The weak era argument is dead

[NatF]

lol at equating Alcaraz with say 2015 Djokovic, what do we think 2015 Djokovic would be doing to Alcaraz right now?

6 years is a lot less than 16! (6<16) Who's using age as an excuse? Novak's still winning! If anything, Alcaraz should be embarrassed!

...yes the fact Alcaraz isn't able to consistently beat 36 year Djokovic definitely dampens the hype around him as a generational talent.

 

[Drob]

no, Fed beat djoko in straight sets in Cincy 09.
So it was 3-2 to djoko in 2009.
fed won their most important match in straights - USO 09.

Miami 09 was a horror fest between bad djokovic and worse federer. not like djoko did well to win it. no wonder he got beat easily by Murray in the final.

reversed in 2014. fed lead the h2h 3-2 , winning Dubai, Monte Carlo and Shanghai and losing IW, Wimbledon. But Djoko needed a 5th set to beat fed at Wim 14.
unlike fed who beat djokovic rather easily in comparision in USO 09.

I said Cincy 2008 over Fed. 2009 was Key Biscayne, Rome and Basel, which I wrote.

2009, he was 3-1 versus Federer, the year-end No. 1, and 2-3 against Nadal. Admittedly, he lost to Roger at USO, but beat him Key Biscayne, Rome and Basel

Nevertheless, I am sure you are right about the quality of some of the matches. I was not commenting on the quality, but merely that Djokovic was already achieving pretty good records on the two, and winning some important matches - especially Melbourne 2008.

 

[Drob]

no, Fed beat djoko in straight sets in Cincy 09.

Ah, see your point. Misunderstood. You are correct. Thanks.

 

[junior74]

Amen. And Fed-fanatics or anyone who has something serious against Novak Djokovic should understand that numbers and facts writ-large will never work in undermining Djokovic's preeminence in objective terms. In numbers, facts, titles, records-against - anyway you want to look at it - he comes out on top. (His closest competitors are bygone players, but they don't equal him, either). The only way for to argue for Federer is through intangibles, and that is tough to do against objective accomplishment. But it can be tried - beauty, "complete game," versatility, impact on the popularity of the game, whatever else . . . go ahead and try it. Just don't try using the record against Djokovic. You can't win.

Djokovic has the numbers. No doubt. But numbers are easily mis-used and mis-interpreted.

Anyway - 90s gen winning 2 slams is sad stuff. And I don't think the talented 80s gen can explain it. 90s gen is weak sauce.

When it comes to Djokovic and Federer, I'd say they reached approximately the same insanely high level at their best. Their peaks didn't really happen at the same time, so there are bound to be some hypothetical discussion in that regard. Novak is pushing the game further with his unbelievable fitness regime. Awesome stuff.

 

[RF-18]

Yep, knew it, Sampras over the hill, while Fed is peak.

Sampras in slams 2001 4R, 2R, 4R and F. 37-17 record for the year. 67% win rate. That's terrible, and definitely he was over the hill. Federer in 2015 had become very slim and fit, he put alot work and prepared to win slams that year.

 

[abmk]

I said Cincy 2008 over Fed. 2009 was Key Biscayne, Rome and Basel, which I wrote.



Nevertheless, I am sure you are right about the quality of some of the matches. I was not commenting on the quality, but merely that Djokovic was already achieving pretty good records on the two, and winning some important matches - especially Melbourne 2008.

not sure where Cincy 08 vs fed came in. fed djoko didn't play in Cincy 2008.
My point was djoko was 3-2 vs fed in 2009, not 3-1 as you wrote.
fed won in Cincy 09 and USO 09 vs djoko.

 

[Unseeded Player]

Well, if he had Medvedev, Zverev and Tsitsipas he would've done exactly that.

And yes, Nadal won once match, Fed won the other 3 because he actually got to play Nadal in his best years at Wimb a couple of times.

Djoker avoided prime Fed entirely at Wimb, so of course it was easier to beat a 33-38 year old.

Well he had Roddick, Hewitt and Safin which is not much tougher.

