards? Djokovic also had a similar length of peak as Fed but performed poorer because he was not as good as peak Fed.

Wawrinka is not an ATG. Even if he hits prime earlier he may not be able to win a slam since the Big 3 were around. But Djokovic is an ATG and part of the Big 3. He could not have become prime any earlier since peak Fed was around as was proven at USO2007.

 

[PilotPete]

yes as fed was prime in all matches vs nole

and rafa too

and nole has positive h2h + ALL main stat playing 110 matches vs prime fed and rafa!

prime fed had negative h2h vs his 2 biggest rivals.

even in his own era he had 7-13 record vs baby rafa! and 4-6 vs baby muzza!

nole owned all players in both his eras!!!!

no excuses!

Fed's prime ended in 2012. Stop lying about Sinner becoming prime in 2022.

 

[PilotPete]

Again moving the goalposts to suit your agenda and acting like you don't understand the main point. They retired which is why Djokovic never had a chance to even the score which is like, duh. Of course you keep saying Federer won the head to heads against those guys while leaving out Federer won those head to heads while playing those guys at his peak, which Djokovic didn't have the chance to do. Also, it's nice to claim Djokovic was in his prime while losing those heads to heads and Federer wasn't, so Federer's matches don't really count. lol. It's laughable and ridiculous. At the end of the day, Federer has 12 losing records against players he played at least twice. Djokovic only has 7 and that's despite the fact he's already played the top ten 37 more times, so you don't have any leg to stand on there.

Well by the same token Fed never had the chance to even the score against Djokovic because of the age difference. It's the same thing, but you may not see that.

Yes, but the bottom line is Fed won those H2H. Djokovic did not. Sure Djokovic may have gone ahead in the H2H against Safin and Djokovic, but it wouldn't matter because he would be beating up on old guys past their prime, you see it works both way. Bottom line is Djokovic lost the H2Hs.

I didn't claim Djokovic being in his prime had anything to do with those H2Hs, prime is after winning a slam, and Djokovic happened to play those guys after winning a slam and he still lost to them. That says a lot.

The only thing laughable and ridiculous are you and your blinded bias towards Djokobic.

Djokovic has more winning H2H because of the weakest competition in the history of the sport from 2020-2023.