Top 5 at each slam for the top 5 of the open era

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
My bad I missed that but you were the only one so my point still stands. I'm sorry for lumping you in though.

I went into a lot more detail as to why I rate 05 so much lower than 06 and 04 in another post below the one you responded to if you want to read it.

Blake was pretty good for sure but not someone who's playing at the level one would need to to challenge the highest USO peak ever would not go 5 with Blake ... and Ginepri and Malisse ... consecutively. Loved that match though it was super entertaining.

If the claim was that 05 USO Fed "really wasn't worse" than 15 Djok I'd take a lot less issue with it. The claim is that he's significantly better to the point where the comparison shouldn't be made. It's "05 Fed in 4" in other such nonsense.

This all quite strange for me because the prevailing theory on here I've literally not once ever encountered in the real world. I've never met a single tennis fan who has the same theories that you all seem to have. It's pretty much universally accepted even from the staunchest Fed fans in my experience that he had weaker competition in his prime and Murray>Hew/Rod and all this other stuff. I think the echo chamber here of this same theory has swayed a lot of people because I had literally never encountered this perspective before joining TTW.

Maybe that's cause this place has many dedicated fans with fine knowledge enabling a more nuanced perspective :D although more coloured by bias as well at the same time, naturally the more time you invest in something the stronger you feel about it.
 

The Guru

Legend
How do you envision this discussion happening, hm? All we're doing is comparing narratives while adjusting and refining them further in the process. If you spend more effort to go deeper you get down to axiomatic rationales forming each one of us's personal framework of understanding tennis, along with match analysis based on direct observation, assessed within that framework. The best we could do is sit down together to watch a match and discuss it at length game after game, only that would take a lot of time and effort even if enough goodwill is present. I'm not in the mood for tennis at this time, for one...
I made a lengthy response to you on exactly that topic and you didn't respond unless I missed it. I think it was the best discussion we'd ever had to that point.

To your response, I expect someone, like me, who is clearly providing rationale and sharing their vision of the truth to be treated with even the barest minimums of respect. This happens from some people but doesn't from most. I've heard many opinions on here that I consider laughable but I engage with them seriously unless the person shows that they aren't serious or is an ass first. I guess I'm just disappointed by the lack of people interested in genuine discourse. I'm happy to engage with people who I think are completely wrong and wildly biased so long as they make attempts at rational arguments, are genuine, and are respectful. People who do all 3 of those things on here are few and far between. It's just disappointing. I want to have a good time talking about tennis but the bro club of Fed worshippers who castigate anything other than praying at the altar of Lord Fedr can make it a lot harder to do that. It is what it is and there are definitely people I enjoy talking with on here and I even said I didn't want to bring up 05 Fed because I knew the uproar it would cause among the people I enjoy talking with the least which is sad because I want to talk about whatever I want but such is life. There are exceptions, like you, but for the most part if you ever talk about anything Fed related it ends up not being so fun.
 

The Guru

Legend
Maybe that's cause this place has many dedicated fans with fine knowledge enabling a more nuanced perspective :D although more coloured by bias as well at the same time, naturally the more time you invest in something the stronger you feel about it.
In my experience, this is often untrue. My experience is probably not reflective of the average person given that I study philosophy though haha.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
My bad I missed that but you were the only one so my point still stands. I'm sorry for lumping you in though.

I went into a lot more detail as to why I rate 05 so much lower than 06 and 04 in another post below the one you responded to if you want to read it.

Blake was pretty good for sure but not someone who's playing at the level one would need to to challenge the highest USO peak ever would not go 5 with Blake ... and Ginepri and Malisse ... consecutively. Loved that match though it was super entertaining.

If the claim was that 05 USO Fed "really wasn't worse" than 15 Djok I'd take a lot less issue with it. The claim is that he's significantly better to the point where the comparison shouldn't be made. It's "05 Fed in 4" in other such nonsense.

This all quite strange for me because the prevailing theory on here I've literally not once ever encountered in the real world. I've never met a single tennis fan who has the same theories that you all seem to have. It's pretty much universally accepted even from the staunchest Fed fans in my experience that he had weaker competition in his prime and Murray>Hew/Rod and all this other stuff. I think the echo chamber here of this same theory has swayed a lot of people because I had literally never encountered this perspective before joining TTW.