But he lost 3 times at AO.

Maybe but still Novak was the only one who could do that.

 

[Unseeded Player]

Old Nadal whose weakest slam IS AO.


It still shows a form of decline which was the whole point of me bringing them up. It's a bit more nuanced than "winning cures all".

Yeah, when he was nursing injuries.

Novak was also old then.. Nadal is weakest at WB..

Novak at the same age can beat 16 year younger ATG and don't loose to Raonić and Anderson calibre of players.

 

[Unseeded Player]

Fed wasn't 25-27 in those years.

But when the field got stroger he was also able to win 1 per year.. 2 in 2009 thanks to Soderling..

 

[Unseeded Player]

That literally applies to 2004-2007 too.

LOL.. Only 2 chokes, against Kuerten RG04 and Safin AO05, everything else was a routine. Very simmilar with 2020-2022

 

[NoleFam]

Sampras in slams 2001 4R, 2R, 4R and F. 37-17 record for the year. 67% win rate. That's terrible, and definitely he was over the hill. Federer in 2015 had become very slim and fit, he put alot work and prepared to win slams that year.

Which is pretty obvious.

 

[Third Serve]

When you’re a player who has reached over thirty Slam finals, it is painfully obvious that some of those finals will be better than others. For a player like Andy Roddick or Stan Wawrinka who have only reached a few of them, a Slam final is a sure indicator that they’re in prime form or even near their best.

For Fed, reaching a Slam final tells us much less about his actual level relative to other versions of the same player. B-game Federer is perfectly capable of reaching Slam finals because Fed is just so much better than the rest of the field that they can’t really expose his decline that well (though there are times in Fed’s late career where he dipped even below his B-game which was good enough for upsets to happen now and then—like AO 2015). The only ones who can beat Fed’s B-game are those whose A-games are simply better than Fed’s B-game. The easiest answer to that would be Nadal and Djokovic.

When Fed reaches a Slam final, it can be his #1 best Slam final. But it could also be his 30th best. Merely citing the fact that he reached a Slam final just isn’t good enough to argue that he was in his prime. You’ll have to do better than that.

 

[duaneeo]

Well he had Roddick, Hewitt and Safin which is not much tougher.

Roddick, Hewitt, Safin were strong contemporaries who Federer (the ATG at his peak/prime) dominated...losing to them once at the slams.

Murray and Wawrinka were strong contemporaries who Djokovic (the ATG at his peak/prime) failed to dominate....losing to them 5 times at the slams.

Medvedev, Zverev, and Tsitsipas are weak contemporaries who Djokovic (the ATG at his past-past-prime) dominated...losing to them once at the slams (and even that one loss was more a gift).

 

[TMF]

Well he had Roddick, Hewitt and Safin which is not much tougher.

But he lost 3 times at AO.

Maybe but still Novak was the only one who could do that.

Young Roddick, Hewitt, and Safin beat 29/30 years old Sampras. Federer's era put an end to Sampras's era and they all end in retirement. No mid-35 years old dominate and/or win slams in Federer's era. None.

Medvedev, Zverev and Tsitsipas and the NextGen has beaten who? If they were as good as Federer's peers, they should be able to beat a 30 years old Nole. Yet, they can't even beat a 36 years old Fart today. They had to watch an 2000's born player(tiny Alcaraz) to do the job, but still struggle....

Go figure !

 

[Unseeded Player]

Roddick, Hewitt, Safin were strong contemporaries who Federer (the ATG at his peak/prime) dominated...losing to them once at the slams.

Murray and Wawrinka were strong contemporaries who Djokovic (the ATG at his peak/prime) failed to dominate....losing to them 5 times at the slams.

Medvedev, Zverev, and Tsitsipas are weak contemporaries who Djokovic (the ATG at his past-past-prime) dominated...losing to them once at the slams (and even that one loss was more a gift).

