The career inflation era argument is utter propaganda

[Third Serve]

We still harping on the extremely stupid argument that Fed’s gen is equal to the likes of Zverev, Medvedev, Tsitsipas, and what have you that we’re dealing with these days? Granted, Alcaraz may wind up being better than those guys (he’s not better than some yet, but in a few more years he may be) but the list begins and ends with him.

At least we’re improving. It used to be the case that folks would unironically rate Zverev > Roddick and expect to be taken seriously. Now they simply rate them equally which is not ideal but still, small progress is still progress even if there’s a long way to go yet.

 

[Djokovic_is_the_best#1]

Uhm, You really think USO 2000 and AO 2005 Safin would not beat this old Djokovic?
I read in an earlier post on this thread how you blasted TMF for being a biased blinded Fedfan.
You sound just like TMF (but for Djoko) if you think Safin won’t prevail.

I said I’d give Safin a win or fair enough maybe 2 AO’s.

It’s foolish to compare though as it’s 2 different courts. On the courts back then Safin would win. On the courts now Djokovic would probably win.

This is why it’s silly to compare different time periods.

Unlike him though I can at least acknowledge that Djokovic would lose sometimes or be put under big pressure. I accept Djokovic isn’t as unbeatable as he was when at peak but he’s still darn good. Especially in his house at Australia.

I will be fair and give Safin 2 Australian opens but it’s still very hard to compare what would happen.

 

[NatF]

Again a hypothetical argument from you. That’s all you have. If if if but we not playing time travel tennis here or what if’s.

The H2H is 3-1 Djokovic at Wimbledon. That is all we know as fact. This prime/peak unbeatable Federer on grass you say but couldn’t dominate Wimbledon like Nadal owned RG or even Djokovic dominated Australia.

All I want you to admit is when the competition got tougher, Fed struggled more. It nothing against Feds greatness but it’s a simple fact.

Djokovic is benefiting from a weak era and he has done for a while and few years.

Just because Fed was in his early to mid 20s doesn’t mean he deserves a free pass to avoid he benefited from a weak era . All you hide behind is the age thing because you know the competition for both were weak and similar but you can’t admit it for Feds early competition.

More rubbish from you. Trying to use 2007 Nadal as a stick to beat Roddick with when it was one of Nadal’s very best Wimby matches is just ignorance lol.

BTW the h2h between Roddick and Djokovic's is 5-4 to the American and 1-0 at the AO. I'm sure you'll have some hypothetical to spin around that though right?

I guess Nadal and Djokovic can be too young and babies but Fed doesn't get older

Like I've said even if Federer's era was weak, which I would contest, it was obviously still stronger than now...and only an idiot would use 2007 Nadal as some form of argument to the contrary when it was a top 3 clay and grass season for him.

 

[Djokovic_is_the_best#1]

More rubbish from you. Trying to use 2007 Nadal as a stick to beat Roddick with when it was one of Nadal’s very best Wimby matches is just ignorance lol.

BTW the h2h between Roddick and Djokovic's is 5-4 to the American and 1-0 at the AO. I'm sure you'll have some hypothetical to spin around that though right?

I guess Nadal and Djokovic can be too young and babies but Fed doesn't get older

Like I've said even if Federer's era was weak, which I would contest, it was obviously still stronger than now...and only an idiot would use 2007 Nadal as some form of argument to the contrary when it was a top 3 clay and grass season for him.

Sure Roddick was a match or better than young Djokovic. He was a problem for Novak. Novak struggled with him and he deserved the 5-4 lead.

However, we could say the same thing about Vesley or krygios now or Karlovic before. They lead the H2H with Novak but on a wider scale it’s not a big thing.

Fair enough that’s cool. I can even accept that this current era is weaker than back then but at least you admitting feds era was weaker at start.

All I’m saying is if Nadal had not come along Fed could have had 2-3 CYGS’s.

I admit I wasn’t clear before. Sorry about the domination thing. You right I didn’t mean end his dominance as a teenager or 20 but he beat Fed on clay to stop him sweeping everything on all surfaces. Then in his early 20s he became a bigger threat on all surfaces to him.

I can accept you or others saying this current era is still weaker than back then though.