Guy is calling other peoples takes nonsense after some of the stuff he's come up with :-D

2015 Djokovic probably would have lost or at least gone five with a more mentally stable 2015 Fed, 2005 Fed is clearly better.
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
I made a lengthy response to you on exactly that topic and you didn't respond unless I missed it. I think it was the best discussion we'd ever had to that point.

To your response, I expect someone, like me, who is clearly providing rationale and sharing their vision of the truth to be treated with even the barest minimums of respect. This happens from some people but doesn't from most. I've heard many opinions on here that I consider laughable but I engage with them seriously unless the person shows that they aren't serious or is an ass first. I guess I'm just disappointed by the lack of people interested in genuine discourse. I'm happy to engage with people who I think are completely wrong and wildly biased so long as they make attempts at rational arguments, are genuine, and are respectful. People who do all 3 of those things on here are few and far between. It's just disappointing. I want to have a good time talking about tennis but the bro club of Fed worshippers who castigate anything other than praying at the altar of Lord Fedr can make it a lot harder to do that. It is what it is and there are definitely people I enjoy talking with on here and I even said I didn't want to bring up 05 Fed because I knew the uproar it would cause among the people I enjoy talking with the least which is sad because I want to talk about whatever I want but such is life. There are exceptions, like you, but for the most part if you ever talk about anything Fed related it ends up not being so fun.

A truly meaningful exchange of ideas is kinda hard you know eh, I've had some thoughts in response but don't feel like spending an hour fleshing them out properly. Maybe later when I feel better. Basically Fed's peak base game is more imposing via controlled aggression while retaining almost comparable defence so he should win more often than not on aggregate.

I definitely think you recent takes re Fedovic are silly but this isn't resolvable without a rewatch together, right.
 

Biotic

Hall of Fame
2015 Djokovic probably would have lost or at least gone five with a more mentally stable 2015 Fed, 2005 Fed is clearly better.

Moot point. A more physically stable 2005 Agassi could've at least taken 2005 Fed to 5...
 

The Guru

Legend
Guy is calling other peoples takes nonsense after some of the stuff he's come up with :-D

2015 Djokovic probably would have lost or at least gone five with a more mentally stable 2015 Fed, 2005 Fed is clearly better.
More mentally stable 07 Djokovic takes 07 Fed five so 15 Djokovic way better than 07 Fed amirite? Only morons reason like this and rely on ad hominem. Try coming up with an original thought for a change.
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
In my experience, this is often untrue. My experience is probably not reflective of the average person given that I study philosophy though haha.

Sure this assumes you care about your own opinion as people usually do, and you certainly do when it comes to tennis here, no putting on an impassioned observer hat ok. It's great to be open-minded indeed, only why even assign your naturally generated opinions any truth value at all if you don't really know how true it is? A perfect open mind doesn't identify with its own opinions (that is, anything other than factual knowledge), treating them rather as heuristics.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Moot point. A more physically stable 2005 Agassi could've at least taken 2005 Fed to 5...

Agassi was hitting the ball significantly cleaner and better than Fed 2015 for three sets.

More mentally stable 07 Djokovic takes 07 Fed five so 15 Djokovic way better than 07 Fed amirite? Only morons reason like this and rely on ad hominem. Try coming up with an original thought for a change.

Originality for the sake of originality isn't necessary good. Djokovic only choked the first set in 2007, it was also Fed's weakest winning USO final IMO. Different match-ups as well, Djokovic in 2007 was quite aggressive and put himself into a leading position, obviously he couldn't capitalise and I would expect 2015 Djokovic in that position to take the next step - however, in 2015 Djokovic was more reactionary and against a Federer who is less prone to missing sitters I don't think he comes out ahead.

I was trolling a bit when I said Fed in four BTW, I was talking to RS. I do think Fed takes it solidly though...
 

Druss

Hall of Fame
He was quite obviously better lol.
Tbh I'm struggling to see much difference between them. It's obvious Fed had a tougher draw at USO'05, but still I think their level of play throughout the tournament was similar.
 