LOL.. H2H Roddick vs Fed 3-21, Andy never beated Fed at slam, 1 win Montreal, 2 wins Miami.. Hewitt vs Fed 9-18, Hewitt never beated Fed at slam, made 7 wins before 2004.. Safin vs Federer 2-10, 1 win at slam AO05 and even that was choke from Fed who didn't used match point.
They were weak competition.

Novak vs Murray 25-11, slams 8-2
Novak vs Wawrinka 21-6, slams 5-4
Murray beated Novak at WB and US but Novak already had those slam titles, on the other side Novak stoped Murray from winning AO and RG.
Wawrinka was in the zone for the 3 slams, he met Novak all 3 times, Fed and Nadal only 1 time. Looking overall their H2H Novak did dominated both of them.

Novak-Medvedev 9-5
Novak-Zverev 8-4
Novak - Tsitsipas 11-2
Yes, Alcaraz has beated all of them routine this year. Meddy did played great US21 but he had a highway until the final, Novak felt fatigue.

So overall only 1 win against Novak and Fed at slams by their strongest competitors in easier period outside clay.

My point still stands.

 

[Unseeded Player]

Young Roddick, Hewitt, and Safin beat 29/30 years old Sampras. Federer's era put an end to Sampras's era and they all end in retirement. No mid-35 years old dominate and/or win slams in Federer's era. None.

Medvedev, Zverev and Tsitsipas and the NextGen has beaten who? If they were as good as Federer's peers, they should be able to beat a 30 years old Nole. Yet, they can't even beat a 36 years old Fart today. They had to watch an 80's born player(tiny Alcaraz) to do the job, but still struggle....

Go figure !

Sampras ended his career in 2002, most of the matches were near the end of his career. Juat look his results in 2001. On the other side Agassi Roddick 5-1, Agassi Hewitt 4-4, Agassi Safin 3-3.

You can't compare any 35 year old earlier with Novak, he is category for himself.

If Fed didn't beated Novak at slams since 2012 and Nadal outside clay since 2013 what do you expect from the others? They did beated him few times but as I wrote Novak is above Sampras and Agassi.

Even 16 years younger ATG barely wins, Novak is clearly the greatest. He is winning both strong and weak field.

 

[Krish0608]

Sampras ended his career in 2002, most of the matches were near the end of his career. Juat look his results in 2001. On the other side Agassi Roddick 5-1, Agassi Hewitt 4-4, Agassi Safin 3-3.

You can't compare any 35 year old earlier with Novak, he is category for himself.

If Fed didn't beated Novak at slams since 2012 and Nadal outside clay since 2013 what do you expect from the others? They did beated him few times but as I wrote Novak is above Sampras and Agassi.

Even 16 years younger ATG barely wins, Novak is clearly the greatest. He is winning both strong and weak field.

Apart from Fedal losses. Novak was beaten by Wawrinka in slams every single year from 2014-2016 in 3 different slams. And by Murray in 2012 and 2013. Needless to mention bum losses to Nishikori and Querrey. All this in his absolute peak years. And now a way past prime Oldvak is invincible all of a sudden? The logical explanation for this statistical outlier is the fact that the field was a LOT (like 1000x) stronger during Novak's prime than the last 5 years. Or if you are a crazy and a deluded fanboi, you can choose to believe that Novak is peaking now and he is God.

 

[Unseeded Player]

Apart from Fedal losses. Novak was beaten by Wawrinka in slams every single year from 2014-2016 in 3 different slams. And by Murray in 2012 and 2013. Needless to mention bum losses to Nishikori and Querrey. All this in his absolute peak years. And now a way past prime Oldvak is invincible all of a sudden? The logical explanation for this statistical outlier is the fact that the field was a LOT (like 1000x) stronger during Novak's prime than the last 5 years. Or if you are a crazy and a deluded fanboi, you can choose to believe that Novak is peaking now and he is God.

Despite those losses Novak has won 12 slams + 9 finals played. Since 2018 it is 11 slams + 3 finals. Losses do happen, Wawrinka beated Nadal at AO14 and Fed at RG15, he met Novak all 3 times. Murray had positive H2H against Fed in that period and Novak beated him 8 times at slams. Nishikori and Querrey were chokes but again Nadal had chokes at AO and WB. It was much stronger but again field from 2020-2022 doesn't change the fact how weak was 2004-2006 period.