Furthermore, I do think you are a decent poster and one of the better ones. You do give great analysis on tennis.

 

[fedfan24]

Still harping on with the nonsensical rubbish I see. I already showed you how weak your arguments are in another thread yet you choose to continue embarrassing yourself with your poor quality posts. This thread is more fitting for the discussion anyway so I'm going to post my response to your weak arguments here as well.


It was easy for 03-07 Federer to look good because he was a Peak Age Tier 1 ATG. He won the slams playing top level Peak Age Tier 1 ATG tennis.

ATG's have won 71% of slams in the Open Era. ATG's have the vast majority of their best seasons during their Peak Age (21-26). If a Peak Age Tier 1 ATG wins a slam it's pretty hard to argue their level was unworthy.

I rate the strength of a year mostly by the presence of ATG's. Then I consider the age ATG's have historically produced their best tennis. If they are not making finals I mostly dont consider them to have ATG presence. Older ATG's are usually still good enough to beat the field but struggle against younger ATG's. Without younger ATG's the older ones can hang around and keep winning slams without being truly tested.

I consider 03-04 to be slightly weak. Slams were mostly won by a peaking ATG. Post Prime Age (31-35) Agassi ran rampant at AO03 but was mostly contained by Federer and his generation elsewhere.

05-06 was average and 07 was strong. Nadal was Peak Age in 07, Prime Age from 05-06. Djokovic was Prime Age in 07 and was only losing to Peak Age Federer and Nadal at the slams. 19-20 is Prime Age for ATG's. Most ATG's were already winning slams at this age.

Slams won by ATG's in Early Prime

Borg: 3
Mcenroe: 1
Wilander: 3
Becker: 2
Edberg: 1
Sampras: 1
Nadal: 2
Djokovic: 1
*Alcaraz*: 2

Early Prime ATG's (19-20) have also historically done better than Late Prime ATG's (27-30) against Peak Age ATG's (21-26) in H2H. The baby talk is nonsense not based in fact. Peak Age ATG's have historically won 2/3 matches against Late Prime ATG's. Nadal and Djokovic were both Peak Age in 08, Federer Late Prime Age in 08.

The weakest years are 1971-1973, 1998-2002 and 2014-2023 where you have Late Prime Age and Post Prime Age ATG's running amok because of a lack of competition from younger players. 2014-2016 is the best of this sorry bunch. By my measure 2002 and 2021 are the weakest of this sorry bunch. What did we get? 2021 almost had Djokovic winning a calendar slam at 34. 2002 had 4 different slam winners. Johansson at AO, Costa at RG, Hewitt at Wimbledon (sorry Lleyton, big fan i promise) and a Post Prime Age Sampras won USO after performing terribly by his standards for 2 years.

By my measure some of the strongest years were 81,85,88,90-93. Look how fierce the competition was. Packed with Peak and Prime Age ATG's. Djokovic's astronomical numbers are heavily influenced by circumstances that have never been seen before. That is the total lack of younger ATG competition to put him to the test.

The links below are a good starting place to be found on the forum.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/overall-peak-prime-age.618956/
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...bution-of-all-open-era-major-finalists.453446
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/age-h2h-between-atgs.619779/

fantastic post.

 

[RS]

We still harping on the extremely stupid argument that Fed’s gen is equal to the likes of Zverev, Medvedev, Tsitsipas, and what have you that we’re dealing with these days? Granted, Alcaraz may wind up being better than those guys (he’s not better than some yet, but in a few more years he may be) but the list begins and ends with him.

At least we’re improving. It used to be the case that folks would unironically rate Zverev > Roddick and expect to be taken seriously. Now they simply rate them equally which is not ideal but still, small progress is still progress even if there’s a long way to go yet.

Zverev is funnily enough arguably better than Roddick in BO3. Some of those arguments stemmed in 17-18 were people thought Zverev was going to be the next thing.

 

[Silentchimera]

It could be hard for you & thats "all I know" for you because you are watching tennis since 2011, but not for us who have seen how strong the field was back then, we know the youngsters in those times were better than Instagram Influencers and Onlyfans experts who are reaching finals. As this NatF guy said above, losing in 4-5 sets to peak Federer cannot be compared to clowns losing in straights to older versions of Djokodal in their mid 30s, that makes no sense at all.

