The weak era argument is dead

[RaulRamirez]

Most of the issues come about because of quick labeling.
If someone just opined that one period of time was relatively stronger or weaker than another, then there are ways to back up that point, but hanging labels just distorts things and proportionality flies out the proverbial windows.

"GOAT" should not be the end-all or be-all. If you're astonishingly great, and someone's career was just a little better, you're still astonishingly great, with a secure legacy.
There's no hard-and-fast definition of all-time-great. But let's say the threshold of ATG is agreed upon. Does that mean that someone who fell just short of that was no good, and victories over them should be dismissed?
We collectively slap these labels on, and it just distorts everything. Where's the proportionality?
Let's say the last few years was a weaker period than, say, 2003-2006, or we say, vice versa.
Okay, maybe, but does that opinion (however much one may see it based in fact) negate achievements?

 

[StrongRule]

Nadal won the same amount of USOs from 2017 to 2019 as he had won from 2005 to 2018.

He didn't "struggle" to win Wimbledon, and the only reason he struggled at Roland Garros was because of Nadal. Any other player would struggle there.

He also lost to Federer and Wawrinka there, and twice to Thiem. Actually, every time when he had to face some kind of competition there, he had problems. But somehow there were years when his best competition were collapsing Murray and Ruud.

 

[mike danny]

No, he beat the guy who beat Alcaraz.

Like, say, Federer at RG 2009 who didn't beat Nadal and beat the guy who beat Nadal. You can only beat who is in front of you.

Yes, but the idea wasn't that the weak era is dead just because Djokovic beat Alcaraz in a masters final?

 

[BauerAlmeida]

He also lost to Federer and Wawrinka there, and twice to Thiem. Actually, every time when he had to face some kind of competition there, he had problems. But somehow there were years when his best competition were collapsing Murray and Ruud.

Yeah, Federer is just a terrible player. How dare he lose to him . One defeat vs Thiem was on a **** year for him. He also lost to Kohlschreiber, Cechinato and Melzer in **** years.

Other than that he only lost to Nadal, Wawrinka, Federer and Thiem (and Coria when he was a kid, and he was in fact winning).

So only 4 players beat him there in any somewhat decent year for him, and he happened to beat 3 of those 4 at RG as well. And the one he didn't beat is because he never faced him before or after.

Also, Thiem-Murray, Tsitsipas-Nadal and Ruud-Alcaraz are hardly terrible draws.

The idea that he should be only losing to Nadal or winning the event 15 years in a row is ridiculous. No player on any surface did that or something like that.

 

[Neptune]

Nole dominated the tennis golden era (the strongest era, the brutal big 4 era) in his 20s, and is still dominating in his 30s.

 

[fedfan24]

Nadal won the same amount of USOs from 2017 to 2019 as he had won from 2005 to 2018.

He didn't "struggle" to win Wimbledon, and the only reason he struggled at Roland Garros was because of Nadal. Any other player would struggle there.

2008-2016 age 21-28 3 titles in 9 attempts
2018-2023 age 31-36 4 titles in 5 attempts

 

[fedfan24]

Nole dominated the tennis golden era (the strongest era, the brutal big 4 era) in his 20s, and is still dominating in his 30s.

didn’t nadal win the most slams in the golden era? (07-14)

 

[BauerAlmeida]

2008-2016 age 21-28 3 titles in 9 attempts
2018-2023 age 31-36 4 titles in 5 attempts

Funny how you draw the line at the moment you find convenient lol. The "Inflation Era" always starts whenever someone wants to. At first, it was 2021, then 2020, now it's 2018 lol. In 2018 he beat Nadal and in 2019 Federer, but somehow that's lumped with the other titles. Also, you start counting in 2008 for some reason and not when he first won the title or made the final, in 2011, might as well start in 2005 and make it look like a bigger period of time.


Djokovic was not that good on grass at first, he improved a lot under Becker in particular. And since 2011, outside his two slump years, he only lost to Murray and Federer for a long time and now Alcaraz too.

From 2011 to 2015 he made 3 titles, 1 final and 1 SF.

 

[Neptune]

didn’t nadal win the most slams in the golden era? (07-14)

The golden era (the strongest era, the brutal big 4 era) is 2008-16. Murray not top10 in 2007.
In 2015-16 both Nole and Murray peaking and even Fedal had to take back seats. Then when both Nole/Murray went down after 2016, Fedal split the next 6 slams.

