Underdog
Professional
Hello, everyone.
So, as we all know by now, there have been lots of debates regarding the infamous weak eras. As is probably the general take, people seem to consider the 2003-2007 (?) and the 2020-2023 periods as weak eras which benefited both Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic respectively.
I want to bring some talking points to the table to bring some considerations and try to raise some new ideas and perspectives.
Roger Federer:
So, Federer started to really dominate the tour in 2004 and held on strong to it until the end of 2007. That was his prime and peak and he's played some of the best tennis we have ever seen, arguably being a late bloomer (for his own standards), considering he was already 22 by the age of his first Slam title. He achieved 3 three-Slam seasons, 2 back-to-hack 4 Slam finals seasons and many people could argue he'd win 8 Slams in a row through 06-07 if not for best clay court player ever Rafael Nadal. He had to face the younger, arguably pre-prime versions of both Nadal and Djokovic. Federer held strong until early 2010, when he won the AO and then his prime ended, opening up space for the two younger goats who started to dominate the tour. Then, during his thirties, Federe kept going reasonably strong against the field, but couldn't find regular success agains his main rivals, leading to "only" 1 Slam won during what would be Djokovic's prime time span. Then, Federer reignited his game in 2017, got 3 more Slams and then "came back" to being outshined by his younger cunterparts in Slams. That dynamic led to 4 Slams won during his 30s and incredible 16 Slams won in his 20s. Federer hanged his racquet in 2022.
Novak Djokovic:
Djokovic on the other hand, started to become a regular top player in 2007. He was still very young and being regularly beaten by prime Federer then, apart from the incredible 2008 AO performance, especially in Slams, but also showing up every now and then in Masters. Then, by USO 2010, Djokovic achieved his first win versus Federer in NY, in a game that proved to be a passing of the torch sort of that maked the start of Federer becoming the supporting role to Nadal and Djokovic, who would go on to have the best season of his life and start a brilliant prime. During the 2011-2016 period, Djokovic was mostly the top player on tour, sharing the stage with fellow prime goat Rafael Nadal and post-prime goat Federer, in what is considered a very strong field and golden era in tennis. Starting from end of 2014, Nadal entered the worst period of his career, causing him to be a non-factor in Slams and leaving the spotlight to be shared only by prime Djokovic, post-prime Federer and arguably darkhorse (in my eyes ATG) Andy Murray. He managed 2 three-Slam seasons, held all Slams at once in 2016 as well as the most atp points and had his runs hampered by Fedal a few times like going for the CYGS in 2011, holding all four in 11-12, making all finals in 2012 and so on. Then, in 2017 until mid 2018, Djokovic had a slump that allowed for Fedal to share 6 Slams. From WB onwards, post-prime Djokovic regained form and mostly took over as the top player on tour, revolving to share the stage with fellows now post-prime Nadal and Federer, despite the three being over 30. From mid 2018 onward Federer's form of 2017 had soundly dropped. Then, in 2020, the pandemic hit and Nadal's body started a free fall, leading to what would be seen as a sole act of Djokovic that's lasting until the end of 2023 (Apart from the first half of 2022 until Nadal's body broke up again). This dynamic has Djokovic winning 12 Slams in his 20s and 12 Slams and counting in his 30s.
So, after this background check, it's fair to say Federer had his "weak era" overlapped with his prime years and feasted on that. He had pre-prime, young atgs that didn't pose a regular threat in Slams apart from obviously Nadal at RG. Then, during his early 30s, he had to deal with a level of competition in primed Djokovic and Nadal that he could not cope, mostly.
Djokovic couldn't achieve much early on because of Federer, but went on to have his prime during a very strong era and thrived, having prime Nadal and post-prime Federer as his main rivals. He held strong with his fellow rivals until they could, but then started a "weak era" that he's been dominating in his mid thirties.
That begs the question: What's actually better?
On Federer side, he arguably had the weak era during his prime, which led to him claiming the most Slams, but then he had his post-prime the toughest, having to deal with 5,6 years younger goats for the rest of his time in tennis. He had to deal with "only" the prime versions of the OE fellow goats during his prime, but Nadal was already clay god. Some could argue Federer's level was so high during his prime that his competition wouldn't matter, but that's obviouly debatable as Nadal, despite racking up Garroses, was not a regular in the HC Slams until 2009, but maybe Federer could be back to back CYGS winner if not Nadal.
On Djokovic's side he had the toughest era during his prime, yet he thrived and achieved great things, but then, he had his "weak era" stard in his thirties, which caused him, as the youngest of the Big 3, to thrive. He had to deal with the prime version of Nadal and "only" post-prime version of Federer in his prime, and maybe he could have achieved his share of astronomical feats during his prime if not for Nadal. Likewise, some will say Djokovic's 2020-2023 level is so high he'd be an equal to his prime self or would dominate a tougher field if needed be.
So, would you rather deal with young atgs and a weak field in your prime, but have those atgs younger than you for the rest of your career, or do you prefer having a tough time in your prime and then have it easier in your 30s? Is it harder to face pre-prime goats in your prime or post-prime? Did having Nadal on clay spoil Federer's "weak era" or 2020 and 2022 equals things for Djokovic?
Honestly, I've come to believe that Federer had it tougher, but it's an open debate for me. I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Note: I'm not at all trying to take anything away from those two sports great. I actually admire them a lot. Also, if you're a troll, please, keep your trolling out of this thread.