 

[Fiero425]

Apart from Fedal losses. Novak was beaten by Wawrinka in slams every single year from 2014-2016 in 3 different slams. And by Murray in 2012 and 2013. Needless to mention bum losses to Nishikori and Querrey. All this in his absolute peak years. And now a way past prime Oldvak is invincible all of a sudden? The logical explanation for this statistical outlier is the fact that the field was a LOT (like 1000x) stronger during Novak's prime than the last 5 years. Or if you are a crazy and a deluded fanboi, you can choose to believe that Novak is peaking now and he is God.

OMG, that's so ridiculous! Why bother playing matches if they're won by expectations alone? The excellence of Novak has taken people into an alternate reality where he shouldn't lose even an exhibition match! He lost all 2 or 3 Laver Cup matches, but still won US Open in 2018! STUPID, stupid, stupid!

 

[Chanwan]

Despite those losses Novak has won 12 slams + 9 finals played. Since 2018 it is 11 slams + 3 finals. Losses do happen, Wawrinka beated Nadal at AO14 and Fed at RG15, he met Novak all 3 times. Murray had positive H2H against Fed in that period and Novak beated him 8 times at slams. Nishikori and Querrey were chokes but again Nadal had chokes at AO and WB. It was much stronger but again field from 2020-2022 doesn't change the fact how weak was 2004-2006 period.

That's the weird thing. Losses used to happen and then suddenly Novak could no longer lose in finals. Experience is everything

 

[Unseeded Player]

That's the weird thing. Losses used to happen and then suddenly Novak could no longer lose in finals. Experience is everything

Same thing like Fed, unbeatable until Nadal raised the level outside clay....Magic..

 

[Chanwan]

Same thing like Fed, unbeatable until Nadal raised the level outside clay....Magic..

Or exactly opposite. Djoko aged like wine

 

[Unseeded Player]

Or exactly opposite. Djoko aged like wine

True, Nadal is like liqueur.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Young Roddick, Hewitt, and Safin beat 29/30 years old Sampras. Federer's era put an end to Sampras's era and they all end in retirement. No mid-35 years old dominate and/or win slams in Federer's era. None.

Medvedev, Zverev and Tsitsipas and the NextGen has beaten who? If they were as good as Federer's peers, they should be able to beat a 30 years old Nole. Yet, they can't even beat a 36 years old Fart today. They had to watch an 80's born player(tiny Alcaraz) to do the job, but still struggle....

Go figure !

Alcaraz was born in the 80s?

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Murray and Wawrinka were strong contemporaries who Djokovic (the ATG at his peak/prime) failed to dominate....losing to them 5 times at the slams.

He even lost six times to them. Twice to Murray, four times to Stan.

 

[SonnyT]

The age gap was a big deal to Nole fans when peak/prime Federer was facing "baby" Nole. But once Nole reached his peak in 2011 when Roger was turning 30, the 6-year gap was suddenly no big deal. All things were now fair and even.

Pre-'11, Djokovic hadn't learned how to win slams yet. Whereas post-'11, both Federer and Djokovic had learned.

Regardless whether it was pre or post-prime, you guys must admit that if Djokovic hadn't won in '14, 15 and 19, Federer would've won them. So he would sit in retirement with 11 WB.

 

[ND-13]

Djokovic has very emphatic wins at AO that you can say the opponents would not matter. But his Wimbledon titles are courtesy of weak opponents time after time, barring 2018 Nadal.

 

[duaneeo]

Regardless whether it was pre or post-prime, you guys must admit that if Djokovic hadn't won in '14, 15 and 19, Federer would've won them. So he would sit in retirement with 11 WB.

Okay, if not for Nole, a player nearly 33/34/38 years old would've won 2014/2015/2019 Wimbledon. But how does this support the claim that the era wasn't weak?