 

[fedfan24]

The golden era (the strongest era, the brutal big 4 era) is 2008-16. Murray not top10 in 2007.
In 2015-16 both Nole and Murray peaking and even Fedal had to take back seats. Then when both Nole/Murray went down after 2016, Fedal split the next 6 slams.

2016 included with a poor fedal but 2007 isn’t despite a strong big 3

 

[Neptune]

2016 included with a poor fedal but 2007 isn’t despite a strong big 3

Big 3 era 2007-2019
Big 4 era 2008-2016
poor Fedal in 2016 not because they were over, only because they were not able to compete with peak Nole/Murray

 

[fedfan24]

Big 3 era 2007-2019
Big 4 era 2008-2016
poor Fedal in 2016 not because they were over, only because they were not able to compete with peak Nole/Murray

absolute nonsense. Nadal Murray was 1-1 in the h2h for 2016 and fed didn’t even play Murray. Federer ended his season after Wimbledon due to injury. Nadal lost to a bunch of different players and withdrew from RG with injury.

 

[Neptune]

absolute nonsense. Nadal Murray was 1-1 in the h2h for 2016 and fed didn’t even play Murray. Federer ended his season after Wimbledon due to injury. Nadal lost to a bunch of different players and withdrew from RG with injury.

Fedal often unable to reach to two big bosses, the competition was strong. Theim and Raonic each handed two defeats for Fed for example

 

[fedfan24]

Fedal often unable to reach to two big bosses, the competition was strong. Theim and Raonic each handed two defeats for Fed for example

 

[Kralingen]

Fedal often unable to reach to two big bosses, the competition was strong. Theim and Raonic each handed two defeats for Fed for example

Peak Federer BLOWN away by Raonic and Thiem.

 

[RF-18]

Federer has a combined h2h of 7-11 against Thiem, Tsitsipas and Zverev. He doesn't have a winning record against either. And Fed was a top player during these years. These players aren't weak or bad. Djokovic makes it look that way. No matter the generation or players, he always came out on top. He outperformed both Fedal when they were going at it, and he is outperforming 2 generations after that. Djokovic deserves his credit. No one would be able to keep up for this long the way he has on every surface essentially. He has proven no matter who is put in front of him, he finds a way to outperform it. My point is we need to look at Djokos ability first and foremost at this point rather than looking at faults on other stuff. But I get people can't do that cause there is a certain agenda to be followed.

Peak Federer BLOWN away by Raonic and Thiem.

 

[Aestheticsaboveallelse]

Federer has a combined h2h of 7-11 against Thiem, Tsitsipas and Zverev. He doesn't have a winning record against either. And Fed was a top player during these years. These players aren't weak or bad. Djokovic makes it look that way. No matter the generation or players, he always came out on top. He outperformed both Fedal when they were going at it, and he is outperforming 2 generations after that. Djokovic deserves his credit. No one would be able to keep up for this long the way he has on every surface essentially. He has proven no matter who is put in front of him, he finds a way to outperform it. My point is we need to look at Djokos ability first and foremost at this point rather than looking at faults on other stuff. But I get people can't do that cause there is a certain agenda to be followed.

He doesnt outperform anything. He outhumanwalls everything

 

[RF-18]

He doesnt outperform anything. He outhumanwalls everything

False.

 

[Kralingen]

Federer has a combined h2h of 7-11 against Thiem, Tsitsipas and Zverev. He doesn't have a winning record against either. And Fed was a top player during these years. These players aren't weak or bad. Djokovic makes it look that way. No matter the generation or players, he always came out on top. He outperformed both Fedal when they were going at it, and he is outperforming 2 generations after that. Djokovic deserves his credit. No one would be able to keep up for this long the way he has on every surface essentially. He has proven no matter who is put in front of him, he finds a way to outperform it. My point is we need to look at Djokos ability first and foremost at this point rather than looking at faults on other stuff. But I get people can't do that cause there is a certain agenda to be followed.

Peak for peak and prime for prime Federer is the best.

 

[Neptune]

Peak for peak and prime for prime Federer is the best.