2018-2023's Djokodal in 2000-2005 replacing Fedal

2000 AO - Agassi wins this with ease
2000 FO - Nadal will win this
2000W - Sampras will beat Djokovic
2000 USO - Safin will destroy 2018 Djokovic here.

2001 AO - Djokovic wins this blockbuster match vs 2001 Agassi .... tremendous match this will be
2001 FO - Kuerten vs Nadal would be a good fight, probably Nadal wins this.
2001 W - Sampras would reach the final and probably will beat Djokovic, he is not Federer to choke on MP..... He will ace it out and he aint losing Tb to anyone.
2001 USO - Now that is an interesting scenario ... I dont know wins ... Sampras is gassed out by the final vs Nadal.... 50-50, probably Nadal edges this one out.

2002 AO - Djokovic wins this
2002 FO - Nadal wins this
2002 W - Hewitt wins this, even if 2020 Nole is allowed to play WImbledon he ain't beating Hewitt.
2002 USO - Sampras will strip Thiem/Sascha and parade them both naked in New York.... Pete wins

2003 AO - Probably Agassi (since Novak is injured)
2003 FO - Ferrero could win this, but who knows
2003 W - Djokovic wins this since Roddick is a rookie
2003 US - Roddick will win this

2004 AO - Safin will edge out Nadal
2004 FO - Nadal wins this
2004 W - Roddick will beat Djokovic
2004 USO - Agassi will beat Alcaraz and the other men, even Novak will lose if he is allowed by George Bush to enter US.

2005 USO - Safin beats Novak in 4 sets
2005 FO - Djokovic wins this since the field was very weak
2005 W - Roddick/Hewitt vs Djokovic, good fight but Novak will lose. He ain't beating them back to back. Roddick most probably wins this if he meets Djoker in the final or Hewitt wins this if he beats Novak in semis.
2005 USO - Djokovic will probably prevail over Agassi here

So thats 5 Slams for Djokovic & 5 slams for Nadal in a period when they won 12 Slams & 6 Slams respectively.

So now instead of 18 slams they only have 10 slams. Thats what stronger field can do you even in a weak era. Whats your take on this ? @BorgTheGOAT @Kralingen Do you see some of these results go the other way?

Apologies in advance for springboarding off your post with my semi-related thoughts.

I am just waiting for more of the usual responses to your hypothetical. There sure are plenty of posters here who like to hand-wave away these kinds of hypotheticals, age for age form and competition comparisons. I find it incredibly amusing because many of these posters have a history of engaging in hypotheticals and comparisons when they are favourable to their favourite player.

Hand-waving is frequently used in low quality debates and there is no surprise why some posters are notorious for doing this. When hand waving lacks the flavour of the day we will usually get hilariously biased takes, intellectual dishonesty and pure comedy value. One of my favourites is that Federer was peak at 14,15,19 Wimbledon.

One line of argument will try and have you believe its not possible to predict Djokovic will beat a 5ft tall qualifier with an injury in the 1st round at Wimbledon. I've been told thats because my prediction is unprofitable when precisely the opposite is true. You can't make money from an easy prediction because (drumroll) IT IS AN EASY PREDICTION! Everyone knows that 9999/10000 times Djokovic will win the match. That is what is called the risk return trade-off. The shorter or longer the odds the more certain the prediction will be and vice-versa.

The reason we get these predictable responses to hypotheticals and comparisons is because they prove that the numbers do not tell us the full story. We can never create a perfectly balanced lab environment for the players to compete in and therefore we need context. If context had no value nobody would watch the matches and tennis wouldn't exist.

With that said @Razer I agree with most of your picks. Some Djokovic fans took issue with placing 2007-2010 Djokovic into Federer's draws from 2001-2004. Djokovic would not win in Federer's place at 2001 USO because he would have to go through Agassi, Sampras, Safin and Hewitt. They wanted the draw to be randomised. If we do this then Sampras would no longer have the horror draw and he would be fresher for the final. Thinking Nadal loses this one.