The Guru

Legend
Sure this assumes you care about your own opinion as people usually do, and you certainly do when it comes to tennis here, no putting on an impassioned observer hat ok. It's great to be open-minded indeed, only why even assign your naturally generated opinions any truth value at all if you don't really know how true it is? A perfect open mind doesn't identify with its own opinions (that is, anything other than factual knowledge), treating them rather as heuristics.
Generally, my experience has been in nearly any field I take in interest in (tennis, philosophy, anything) is that I come to hold certain views. I experience a Descartes esque tearing down of those opinions as I become more knowledgeable and invest more time in them only to build up more views sometimes the same as the old sometimes not that I hold with some fervor but less than I originally had. My acknowledgement of this experience has caused me to be able to mostly skip the first step when I approach a new subject. I do believe that I'm fairly open minded but that doesn't mean that I don't have a fairly strong, confident presupposition of what constitutes good tennis. In essence, I feel fairly strongly that my axioms are the right axioms but if you can show me that I'm applying them incorrectly I'll change my mind. I will admit it would be pretty hard to get my to change my mind on my base assumptions, however.
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
As for 05 vs 15 USO, 15vic more consistent but I don't like that he never smothered Oldr except in the first set which was the worst of the match per my memory. Looked to do so in the fourth but Fred made some last ditch effort and almost got the double break back. 05erer, meanwhile, was in excellent control of his serve for most of the match, basicaly Agassi zoned for a bit in the second and Federer let him have it rather than fight tooth and nail, only real downside was mugging up a break in the third but Fed was able to break back right away and never looked back.
 

The Guru

Legend
Agassi was hitting the ball significantly cleaner and better than Fed 2015 for three sets.



Originality for the sake of originality isn't necessary good. Djokovic only choked the first set in 2007, it was also Fed's weakest winning USO final IMO. Different match-ups as well, Djokovic in 2007 was quite aggressive and put himself into a leading position, obviously he couldn't capitalise and I would expect 2015 Djokovic in that position to take the next step - however, in 2015 Djokovic was more reactionary and against a Federer who is less prone to missing sitters I don't think he comes out ahead

I was trolling a bit when I said Fed in four BTW, I was talking to RS. I do think Fed takes it solidly though...
Um he had SP in set two as well and only lost set 3 because of a mental fold too. No level gap just a mental gap. It is quite hard to evaluate USO Fed generally because of the complete lack of quality opposition there. What was his best opponent 08 Djok? 04 Agassi? Still such a funny fact that 07 Djok is the best non Fedal season point total from 04-07. Again with equating aggressiveness with level. If you actually took your own views seriously then you would consider pre 11 Djok better than post 14 Djok.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
So did Djokovic and yet we get the endless whining about Lost Gen and nothing about Transition Gen
Djokovic was at a point when he should have faced younger players. Don't see why Fed was supposed to face the previous gen in his early 20's when his own gen was good enough.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Um he had SP in set two as well and only lost set 3 because of a mental fold too. No level gap just a mental gap. It is quite hard to evaluate USO Fed generally because of the complete lack of quality opposition there. What was his best opponent 08 Djok? 04 Agassi? Still such a funny fact that 07 Djok is the best non Fedal season point total from 04-07. Again with equating aggressiveness with level. If you actually took your own views seriously then you would consider pre 11 Djok better than post 14 Djok.

See you say lack of quality opposition and then wonder why you don't get taken seriously. On aggregate Federer's record against good quality opponents at the USO is better than Djokovic's that's for sure...

Yes Djokovic had set points in set 2 but I don't think he choked. That's the difference. As far as the aggression = levels I'm talking about match up dynamics here that's all. Again showcasing that chip on your shoulder. Djokovic's best USO was 2011 when he was being very aggressive off the ground, on HC and supposedly quicker HC's especially I think the ability to play aggressively while keeping your game tidy is superior. That should be obvious. Djokovic's issue in those years was not being aggressive but doing so and keeping the errors low.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
My bad I missed that but you were the only one so my point still stands. I'm sorry for lumping you in though.

I went into a lot more detail as to why I rate 05 so much lower than 06 and 04 in another post below the one you responded to if you want to read it.

Blake was pretty good for sure but not someone who's playing at the level one would need to to challenge the highest USO peak ever would not go 5 with Blake ... and Ginepri and Malisse ... consecutively. Loved that match though it was super entertaining.

