To Fed fans who talk about weak opponents for Djokovic

Well
Considering you’re viewed as a joke on these forums, I welcome your opinion!
By bots, dummies and willfully deluded such as yourself, that is. Somehow the most tennistically knowledgeable posters typically argue in the same general direction as I do, hmm.

I am of course aware of the resulting radicalisation and division by echo chambers, sadly enough. Realise y'all brought this about by cotinually postulating such statements as benefit your idol the most while staying within the chosen framework, conveniently tweaking the details as the situation requires to fit the new results in, wins or losses. All the more disappointing to see normally intelligent posters like yourself fall into the pit. Even Hitman is getting defensive, dark times are upon us.
 

vex

Hall of Fame
By bots, dummies and willfully deluded such as yourself, that is. Somehow the most tennistically knowledgeable posters typically argue in the same general direction as I do, hmm.

I am of course aware of the resulting radicalisation and division by echo chambers, sadly enough. Realise y'all brought this about by cotinually postulating such statements as benefit your idol the most while staying within the chosen framework, conveniently tweaking the details as the situation requires to fit the new results in, wins or losses. All the more disappointing to see normally intelligent posters like yourself fall into the pit. Even Hitman is getting defensive, dark times are upon us.
Please, most posters don’t even bother responding to you. You’re almost in Sabratha territory
 

Noleberic123

G.O.A.T.
You think he is losing a Wimb final to Anderson or a USO final to Delpo?
No but he would have lost to Rafa at Wimby 2018. So he wouldn't have gotten to Anderson anyway. And to probably both Rafa and Medvedev last year at the USO. And to Federer at Wimby 2019. He would've still lost to Thiem at the FO probably. And he probably loses to Thiem this year as Thiem is a bad match up for him and Djokovic was a joke mentally back then.

The point is Djokovic from 2012-2014 would win 2-3 slams less than this current Djokovic did in this timespan.
 
Heh. Djoker's played unremarkable tennis for about 3 and a half years now but for a handful of standout performances. But yeah, he's still peak so ageing is overstated and Fed is sucks.
2018 WB - 2019 AO contained some strong title runs, sauf Cincinnati but Djovak deserved it for making six finals. Post-2019AO was all bleh, no matter if Fred won WB it would've still been wobbly tennis similar to 2018 AO.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
It's not 6 years exactly.

It's not that much. But good job convincing people through the years that it's such a astronomical difference.

Federer has been competing with Rafa and Novak almost his whole career, except for a few years in the beginning. Federer met Nadal already in early 2004 for the first time. He met Djokovic in 2006. They have played in the same era. But sure, Fed is like their granddad age wise.
You really shouldn't speak about this since Novak has never had a 6 year younger ATG to deal with.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
No but he would have lost to Rafa at Wimby 2018. So he wouldn't have gotten to Anderson anyway. And to probably both Rafa and Medvedev last year at the USO. And to Federer at Wimby 2019. He would've still lost to Thiem at the FO probably. And he probably loses to Thiem this year as Thiem is a bad match up for him and Djokovic was a joke mentally back then.

The point is Djokovic from 2012-2014 would win 2-3 slams less than this current Djokovic did in this timespan.
No guarantee Nadal beats him. You also have to take into account Novak was still coming back at Wimb 2018 which is why he struggled so much woth him.

He isn't losing to Thiem, come on. Wawrinka is better at dealing with Djokovic than Thiem is.
 
And so you stoop to the level of those you oppose. Welcome to Stalemate City.
I like how the word stalemate contains stale in it. The standoff is growing stale by the day indeed. Everyone has locked horns. I feel like following @NatF saying Pancho is the true GOAT, if mostly to snub the entire quarrelsome debatefield - though I do believe he has a place in goat discussions still, man was a rock in his day.
 

TearTheRoofOff

Hall of Fame
Typical post lol when you don't have anything else to say supported with facts.

Calling a player who has won 5/7 slams and is world #1 for unremarkable is some armchair level posting.
Your best efforts don't always correlate with your best results. Watching the tennis should elucidate this, but only for those willing to entertain the idea. Remember, I myself mean 'unremarkable' relative to precedent. Compared to what we've seen from all of the Big 3 in the past, I think the word is somewhat apt for Djokovic's recent performances, by and large. By the same token, Fed was unremarkable at AO 2018.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
It was never a brutal decline. But he wasn't as good in 2008-early 2010 as before. Still prime, but not peak.
Some talk like there was a light switch moment and suddenly in 2008 competition got tougher hence why Fed’s stats all dropped.

If Fed brought his 2007 form to 2008 he probably wins 2+ slams, 2-3 masters, YEC.