So, as we all know by now, there have been lots of debates regarding the infamous weak eras. As is probably the general take, people seem to consider the 2003-2007 (?) and the 2020-2023 periods as weak eras which benefited both Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic respectively.
I want to bring some talking points to the table to bring some considerations and try to raise some new ideas and perspectives.
Roger Federer:
So, Federer started to really dominate the tour in 2004 and held on strong to it until the end of 2007. That was his prime and peak and he's played some of the best tennis we have ever seen, arguably being a late bloomer (for his own standards), considering he was already 22 by the age of his first Slam title. He achieved 3 three-Slam seasons, 2 back-to-hack 4 Slam finals seasons and many people could argue he'd win 8 Slams in a row through 06-07 if not for best clay court player ever Rafael Nadal. He had to face the younger, arguably pre-prime versions of both Nadal and Djokovic. Federer held strong until early 2010, when he won the AO and then his prime ended, opening up space for the two younger goats who started to dominate the tour. Then, during his thirties, Federe kept going reasonably strong against the field, but couldn't find regular success agains his main rivals, leading to "only" 1 Slam won during what would be Djokovic's prime time span. Then, Federer reignited his game in 2017, got 3 more Slams and then "came back" to being outshined by his younger cunterparts in Slams. That dynamic led to 4 Slams won during his 30s and incredible 16 Slams won in his 20s. Federer hanged his racquet in 2022.
Novak Djokovic:
Djokovic on the other hand, started to become a regular top player in 2007. He was still very young and being regularly beaten by prime Federer then, apart from the incredible 2008 AO performance, especially in Slams, but also showing up every now and then in Masters. Then, by USO 2010, Djokovic achieved his first win versus Federer in NY, in a game that proved to be a passing of the torch sort of that maked the start of Federer becoming the supporting role to Nadal and Djokovic, who would go on to have the best season of his life and start a brilliant prime. During the 2011-2016 period, Djokovic was mostly the top player on tour, sharing the stage with fellow prime goat Rafael Nadal and post-prime goat Federer, in what is considered a very strong field and golden era in tennis. Starting from end of 2014, Nadal entered the worst period of his career, causing him to be a non-factor in Slams and leaving the spotlight to be shared only by prime Djokovic, post-prime Federer and arguably darkhorse (in my eyes ATG) Andy Murray. He managed 2 three-Slam seasons, held all Slams at once in 2016 as well as the most atp points and had his runs hampered by Fedal a few times like going for the CYGS in 2011, holding all four in 11-12, making all finals in 2012 and so on. Then, in 2017 until mid 2018, Djokovic had a slump that allowed for Fedal to share 6 Slams. From WB onwards, post-prime Djokovic regained form and mostly took over as the top player on tour, revolving to share the stage with fellows now post-prime Nadal and Federer, despite the three being over 30. From mid 2018 onward Federer's form of 2017 had soundly dropped. Then, in 2020, the pandemic hit and Nadal's body started a free fall, leading to what would be seen as a sole act of Djokovic that's lasting until the end of 2023 (Apart from the first half of 2022 until Nadal's body broke up again). This dynamic has Djokovic winning 12 Slams in his 20s and 12 Slams and counting in his 30s.
So, after this background check, it's fair to say Federer had his "weak era" overlapped with his prime years and feasted on that. He had pre-prime, young atgs that didn't pose a regular threat in Slams apart from obviously Nadal at RG. Then, during his early 30s, he had to deal with a level of competition in primed Djokovic and Nadal that he could not cope, mostly.
Djokovic couldn't achieve much early on because of Federer, but went on to have his prime during a very strong era and thrived, having prime Nadal and post-prime Federer as his main rivals. He held strong with his fellow rivals until they could, but then started a "weak era" that he's been dominating in his mid thirties.
That begs the question: What's actually better?
On Federer side, he arguably had the weak era during his prime, which led to him claiming the most Slams, but then he had his post-prime the toughest, having to deal with 5,6 years younger goats for the rest of his time in tennis. He had to deal with "only" the prime versions of the OE fellow goats during his prime, but Nadal was already clay god. Some could argue Federer's level was so high during his prime that his competition wouldn't matter, but that's obviouly debatable as Nadal, despite racking up Garroses, was not a regular in the HC Slams until 2009, but maybe Federer could be back to back CYGS winner if not Nadal.
On Djokovic's side he had the toughest era during his prime, yet he thrived and achieved great things, but then, he had his "weak era" stard in his thirties, which caused him, as the youngest of the Big 3, to thrive. He had to deal with the prime version of Nadal and "only" post-prime version of Federer in his prime, and maybe he could have achieved his share of astronomical feats during his prime if not for Nadal. Likewise, some will say Djokovic's 2020-2023 level is so high he'd be an equal to his prime self or would dominate a tougher field if needed be.
So, would you rather deal with young atgs and a weak field in your prime, but have those atgs younger than you for the rest of your career, or do you prefer having a tough time in your prime and then have it easier in your 30s? Is it harder to face pre-prime goats in your prime or post-prime? Did having Nadal on clay spoil Federer's "weak era" or 2020 and 2022 equals things for Djokovic?
Honestly, I've come to believe that Federer had it tougher, but it's an open debate for me. I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Note: I'm not at all trying to take anything away from those two sports great. I actually admire them a lot. Also, if you're a troll, please, keep your trolling out of this thread.