I consider 1998-2002 to be weak due to the lack of a Peak Age ATG but 2018-2023 is the weakest of all time. It really is an anomaly considering it came directly after 2014-2017 which was also historically weak. Your hypothetical makes it obvious to me that 2018-2023 Djokovic and Nadal would have considerably less success if they found themselves in 2000-2005 in Federer and Nadal's place. There are clearly more players in 2000-2005 capable of bringing a high level of tennis than Djokovic and Nadal's competition in 2018-2023. My main quibble with the hypothetical is trying to make it a balanced swap.

 

[Ballmachine87]

Djokovic has ONE Grand Slam Titel before Federer reached his 30th birthday. He has 23 after Federer turned 30.
This stat alone prooves that only looking at stats and number of titles can be totally missleading when judging a player.
Imagine Djokovic had recorded 10 Grand Slam titles before Federer turned 30 and "only" 8 after Fedrer turned 30. Giving him a total of 18.
Those 18 Grand Slam Titles would make him A LOT greater than the 24 he has now.

 

[Silentchimera]

Nadal didn't end Federer's dominance until 2008 when he was 22 ergo not a teen.

I hope your new year's resolution is to make better posts.

If dominance is defined by winning 11/16 slams like Federer in 2004-2007 then it could be argued Nadal ended Federer's dominance in 2008. That is not the definition I am familiar with and sounds like historical revisionism to me.

Federer's dominance ended after winning the 2010 AO. In the stretch of 9 slams between 2008 AO and 2010 AO Federer was more dominant than Nadal.

Federer: 4 slams + 4 finals > Nadal: 3 slams + 0 finals.

Nadal couldn't sustain his level unlike Federer and it took GOAT performances to prevent him winning pretty much everything in sight.

 

[NatF]

Nadal Wim 07 final was better than any Roddick of course.

Probably needs five sets to beat 2004/2009 Roddick, likewise with 2008

 

[Hitman]

Djokovic has ONE Grand Slam Titel before Federer reached his 30th birthday. He has 23 after Federer turned 30.
This stat alone prooves that only looking at stats and number of titles can be totally missleading when judging a player.
Imagine Djokovic had recorded 10 Grand Slam titles before Federer turned 30 and "only" 8 after Fedrer turned 30. Giving him a total of 18.
Those 18 Grand Slam Titles would make him A LOT greater than the 24 he has now.

Incorrect, he had 3.

 

[Silentchimera]

Incorrect, he had 3.

Thinking he meant the season Federer turned 30.

 

[RS]

Probably needs five sets to beat 2004/2009 Roddick, likewise with 2008

Maybe since it's grass

 

[NatF]

Maybe since it's grass

2004 Fed > 2007/2008 Nadal

 

[Silentchimera]

I don't think 07 gets bigged up that much. I see it more for 05 and 04 than 07 if it happens

If anything is bigged up too much it's 11. Slams in 07-11 were all won with comparable winning levels.

 

[nolefam_2024]

fed bygone era

He was surpassed by djokovic even if i take only djokovic results from 2011 onwards. accept the fact and stop making hypothetical threads where your guy always won

but in real life he didn't.

fed made gs debut in 1999, his effective end date is 2019 november, we are in fifth year now fed is gone.

 

[Silentchimera]

(Deep and meaningful post)

Just like clockwork.

 

[RS]

If anything is bigged up too much it's 11. Slams in 07-11 were all won with comparable winning levels.

Not even sure 2011 is considered the gold standard anymore because lots of Djokovic fans think is better now than 2011.

 

[RS]

2004 Fed > 2007/2008 Nadal

Yeah Fed was superb there especially against Hewitt.

 

[Third Serve]

Zverev is funnily enough arguably better than Roddick in BO3. Some of those arguments stemmed in 17-18 were people thought Zverev was going to be the next thing.

Zverev had some decent performances in Bo3 back in 2017-2018. Kinda fallen off a bit since then though. At the Slams he’s never been anything special.

 

[NatF]

Zverev had some decent performances in Bo3 back in 2017-2018. Kinda fallen off a bit since then though. At the Slams he’s never been anything special.

He might be better on aggregate because of the gap on clay (and to a lesser extent indoors) but Roddick is better on outdoor HC and grass.

 

[thrust]

More rubbish from you. Trying to use 2007 Nadal as a stick to beat Roddick with when it was one of Nadal’s very best Wimby matches is just ignorance lol.