2009 was better but IIRC he had injury issues at start and end of year so his best spell was clay - USO stretch.
 

RF-18

G.O.A.T.
Your best efforts don't always correlate with your best results. Watching the tennis should elucidate this, but only for those willing to entertain the idea. Remember, I myself mean 'unremarkable' relative to precedent. Compared to what we've seen from all of the Big 3 in the past, I think the word is somewhat apt for Djokovic's recent performances, by and large. By the same token, Fed was unremarkable at AO 2018.
Playing unremarkable tennis for 3 and a half years winning 5 slams and being #1 doesn't sound very probable. That's what you said. I'd call Djokovic in 2017 unremarkable. That's a player far from his best both physically and game wise.

I think the past always seems to get overexaggerated. Much like what nostalgia does to one.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
So you agree that there has been no great player to break through in the past 10 years. This is an unprecedented void in sport, not just tennis.

The inflation era has benefited all of the big 3, but Nole the most since he’s the youngest and broke through the latest.
Federer had free reign from 2001-2004, with no dominant ATG in the way. We can even extend that from 2001-2006 on hardcourt and grass. It is on him that it took him until 2003 to make his move to take his place at the top. Any Federer fan complaining about Djokovic benefitting the most now is surely gaslighting considering the road he had to take to reach the top. Federer has won 3 Slams since 2017, when the level fell off a cliff, Nadal has won 5 and Djokovic has won 5. So they basically all benefitted but that doesn't even include that the level has not continuously stayed well below par for every Slam. Overall, Djokovic's road has clearly been the toughest if we are being totally honest.
 

Noleberic123

G.O.A.T.
No guarantee Nadal beats him. You also have to take into account Novak was still coming back at Wimb 2018 which is why he struggled so much woth him.

He isn't losing to Thiem, come on. Wawrinka is better at dealing with Djokovic than Thiem is.
Even though Novak was coming back he played really well. Nadal played one of his best matches at Wimby ever and would have crushed any version of Djokovic from 2012-2014. Especially 2012-2013.

But is Wawrinka a better player than Thiem? I'm not so sure. Wawrinka deals better with Djokovic slightly better but Thiem is better against Fedal.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Heh. Djoker's played unremarkable tennis for about 3 and a half years now but for a handful of standout performances. But yeah, he's still peak so ageing is overstated and Fed is sucks.
Since Queens 2018, Djokovic has won 88% of his matches and 78% against the top 10. Unremarkable? Dude get out of town. Lol.
 

TearTheRoofOff

Hall of Fame
Playing unremarkable tennis for 3 and a half years winning 5 slams and being #1 doesn't sound very probable. That's what you said. I'd call Djokovic in 2017 unremarkable. That's a player far from his best both physically and game wise.

I think the past always seems to get overexaggerated. Much like what nostalgia does to one.
I've told you a million times not to exaggerate.

Ahem...

I said but for a handful of standout performances or WTTE. That's going to cover some big matches/tournaments.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Even though Novak was coming back he played really well. Nadal played one of his best matches at Wimby ever and would have crushed any version of Djokovic from 2012-2014. Especially 2012-2013.

But is Wawrinka a better player than Thiem? I'm not so sure. Wawrinka deals better with Djokovic slightly better but Thiem is better against Fedal.
Thiem has already achieved more than Wawrinka outside of Slams. Give 2019 RG Thiem Wawrinka's RG 2015 draw and give 2020 AO Thiem Wawrinka's 2016 USO draw and he'd have 2 Slams.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
How well did he play to win all of those matches? Probably informed by implicit statistics within a transient system.
Pretty darn good. Let's not pretend he played every match as bad he played in the 2019 Wimbledon final to win his titles. He was pretty near spectacular in 2018 Shanghai and 2019 AO, and very good in 2018 Wimbledon and 2018 USO. Even this past tournament, he served better than he probably has in his life going into final, averaging 105 mph on the 2nd serve. Unremarkable? Hell no.
 

Noleberic123

G.O.A.T.
Thiem has already achieved more than Wawrinka outside of Slams. Give 2019 RG Thiem Wawrinka's RG 2015 draw and give 2020 AO Thiem Wawrinka's 2016 USO draw and he'd have 2 Slams.
Yeah I think Thiem is the better player but Wawrinka is the greater player for the moment. Remember, Wawrinka was nobody important at 26 so Thiem still has time.
 