 

[TheFifthSet]

When you’re a player who has reached over thirty Slam finals, it is painfully obvious that some of those finals will be better than others. For a player like Andy Roddick or Stan Wawrinka who have only reached a few of them, a Slam final is a sure indicator that they’re in prime form or even near their best.

For Fed, reaching a Slam final tells us much less about his actual level relative to other versions of the same player. B-game Federer is perfectly capable of reaching Slam finals because Fed is just so much better than the rest of the field that they can’t really expose his decline that well (though there are times in Fed’s late career where he dipped even below his B-game which was good enough for upsets to happen now and then—like AO 2015). The only ones who can beat Fed’s B-game are those whose A-games are simply better than Fed’s B-game. The easiest answer to that would be Nadal and Djokovic.

When Fed reaches a Slam final, it can be his #1 best Slam final. But it could also be his 30th best. Merely citing the fact that he reached a Slam final just isn’t good enough to argue that he was in his prime. You’ll have to do better than that.

Third Serve throwing 12-punch combos today.

 

[Unseeded Player]

The only ones who can beat Fed’s B-game are those whose A-games are simply better than Fed’s B-game. The easiest answer to that would be Nadal and Djokovic.

When Fed reaches a Slam final, it can be his #1 best Slam final. But it could also be his 30th best. Merely citing the fact that he reached a Slam final just isn’t good enough to argue that he was in his prime. You’ll have to do better than that.

Nadal's A game can beat Fed's A more times than vice versa. Not only that Fed was never close of defeating him at RG but he started losing at the other slams as well. He only beated Nadal once at AO and that's it. They never met at US cause Fed wasn't able to pass Djokovic but considering how much one sided rivlary was since 2008 I wouldn't put my money on Fed there..Rafa owned him with with 23:10 after AO14... On the other side, Novak wasn't on A level before 2011, on some tournaments yes, Montreal 2007, Australia 2008 but overall he wasn't able to play constantly on that level, 2010 was very bad... We didn't saw much in H2H against A Novak and A Fed

Fed wasn't in his pirme in 2014, 2015 and 2019 true but when a player losses 1 or 2 sets until the final I would say it is more than a worthy opponent. Same as Nadal in 2019 AO, he lost 0 sets until the final.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

The argument is not dead because Djokovic did something to disprove it (that would be giving it credibility).
It's dead because it can never be an argument, as it's non-falsifiable.

 

[TMF]

Sampras ended his career in 2002, most of the matches were near the end of his career. Juat look his results in 2001. On the other side Agassi Roddick 5-1, Agassi Hewitt 4-4, Agassi Safin 3-3.

You can't compare any 35 year old earlier with Novak, he is category for himself.

If Fed didn't beated Novak at slams since 2012 and Nadal outside clay since 2013 what do you expect from the others? They did beated him few times but as I wrote Novak is above Sampras and Agassi.

Even 16 years younger ATG barely wins, Novak is clearly the greatest. He is winning both strong and weak field.

LOL
Sampras was beaten by 20 years old Hewitt and Safin at the grand stage, and Roddick also has a positive H2H over him. He retired early because Federer and his competition has taken over the tour(unlike the CIE today).


Agassi never won a slam, never reached #1 in Federer's era. Sure he extended his career in his 30s, but was never dominate the tour(unlike the CIE today)

Number of slams won by players in their 30s in the CIE(mid-2016 to present): TWENTY THREE
Number of slams won by players in their 30s in Federer's era(mid-2003 to 2009): ZERO !
Everyone knows players at their best are in their 20s, not in their 30s. Federer was already past his prime in 2012 and Djokovic who was in his 20s was at his peak. But the problem is his stats during his peak/prime years were worse than the stats he obtained his 30s(when he was way past his prime). The only explanation for a past prime Djokovic won 11 slams after 28 is that the depth and strength of the competition is weak.

Safin and Hewitt were around Alcaraz age when they beat a 29/30 years old Sampras. Matter of fact they straight set him at the USO 2000 and 2001. Alcaraz was force to a 5 sets against a 36 years old fart at the USO.
Who's win were more impressive at the USO final, Safin, Hewitt, or Alcaraz? Thought so !

