GoatNo1
Legend
so nole was prime in all loses vs fed and roddick and sinnes, but fed, rodick and sinner wss not prime in their loses vs nole. i see your logic!
The Big Three Slam Race In Age
- Thread starter Hitman
- Start date
Giocoswitch
Semi-Pro
The hypocrisy about ages from all fanbases just gets ridiculous past a certain point, which is why I'll never totally subscribe to it. It's broadly good for giving context around style of play, favourites and underdogs, etc. But the way it gets used to totally dismiss wins gets on my nerves when at the time very few of these matches were "lock wins". And even with "lock wins" you still have to get up there and do the business, as the AO26 semis taught us.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
It seems someone does have not only logic issues but cannot apply the standard properly.
So, even with hip gone, Guga was incredible, but Federer who was perfectly healthy cannot be called that, because that would mean giving weight to Djokovic's win over him. LOL
You understand that you big up Guga to downplay the beatdown that he gave peak Federer as a nothing burger, when it is really bad for your GOAT in his peak to lose a broken hip past his prime player anywhere....and then you downplay your GOAT against Djokovic, because you know if you said Federer was playing well, it adds weight and wrecks your narrative that you are so desperate to push.
You complain about Federer's prime ending in 2012, but shamelessly tell me that Guga with a post surgery hip was still incredible? LMAO. The lengths some of you guys go to, to not give an ounce of credit, even crapping on your GOAT if you need to.
Wait, so let me get this straight, just because he is not an ATG he is excluded from your narrative? LOL. You have been going on and on about when a player wins a slam, they are in their prime....
So, we've seen multiple double standard, excuses for players and careers who don't match your narrative, excuses for ATG's being legit competition at 34/35 even while they have taken injections., goalpost shifting as prime players now need to be ATG when you get caught out on Wawrinka...and ignoring the fact that peak Federer was beaten after he won his second slam and became world number one by Henman two weeks after AO 2004....and how he had a 6-3 H2H against Federer on his 30th Birthday....the same age Roddick retired, and a year after Safin retired.
Here's the thing, the generation before Federer has zero ATG players, yet broken hip Guga from the generation owned peak Federer, and Henman from that generation went 6-1 against Federer before he started to approach his 30th birthday.
Imagine if Federer had to deal with a true ATG five years older, that peak you talk about would be cut in half, and the inflated slams he won against old man Agassi as the only ATG player before Nadal came, would be chopped back down to size.
You've dug yourself into a big hole.
Sure he was. Prime Fed lost to Djokovic a bunch of times in 2011.
Well Guga would have to be incredible to beat prime Federer on clay. So yes, he was. I don't think it's really bad to lose to two time FO champion. And clearly his hip was not gone, otherwise how could Guga even play that match? Right?
Yes, why not exclude non-ATGs from the narrative? ATGs, especially the big 3 are different beasts. We are comparing Djokovic to Federer, not to journeymen.
There are no double standards, you have trouble understanding subtleties which is why they appear as so to you. I don't ignore peak Federer was beaten. Peak Federer was beaten several times, he lost to Safin, Nadal, Guga. Not many, but there are several. But peak Federer is a different beast from peak Djokovic, as was proven at FO11. Djokovic needs weak competition to boost his stats, Fed does not need that.
The generation before Federer had Agassi, again you have trouble comprehending that Agassi took breaks and so still had miles left on him near the end of his career, he did even better later on, so that is an ATG in Fed's era before even Nadal and Djokovic arrived.
Federer had it hardest, he had to deal with TWO younger ATGs, almost immediately after he started winning slams. Djokovic had 15 years of free reign without any younger ATGs bothering him, which is why Djokovic overachieved. He is second class next to peak Federer.
There are no holes on my end, the only hole is in your non-sensical arguments.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
OK, I think we have made some good progress.
Lets highlight everything in a clear and concise way now.
1 - You admit that Federer had zero ATG from his own generation, and there were zero ATG from the generation above his. Remember, Federer fans like to remind everyone that a generation is about five to six years. We know Agassi is 11 years older, so he is two generation removed from Federer. This is like Thiem, Zverev beating Federer.