Noleberic123

G.O.A.T.
Pretty darn good. Let's not pretend he played every match as bad he played in the 2019 Wimbledon final to win his titles. He was pretty near spectacular in 2018 Shanghai and 2019 AO, and very good in 2018 Wimbledon and 2018 USO. Even this past tournament, he served better than he probably has in his life going into final, averaging 105 mph on the 2nd serve. Unremarkable? Hell no.
Honestly, he would've crushed anyone but Thiem in the final. People forget how good he was leading up to the final. I think the match up issue is the reason he struggled in the final.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Honestly, he would've crushed anyone but Thiem in the final. People forget how good he was leading up to the final. I think the match up issue is the reason he struggled in the final.
He was amazing going into the final. The commentators were going bonkers over his level. He had an off day, said his energy level fell off a cliff, and many want to pretend he was terrible the whole tournament. He wasn't. He won depsite playing his worst match in the final. Thiem matches up well with him but the Djokovic from earlier in the tournament would have won that in 4 straightforward sets.
 

RelentlessAttack

Professional
Federer had free reign from 2001-2004, with no dominant ATG in the way. We can even extend that from 2001-2006 on hardcourt and grass. It is on him that it took him until 2003 to make his move to take his place at the top. Any Federer fan complaining about Djokovic benefitting the most now is surely gaslighting considering the road he had to take to reach the top. Federer has won 3 Slams since 2017, when the level fell off a cliff, Nadal has won 5 and Djokovic has won 5. So they basically all benefitted but that doesn't even include that the level has not continuously stayed well below par for every Slam. Overall, Djokovic's road has clearly been the toughest if we are being totally honest.
I can be serious for a post or two.

My gripe is with all 3 of these guys walking around with ridiculously inflated resumes relative to historical peers. I often say that Roger was the first beneficiary of surface homogenization. People generally understand that Roger had it pretty easy at the beginning, and people generally understand that Nadal’s resume is clay inflated. Because big 3 and slam race mania has now consumed everything and there are no young stars to talk about, there is not the same recognition of the current weak comp, esp from 2017-present with the drop off of Murray and Stan. Federer left his prime in 2013 and Nadal in 2014 and they’ve still faced little resistance from anyone other than Djokovic.

As for the toughest road, Nadal has an argument as well, since he took down actual peak Federer and then shortly after had to deal with peak Djokovic, all while sharing all of the contemporaries of both. They are both more talented tennis-wise than he is so I see his road as the biggest overachiever against the odds. The difference is generally irrelevant anyways because they mostly shared an era.

The void of young talent that we’ve seen for the past decade is unprecedented in all of sport, and combined with steady changes in conditions over the past 17-18 years has led to a mockery being made of the record books. It is what it is, and is basically a consequence of mistakes made by the ATP. Baseball banned aluminum bats, hockey limited the size of goalie pads, the NFL limited defensive structures, etc. A league or association has to manage its product or risk killing off its entertainment value forever.

When you people come out with crap like “physical decline doesn’t matter, these guys just keep improving” while ignoring the presently disastrous state of the sport, its frankly embarrassing for you.
 

TearTheRoofOff

Hall of Fame
Pretty darn good. Let's not pretend he played every match as bad he played in the 2019 Wimbledon final to win his titles. He was pretty near spectacular in 2018 Shanghai and 2019 AO, and very good in 2018 Wimbledon and 2018 USO. Even this past tournament, he served better than he probably has in his life going into final, averaging 105 mph on the 2nd serve. Unremarkable? Hell no.
Meh, think what you will.

I think I really like the word 'unremarkable' now I think about it. It has a wonderfully negative tone to it, without actualy meaning anything proactively derogatory. A real Jimmy Rustler.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Even though Novak was coming back he played really well. Nadal played one of his best matches at Wimby ever and would have crushed any version of Djokovic from 2012-2014. Especially 2012-2013.

But is Wawrinka a better player than Thiem? I'm not so sure. Wawrinka deals better with Djokovic slightly better but Thiem is better against Fedal.
As of now, Wawrinka was able to win 3 slams with the Big 3 still playing. Thiem will have to wait for them to permanently decline in order to win slams.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Pretty darn good. Let's not pretend he played every match as bad he played in the 2019 Wimbledon final to win his titles. He was pretty near spectacular in 2018 Shanghai and 2019 AO, and very good in 2018 Wimbledon and 2018 USO. Even this past tournament, he served better than he probably has in his life going into final, averaging 105 mph on the 2nd serve. Unremarkable? Hell no.
But in the last 2 slam finals specifically, he has been unremarkable.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I like how the word stalemate contains stale in it. The standoff is growing stale by the day indeed. Everyone has locked horns. I feel like following @NatF saying Pancho is the true GOAT, if mostly to snub the entire quarrelsome debatefield - though I do believe he has a place in goat discussions still, man was a rock in his day.
Its the only sensible choice.
 