NO. Djokovic is one of the ATG, that's it. Saying someone is "clearly the greatest" is a fanaticism

 

[RS]

lol at equating Alcaraz with say 2015 Djokovic, what do we think 2015 Djokovic would be doing to Alcaraz right now?

...yes the fact Alcaraz isn't able to consistently beat 36 year Djokovic definitely dampens the hype around him as a generational talent.

I think Alcaraz can be still forgiven since he started his rise just over a year ago and Djokovic is still not easy to put away and already has 2 but if within the next one year he isn't beating Djokovic most the time I think that's a pretty fair argument.

 

[Lauren_Girl']

Anyone saying Djokovic won in a weak era is just not very objective. He played in the exact same era as Nadal and Federer, who are only 1 and 6 years older than him and won 20 and 22 Slams. He beat Federer and Nadal multiple times in Slams. Not his fault is 1 is retired and the other 1 is injured today,... he was able to stay healthy and outshine both players, so credit to him.

I can also admit that the current era isn't as good as the 2010s, it doesn't make it a "weak era". Not as good as the previous one but still not weak.... Djokovic and Alcaraz are above the field now. Once Djokovic retires, Alcaraz won't have to deal with guys like Federer and Nadal. That's why even if Alcaraz wins 25-30 Slams in the late 2020s and 2030', many will still put Djokovic, Nadal and Federer above him (or any player who wins more than 20 in the future). It will take any future player more than winning 25 Slams to convince me he's above Djokovic.

 

[Krish0608]

I can also admit that the current era isn't as good as the 2010s, it doesn't make it a "weak era". Not as good as the previous one but still not weak....

Why not? It is not just any weak era. It’s the weakest era in the last 3 decades. Men’s Tennis has never seen such lows as it has seen in the last 6-7 years, with a special mention of 2020-2022 which is the absolute pits. Ruud made 2 GS finals. Tsitsipas made 2 (I really like the guy, but let’s face it, he wasn’t making slam finals in the Big 3 era. No way). Kyrgios, Berrettini making the finals, Medvedev winning Grand Slams. I mean, it’s literally the worst era ever. Carlos has just begun saving this sh*t show to some extent, but it remains to be seen how he handles the pressure of expectations.

 

[Unseeded Player]

LOL
Sampras was beaten by 20 years old Hewitt and Safin at the grand stage, and Roddick also has a positive H2H over him. He retired early because Federer and his competition has taken over the tour(unlike the CIE today).


Agassi never won a slam, never reached #1 in Federer's era. Sure he extended his career in his 30s, but was never dominate the tour(unlike the CIE today)

Number of slams won by players in their 30s in the CIE(mid-2016 to present): TWENTY THREE
Number of slams won by players in their 30s in Federer's era(mid-2003 to 2009): ZERO !
Everyone knows players at their best are in their 20s, not in their 30s. Federer was already past his prime in 2012 and Djokovic who was in his 20s was at his peak. But the problem is his stats during his peak/prime years were worse than the stats he obtained his 30s(when he was way past his prime). The only explanation for a past prime Djokovic won 11 slams after 28 is that the depth and strength of the competition is weak.

Safin and Hewitt were around Alcaraz age when they beat a 29/30 years old Sampras. Matter of fact they straight set him at the USO 2000 and 2001. Alcaraz was force to a 5 sets against a 36 years old fart at the USO.
Who's win were more impressive at the USO final, Safin, Hewitt, or Alcaraz? Thought so !

NO. Djokovic is one of the ATG, that's it. Saying someone is "clearly the greatest" is a fanaticism

This doesn't change the fact that both Hewitt and Roddick were Fed's pigeons and since 2004 they won 0 slams + they never beated Fed at slams. Argument work both ways, they both faced weaker competition in their careers, Fed in his prime, Novak later. Post prime Agassi was able to beat all 3 of Fed biggest competitors.