2 - You seem to not understand Agassi's career very well at all. Agassi turned pro in 1986, Federer was only five years old at the time. You tell me that Agassi took breaks, do you even know that Agassi had played OVER 900 matches before he turned 33 in April of 2003? Do you think a player who played that many matches is someone who took a lot of time off? If you do, then you really have a warped understanding of what being fresh is.
3 - Continuing with Agassi here, you seem to ignore that Agassi was in a lot pain in back, and was taking injections, and especially ramped them up in 2005, he was on them when Federer beat him at USO 2005. So, not only was Agassi the only ATG from any generation that was equal or ahead of Federer, he was actually two generations ahead, 11 years older, had over 900 matches in the bag, and had a bad back for which he was taking injections to kill the pain.
4 - Now, lets focus on the H2H part of this. Safin retired at age 29 with 2-0 H2H against Djokovic, the two not playing a month after Djokovic turned 21. Roddick retired at 30 with a H2H of 5-4 against Djokovic. So both players were gone by their 30 birthday. In contrast to this, Agassi was 3-0 against Federer until he was over 33 years old, and even then in Federer's first win, he had to save MP against this Agassi. Agassi beat Federer twice, when he was 20 years old, and Agassi himself was already 31 himself, a year older than when Roddick retired.
5 - Henman, a non ATG from the generation before Federer was 6-1 up after beating peak Federer, who had won AO 2004 and was world number one. At the age of 30, the same age that Roddick retired, he was 6-3 against Federer. You complained that if Djokovic had continued playing Roddick after he turned 30, it would be unfair because he would be too old....yet, you make excuses for Agassi by saying he was fresh even at the age of 33, when I just showed you, he played over 900 matches....do you know how many matches Roddick had played when he retied? 825....so either you didn't do your homework, or you knew and are indeed using double standards.
6 - Roddick himself admitted that after Djokovic schooled him on grass in 2012, that the game was reaching another level and he was glad to leave when he did. Roddick, only played the best version of Djokovic in the first two years of his actual peak, since you like talking about the best years here. You admit that had Safin and Roddick both continued to play, Djokovic would have reversed the H2H against them, the same way Federer got to reverse his ones against Agassi and Henman - This was good to see and the whole point of the discussion. I am glad we see that.
7 - Now, lets carry on and look at the final things to end this facade. Guga, is 2-1 against Federer, you tell me he played good because he won the match. How about you look at the correct way? How the heck did the supposed peakiest player of all time, allowing a post hip surgery player to beat him in STRAIGHT sets, when he was the undisputed world number one and holder of two slams? You want to put it all on the titanic performance of Guga, newsflash, Nalbandian dealt with him comfortably in four sets a few rounds later. Why was it that Nalbandian could do it, by Federer couldn't even take a single set to a tie break?
8 - Now you tell me because Guga was still able to play it couldn't be that bad? But when Djokovic beat Federer in those Wimbledon finals, Federer was done, was old and worn down and past his best. But if he was playing a Wimbledon final, he couldn't have been that bad either...I mean if post surgery Guga gets a free pass, why doesn't Federer? The difference is this, Federer FAILED to beat Guga like he should have, that is on him, and him alone, while Djokovic got the job done against Federer at Wimbledon. You are looking at the opposite way, Federer has no excuse not to win that match, this wasn't peak healthy Guga of 4 or 5 years earlier.
9 - So, we have agreed on something here also, that Federer struggled against non-ATG players from the generation above his, and struggled against an aging ATG two generations removed, had to wait until they were very old to rack up wins, so if there was even one ATG from the generation above his who was 25-26 when Federer started his run, his slam count and weeks at number one would have under serious attack and very likely his slam count cut by third or even a half. And finally, the generation before did NOT have Agassi, he is 11 years older, you don't get to tell me Federer was a generation ahead of Nadal and Djokovic at 5-6 years, and then fail at simple math and not see that if you double the average of 5.5 against Djokodal, you get 11 years....Do better.
10 - We also agree and understand that Federer did NOT topple any ATG player to become number one, his generation was trying to fill the void left by Sampras. Federer took it from Ferrero, who himself was finished in 2004 after a serious case of Chicken Pox. Lets not forget, Safin was injured for most of 2003 also, so Federer had less competition to get that number one ranking. Djokovic went through peak Nadal and Federer to become world number one and become the dominant player, he started his era by smashing past Fedal, Federer started his by filling a void that Sampras left, he didn't take the crown from any ATG.