BTW the h2h between Roddick and Djokovic's is 5-4 to the American and 1-0 at the AO. I'm sure you'll have some hypothetical to spin around that though right?

I guess Nadal and Djokovic can be too young and babies but Fed doesn't get older

Like I've said even if Federer's era was weak, which I would contest, it was obviously still stronger than now...and only an idiot would use 2007 Nadal as some form of argument to the contrary when it was a top 3 clay and grass season for him.

Just like Nadal, off clay, Novak was not at his best in 07-10 when he lost to Roddick. I am not sure Roddick played Novak after 2010, or if they did, who won.

 

[NatF]

Just like Nadal, off clay, Novak was not at his best in 07-10 when he lost to Roddick. I am not sure Roddick played Novak after 2010, or if they did, who won.

You're missing the point of my retort.

 

[Neptune]

Just like Nadal, off clay, Novak was not at his best in 07-10 when he lost to Roddick. I am not sure Roddick played Novak after 2010, or if they did, who won.

After 2010, there has been only one match and Nole won.

Following Roddick's victory in the AO09 QF, they have consistently appeared in same quarter of most non-clay big tournament draws. With four consecutive wins for Roddick, it seems like tournament organizers always know how to exploit the draw to work against Nole.

 

[TMF]

They would get some wins sure but they didn't really prove they would clean up and it's likely they would still have a lot less than Nadal and Djokovic.

No one said Federe's era(minus Fed) would have cleaned the pathetic field today. We are saying that the they would be much more successful than the 90s' born players.

I forgot to include early bloomer Nadal, who would be a gatekeeper during the clay season from 2005-2010.

I mean come on, the entire 90s born players have won only 2 slams, a combined total of 30 slam tournaments in the CIE. A winning percentage of 6.7! Not a single player has ended the YE #1. Medvedev has only held 16 weeks at #1 spot, no other player have reached #1. Meanwhile:

1. Djokovic won 12 slams
2. Nadal won 8 slams
3. Federer won 3 slams

That's a total of 23 slams inflated by the old big 3, a slam winning percentage of 76.7! Fedalovic, and Alcaraz(80's born player) has held the #1 spot with Djokovic inflated the most in the CIE.

When Federer won 16 slams between 2003 Wimbledon and 2010 AO, not a single mid-35 years old player have done a darn thing, let alone to dominate the tour, winning slam left and right. None.

There's simply no way that will ever happened in any past era. Winning 23 slams and maintaining at the top of the men's game for nearly 7 years is like expecting another clay court king winning another 14 French Open. Not going to happen!

Poster like @Djokovic_is_the_best#1 needs to open his eyes, and not take things the wrong way due to his blind love for his idol

 

[RS]

Zverev had some decent performances in Bo3 back in 2017-2018. Kinda fallen off a bit since then though. At the Slams he’s never been anything special.

I never thought he would clean up completely but I would have imagined he would have gone deeper in slams more often.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

It could be hard for you & thats "all I know" for you because you are watching tennis since 2011, but not for us who have seen how strong the field was back then, we know the youngsters in those times were better than Instagram Influencers and Onlyfans experts who are reaching finals. As this NatF guy said above, losing in 4-5 sets to peak Federer cannot be compared to clowns losing in straights to older versions of Djokodal in their mid 30s, that makes no sense at all.

2018-2023's Djokodal in 2000-2005 replacing Fedal

2000 AO - Agassi wins this with ease
2000 FO - Nadal will win this
2000W - Sampras will beat Djokovic
2000 USO - Safin will destroy 2018 Djokovic here.

2001 AO - Djokovic wins this blockbuster match vs 2001 Agassi .... tremendous match this will be
2001 FO - Kuerten vs Nadal would be a good fight, probably Nadal wins this.
2001 W - Sampras would reach the final and probably will beat Djokovic, he is not Federer to choke on MP..... He will ace it out and he aint losing Tb to anyone.
2001 USO - Now that is an interesting scenario ... I dont know wins ... Sampras is gassed out by the final vs Nadal.... 50-50, probably Nadal edges this one out.