Of course that stats will be worse, he had to play against prime Nadal, post prime Fed, Murray, Wawrinka, Del Potro.. But again in his 20s Novak has reached 21 slam final, winnig 12. Fed in his 20s has reached 22 slam finals and won 16. Before AO11 it was 16-1 advantage. Fed except 2013 was competitive for the slam titles until 2019. But he needed Novak out of his way. He didn't defeated Novak at slams since 2012. The greatest wouldn't allow that and wouldn't be Nadal's pigeon in H2H.

Nothing changes the fact how much s*it competiton they were for Fed, until Nadal raised the level outside clay.

You can cry and hate the fact but Novak is the greatest by stats facts.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Novak's draw lol

 

[Unseeded Player]

Novak's draw lol

US17 memories are coming

 

[MichaelNadal]

US17 memories are coming

It's worse lol
It's one thing for a draw to fall apart, it's another for it to be a pre-baked cupcake that can only start spoiling each day

 

[Unseeded Player]

It's worse lol

Well you know how Fed fans said, you can beat only who is in front of you.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Dude, he just won a masters, not a slam. Federer also won Cincy 2015 in dominant fashion and how did that work out for the USO?

Fact is Djokovic lost the big one at Wimb and Cincy won't change that.

So I suppose now that he won the USO and not just a masters the argument is indeed dead...

 

[Milanez82]

So I suppose now that he won the USO and not just a masters the argument is indeed dead...

Good catch

 

[Sport]

What? 20 year old Alcaraz emerging in 22/23 doesn’t make the likes of Nishikori, Ruud, Zverev, Thiem, Berrettini, Raonic, Medvedev, Tsitsipas, Shapovalov, etc any better.

And those are the guys Novak was beating to win 10 Slams after age 30 - not Alcaraz, who he only beat at one Slam, when Carlos cramped up at RG.

Nothing Alcaraz does can change the past or make those guys any better or those titles any stronger.

Thiem and Medvedev don't belong to that list. They're no mugs, especially peak Thiem. I mean, if you wanna say Thiem and Medvedev are weak, then you'd need to say Roddick and Safin are weak too.

EXTRA:

 

[jl809]

Thiem and Medvedev don't belong to that list. They're no mugs, especially peak Thiem. I mean, if you wanna say Thiem and Medvedev are weak, then you'd need to say Roddick and Safin are weak too.

I think quite a lot of people on here would say that tbh. Sure, AO 05 and whatever, but they were not consistently tough at all really

 

[mike danny]

So I suppose now that he won the USO and not just a masters the argument is indeed dead...

He didn't beat Alcaraz to win it.

 

[StrongRule]

It's really pathetic that some Djokovic fans try to hype even the 2023 competition, which was a new low. And no, he has never proved that he can beat any competition, no matter what. If anything, the opposite is true. He now wins lots of titles which he really struggled to win before the asterisk era. Hell, last year he lost to a pretty much retired Nadal in DO. This year the toughest opponent he faced there is Ruud.

 

[fedfan24]

It's really pathetic that some Djokovic fans try to hype even the 2023 competition, which was a new low. And no, he has never proved that he can beat any competition, no matter what. If anything, the opposite is true. He now wins lots of titles which he really struggled to win before the asterisk era. Hell, last year he lost to a pretty much retired Nadal in DO. This year the toughest opponent he faced there is Ruud.

it is curious that he can now seemingly win RG, Wimbledon, cincy etc with ease, even USO. When during his prime years 2008-2016 he struggled with these and had quite a few defeats to superior opposition. His career has gone the opposite to how it should be.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

He didn't beat Alcaraz to win it.

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.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

it is curious that he can now seemingly win RG, Wimbledon, cincy etc with ease, even USO. When during his prime years 2008-2016 he struggled with these and had quite a few defeats to superior opposition. His career has gone the opposite to how it should be.

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.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

I think quite a lot of people on here would say that tbh. Sure, AO 05 and whatever, but they were not consistently tough at all really

Safin wasn't consistent, Roddick was.