11 - You kept talking about players in their prime, but as soon as I mention Wawrinka, you did the classic goal post shift, and said only ATG players to get around that, something you never made clear at the start. No player is ATG after they win their first slam, you have to win several slams to pull that off, so they all start off on the same level. You talk about things in retrospect, not as things actually unfolded. You like to talk about how Federer matured later, but fail to see that AO 2008 was a glimpse into the potential of Djokovic, but he still needed to get it all together also....the difference was Djokovic actually won a slam before his actual run, while Federer failed time and time again, and yet you think that is a positive for Federer...we know Federer had potential, he beat Sampras at W, so he doesn't get a free pass.
12 - To conclude, we have seen a lot of holes being exposed in your trashing of Djokovic, and I've only used your own logic here. I will say this, Federer did have harder in his 30s than Djokovic did. But you continue to complain that Djokovic didn't have anyone, yet you turn a blind eye to the fact that unlike Federer, Djokovic had an ATG one generation before his AND one from his own generation. Federer was the only player born within a 15 barren period of ATG between 1971 and 1986. And Nadal continued to been a challenge on clay until the bitter end. And when the Nadal threat was truly gone, Sinner and Alcaraz had arrived.
13 - This was a good discussion, I think we reached our conclusion here. Yes, Federer had it harder in his 30s, but Djokovic had it harder in his 20s, and still had Nadal on clay in his 30s. I'll leave it there.
Last edited:
Made a diagram, i think its correct:
Interesting.
Nadal was leading the race up to 25y when Roger took over. Then Roger was in front until age 32 when they all had exactly 17 slams. Nole surpassed Roger at age 33, and didnt take the lead from Rafa before age 35.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Made a diagram, i think its correct:
Interesting.
Nadal was leading the race up to 25y when Roger took over. Then Roger was in front until age 32 when they all had exactly 17 slams. Nole surpassed Roger at age 33, and didnt take the lead from Rafa before age 35.
Basically this.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
They played 50 matches so if he didn't have a chance within that 15 year period, then it must be not going to happen. Again, they played each other for over 15 years not 3 or 4 years of their careers like Djokovic played against Roddick and Safin.
Already rebutted this and it's done and dusted. Federer was beating past his prime Henman. You can move on now because it's just conjecture and you're not being honest here.
My bias? Guy, have you read your posts lately? This is some crazy work and having no self-awareness.
Djokovic doesn't have more winning h2hs. He has less losing ones and funny it's supposedly because of the weakest competition in 2020-2023 when two of those players from those years, Thiem and Zverev, have winning records over Federer. I'm sure young Djokovic would be shaking in boots having to deal with Squillari, Hrbaty, Ferreira, Enqvist, and Corretja all who have winning records over Federer. Oh I forgot, Federer wasn't in his prime so those don't count.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Yes, at the end it's either a win or a loss. If we're going to compare two players we can't move the goalposts in age to age comparison to suit an agenda. Also, we can't cherrypick h2hs and pretend other h2hs against our favorite player are less relevant. Look at some of these polls on here before the matches and afterwards and we can see how wrong a lot of them are about those lock wins as well.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
There is just too much cherry picking and goal posting moving. But I think we cleared it all up in the end.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Indeed. I think we cleared it up but I still don't expect him to act like he gets it.There is just too much cherry picking and goal posting moving. But I think we cleared it all up in the end.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Indeed. I think we cleared it up but I still don't expect him to act like he gets it.
I think it is more about getting in the last word, even though deep down he knows his house is made of straw. Most important is that the argument was systematically dissected, the double standards, holes and goal posting moving, along with the blatant ignoring of some facts and just make random definitions were all put on display and we all reached a grounded and agreed upon resolution.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Yea I think that about sums it up.I think it is more about getting in the last word, even though deep down he knows his house is made of straw. Most important is that the argument was systematically dissected, the double standards, holes and goal posting moving, along with the blatant ignoring of some facts and just make random definitions were all put on display and we all reached a grounded and agreed upon resolution.