2002 AO - Djokovic wins this
2002 FO - Nadal wins this
2002 W - Hewitt wins this, even if 2020 Nole is allowed to play WImbledon he ain't beating Hewitt.
2002 USO - Sampras will strip Thiem/Sascha and parade them both naked in New York.... Pete wins

2003 AO - Probably Agassi (since Novak is injured)
2003 FO - Ferrero could win this, but who knows
2003 W - Djokovic wins this since Roddick is a rookie
2003 US - Roddick will win this

2004 AO - Safin will edge out Nadal
2004 FO - Nadal wins this
2004 W - Roddick will beat Djokovic
2004 USO - Agassi will beat Alcaraz and the other men, even Novak will lose if he is allowed by George Bush to enter US.

2005 USO - Safin beats Novak in 4 sets
2005 FO - Djokovic wins this since the field was very weak
2005 W - Roddick/Hewitt vs Djokovic, good fight but Novak will lose. He ain't beating them back to back. Roddick most probably wins this if he meets Djoker in the final or Hewitt wins this if he beats Novak in semis.
2005 USO - Djokovic will probably prevail over Agassi here

So thats 5 Slams for Djokovic & 5 slams for Nadal in a period when they won 12 Slams & 6 Slams respectively.

So now instead of 18 slams they only have 10 slams. Thats what stronger field can do you even in a weak era. Whats your take on this ? @BorgTheGOAT @Kralingen Do you see some of these results go the other way?

Agree with most of those. Not 100% sold on Ferrero 03 FO but you said yourself this is debatable so not much objection from here.

 

[Silentchimera]

Not even sure 2011 is considered the gold standard anymore because lots of Djokovic fans think is better now than 2011.

Which year is this?
Which year 2003 onwards do you think is the strongest?

 

[netlets]

The big 3 all have inflated Slam titles because they have teams that keep them playing longer than past greats. Also, they play 4 slams a year instead of 3. So they all played about 20 to 30 more Slams than other generations. 50 more than Borg because, although he was dominant, he retired so young.

 

[RS]

Which year is this?
Which year 2003 onwards do you think is the strongest?

2008 easy.

I am talking 2023 Djokovic.

 

[mike danny]

We still harping on the extremely stupid argument that Fed’s gen is equal to the likes of Zverev, Medvedev, Tsitsipas, and what have you that we’re dealing with these days? Granted, Alcaraz may wind up being better than those guys (he’s not better than some yet, but in a few more years he may be) but the list begins and ends with him.

At least we’re improving. It used to be the case that folks would unironically rate Zverev > Roddick and expect to be taken seriously. Now they simply rate them equally which is not ideal but still, small progress is still progress even if there’s a long way to go yet.

We've seen Next Gen not even capable of winning sets against injured Oldovic in slam finals. At this point it's silly to even suggest they're on equal footing with Fed's guys.

 

[mike danny]

Zverev had some decent performances in Bo3 back in 2017-2018. Kinda fallen off a bit since then though. At the Slams he’s never been anything special.

I've yet so see a convincing argument that Zverev is a better slam player than Davydenko.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I've yet so see a convincing argument that Zverev is a better slam player than Davydenko.

Lol he isn't. He has a slam final which Davy misses but well given the circumstances thus does not cut it. His FO 22 campaign was more impressive though, too bad he got injured.

 

[RS]

This thread is better left. But no doubt as each slam passes it is going to keep getting bumped up.

 

[mike danny]

Lol he isn't. He has a slam final which Davy misses but well given the circumstances thus does not cut it. His FO 22 campaign was more impressive though, too bad he got injured.

I mean, was it though? I don't think 2022 Nadal > 2007 Fed at the French.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I mean, was it though? I don't think 2022 Nadal > 2007 Fed at the French.

I meant more impressive than his USO20 not necessarily than Davy's best. Those two are tough to compare, Zverev could have played Ned maybe slightly tougher than Davy played Fed but he would still have lost in the end imho.

 

[Silentchimera]

2008 easy.

Definitely not an easy win for 08 when looking at slam winners level. For slam winning level in my view 07~08.

07AO~08AO
08RG>07RG
07Wim>08Wim
07USO~08USO

I am talking 2023 Djokovic

Unfortunately for them the data suggests the opposite.

This thread is better left. But no doubt as each slam passes it is going to keep getting bumped up.

Ignorance is bliss. If context had no value nobody would watch the matches.