Nope

 

[Neptune]

He doesnt outperform anything. He outhumanwalls everything

Career matches vs top10
Nole: 361 (252-109, 69.80%)
Fedr: 346 (223-123, 64.45%)
Rafa: 288 (186-102, 64.58%)
Lendl 257 (164-93, 63.81%)

 

[Aestheticsaboveallelse]

Career matches vs top10
Nole: 361 (252-109, 69.80%)
Fedr: 346 (223-123, 64.45%)
Rafa: 288 (186-102, 64.58%)
Lendl 257 (164-93, 63.81%)

Outwalled, outpushed, outgrinded. GG

 

[TMF]

Federer has a combined h2h of 7-11 against Thiem, Tsitsipas and Zverev. He doesn't have a winning record against either. And Fed was a top player during these years. These players aren't weak or bad. Djokovic makes it look that way. No matter the generation or players, he always came out on top. He outperformed both Fedal when they were going at it, and he is outperforming 2 generations after that. Djokovic deserves his credit. No one would be able to keep up for this long the way he has on every surface essentially. He has proven no matter who is put in front of him, he finds a way to outperform it. My point is we need to look at Djokos ability first and foremost at this point rather than looking at faults on other stuff. But I get people can't do that cause there is a certain agenda to be followed.

And conveniently ignore the gigantic age gap between Federer and these 3 NextGen mugs who's suppose to be the elite players in the CIE. LMAO

Federer is 17 years older than Tsisipas
Federer is 12 years older than Thiem
Federer is 16 years older than Zverev

They were in their prime when they played against an old, well past prime Federer who already had multiples surgeries and thousands miles on those legs.

Had Federer was at the same age as Nole, these 3 weak mugs win nothing.

The career inflation era is real and still exist today, when will it end depends on the quality of the playing field. It remains to be seen !

 

[LuckyR]

And conveniently ignore the gigantic age gap between Federer and these 3 NextGen mugs who's suppose to be the elite players in the CIE. LMAO

Federer is 17 years older than Tsisipas
Federer is 12 years older than Thiem
Federer is 16 years older than Zverev

They were in their prime when they played against an old, well past prime Federer who already had multiples surgeries and thousands miles on those legs.

Had Federer was at the same age as Nole, these 3 weak mugs win nothing.

The career inflation era is real and still exist today, when will it end depends on the quality of the playing field. It remains to be seen !

So. When, in your opinion, was the Strong era?

 

[Martinl]

Still to this day, you Nole fanatics always include young gun Baghdatis as one of 2004-2007 Federer's main rivals. They met 5 times during that period. In fairness, where's Djokovic, who faced Federer 6 times during that period? Better yet, where's Nadal, who faced Federer fourteen times...more than he met any of the mentioned players during that period? Those 14 meetings included 5 slams, 2 WTFs, and 6 Masters (3 of them BO5).

The omission of these two players to make a point only shows that you have no point.

totally agree. Federer's main rival in those days was Nadal, an ATG and the greatest clay courter of all time. So if Nadal was his contemporary, how can it be a weak era?

 

[MichaelNadal]

Outwalled, outpushed, outgrinded. GG

 

[Djokovic_is_the_best#1]

And conveniently ignore the gigantic age gap between Federer and these 3 NextGen mugs who's suppose to be the elite players in the CIE. LMAO

Federer is 17 years older than Tsisipas
Federer is 12 years older than Thiem
Federer is 16 years older than Zverev

They were in their prime when they played against an old, well past prime Federer who already had multiples surgeries and thousands miles on those legs.

Had Federer was at the same age as Nole, these 3 weak mugs win nothing.

The career inflation era is real and still exist today, when will it end depends on the quality of the playing field. It remains to be seen !

Novak is also a lot older than these guys too. Yet he still finds a way to beat them consistently.

 

[Aestheticsaboveallelse]

Novak is also a lot older than these guys too. Yet he still finds a way to beat them consistently.

We need to peer into the alternate universe where Federer and Djokovic were the same age . Cause six years is a huge gap and makes it way more difficult to judge everything

 

[duaneeo]

Djokovic is 128-25 versus 90s-born players (Nishikori included) who have made a slam final and/or have won a Masters. That's a winning record of 83.7% against the players expected to end his reign.