TearTheRoofOff

Hall of Fame
He was amazing going into the final. The commentators were going bonkers over his level. He had an off day, said his energy level fell off a cliff, and many want to pretend he was terrible the whole tournament. He wasn't. He won depsite playing his worst match in the final. Thiem matches up well with him but the Djokovic from earlier in the tournament would have won that in 4 straightforward sets.
Won despite playing his worst match in the final, with no energy, against the 26 year old best of the next, who apparently matches up well against him. I suppose there are two main conclusions you could make, and I'm not placing bets on which because the odds will be garbage.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
I can be serious for a post or two.

My gripe is with all 3 of these guys walking around with ridiculously inflated resumes relative to historical peers. I often say that Roger was the first beneficiary of surface homogenization. People generally understand that Roger had it pretty easy at the beginning, and people generally understand that Nadal’s resume is clay inflated. Because big 3 and slam race mania has now consumed everything and there are no young stars to talk about, there is not the same recognition of the current weak comp, esp from 2017-present with the drop off of Murray and Stan. Federer left his prime in 2013 and Nadal in 2014 and they’ve still faced little resistance from anyone other than Djokovic.

As for the toughest road, Nadal has an argument as well, since he took down actual peak Federer and then shortly after had to deal with peak Djokovic, all while sharing all of the contemporaries of both. They are both more talented tennis-wise than he is so I see his road as the biggest overachiever against the odds. The difference is generally irrelevant anyways because they mostly shared an era.

The void of young talent that we’ve seen for the past decade is unprecedented in all of sport, and combined with steady changes in conditions over the past 17-18 years has led to a mockery being made of the record books. It is what it is, and is basically a consequence of mistakes made by the ATP. Baseball banned aluminum bats, hockey limited the size of goalie pads, the NFL limited defensive structures, etc. A league or association has to manage its product or risk killing off its entertainment value forever.

When you people come out with crap like “physical decline doesn’t matter, these guys just keep improving” while ignoring the presently disastrous state of the sport, its frankly embarrassing for you.
I think Federer fans take the cake with the embarrassment when they come up with stuff like Djokovic has benefitted the most because it's just silly. Also, who is the people that said physical decline doesn't matter? Surely you need to address them with your rebuttal because I never once said that. I said being younger does not necessarily mean automatic victory and it doesn't. Also, these guys have improved certain aspects of their game as if we should ignore that just because they've declined physically. "You people" just don't like it when someone blows up your claims that 2006 Federer would own every corner of the tour today or that 30+ is decrepit and you're too far from your best to be dominant. The rest is just a lot of redirection and spinning.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Meh, think what you will.

I think I really like the word 'unremarkable' now I think about it. It has a wonderfully negative tone to it, without actualy meaning anything proactively derogatory. A real Jimmy Rustler.
Well good for you. Lol. The word has no place in the sentence where you placed it, however.
 

TearTheRoofOff

Hall of Fame
I think Federer fans take the cake with the embarrassment when they come up with stuff like Djokovic has benefitted the most because it's just silly. Also, who is the people that said physical decline doesn't matter? Surely you need to address them with your rebuttal because I never once said that. I said being younger does not necessarily mean automatic victory and it doesn't. Also, these guys have improved certain aspects of their game as if we should ignore that just because they'e declined physically. "You people" just don't like it when someone blows up your claims that 2006 Federer would own every corner of the tour today or that 30+ is decrepit and you're too far from your best to be dominant. The rest is just a lot of redirection and spinning.
2006 Federer would probably own every corner of the tour today. As would 2011 Djokovic.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Won despite playing his worst match in the final, with no energy, against the 26 year old best of the next, who apparently matches up well against him. I suppose there are two main conclusions you could make, and I'm not placing bets on which because the odds will be garbage.
Yes he lost energy but are we going to ignore that his level went up in sets 4 and 5?
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
I think Federer fans take the cake with the embarrassment when they come up with stuff like Djokovic has benefitted the most because it's just silly. Also, who is the people that said physical decline doesn't matter? Surely you need to address them with your rebuttal because I never once said that. I said being younger does not necessarily mean automatic victory and it doesn't. Also, these guys have improved certain aspects of their game as if we should ignore that just because they've declined physically. "You people" just don't like it when someone blows up your claims that 2006 Federer would own every corner of the tour today or that 30+ is decrepit and you're too far from your best to be dominant. The rest is just a lot of redirection and spinning.
Djokovic has had 5 straight weak years. Sucks for him that he got injured/lost motivation in 2017 or whatever, he may have the slam record by now.
 
Top