If the claim was that 05 USO Fed "really wasn't worse" than 15 Djok I'd take a lot less issue with it. The claim is that he's significantly better to the point where the comparison shouldn't be made. It's "05 Fed in 4" and other such nonsense.

This all quite strange for me because the prevailing theory on here I've literally not once ever encountered in the real world. I've never met a single tennis fan who has the same theories that you all seem to have. It's pretty much universally accepted even from the staunchest Fed fans in my experience that he had weaker competition in his prime and Murray>Hew/Rod and all this other stuff. I think the echo chamber here of this same theory has swayed a lot of people because I had literally never encountered this perspective before joining TTW.
Well maybe the folks outside TTW don't spend too much time doing analysis and only look at the names and conclude that muh weak.

They surely don't focus too much on form on the day and form in that tournament. So I wouldn't rely too much on their expertize.
 

The Guru

Legend
See you say lack of quality opposition and then wonder why you don't get taken seriously. On aggregate Federer's record against good quality opponents at the USO is better than Djokovic's that's for sure...

Yes Djokovic had set points in set 2 but I don't think he choked. That's the difference. As far as the aggression = levels I'm talking about match up dynamics here that's all. Again showcasing that chip on your shoulder. Djokovic's best USO was 2011 when he was being very aggressive off the ground, on HC and supposedly quicker HC's especially I think the ability to play aggressively while keeping your game tidy is superior. That should be obvious. Djokovic's issue in those years was not being aggressive but doing so and keeping the errors low.
I didn't say that at all expecting it to be controversial. Who exactly was his quality competition at the USO :-D? Djokovic's competition outside of 11 at the USO in his winning efforts hasn't been too tough either I never said it was lol.

God you're an obnoxious ass. Stfu about the chip on my shoulder and other bs. If you're going to talk with me keep me out of it or you're going on ignore. You've completely worn out my patience.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
My bad I missed that but you were the only one so my point still stands. I'm sorry for lumping you in though.

I went into a lot more detail as to why I rate 05 so much lower than 06 and 04 in another post below the one you responded to if you want to read it.

Blake was pretty good for sure but not someone who's playing at the level one would need to to challenge the highest USO peak ever would not go 5 with Blake ... and Ginepri and Malisse ... consecutively. Loved that match though it was super entertaining.

If the claim was that 05 USO Fed "really wasn't worse" than 15 Djok I'd take a lot less issue with it. The claim is that he's significantly better to the point where the comparison shouldn't be made. It's "05 Fed in 4" and other such nonsense.

This all quite strange for me because the prevailing theory on here I've literally not once ever encountered in the real world. I've never met a single tennis fan who has the same theories that you all seem to have. It's pretty much universally accepted even from the staunchest Fed fans in my experience that he had weaker competition in his prime and Murray>Hew/Rod and all this other stuff. I think the echo chamber here of this same theory has swayed a lot of people because I had literally never encountered this perspective before joining TTW.
No one is saying Agassi was super brilliant or anything, just that he played a pretty good final all things considered. Around the same level as some weaker matches of Nadal/Djokovic like USO 2013 final from Djokovic, for example.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I didn't say that at all expecting it to be controversial. Who exactly was his quality competition at the USO :-D? Djokovic's competition outside of 11 at the USO in his winning efforts hasn't been too tough either I never said it was lol.

God you're an obnoxious ass. Stfu about the chip on my shoulder and other bs. If you're going to talk with me keep me out of it or you're going on ignore. You've completely worn out my patience.

Lol you referenced my post to someone else otherwise I wouldn't have bothered.

Guy you whine about Fed fans all day long and then makes the same type of biased posts as everyone else. Pot calling the kettle black. Sorry for pointing out the obvious but you're always complaining lol.

Depends how you define quality opposition anyway, you said we can't even evaluate how good Fed is at the USO because his opposition has been so lacking. Add that to the long list of rubbish stuff you've said...
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
It is quite hard to evaluate USO Fed generally because of the complete lack of quality opposition there.
Uhhh, Fed had on average the toughest USO competition among the Big 3.

2011 Djok was the strongest individual USO win, but his other 2 titles are weak sauce, weaker than Fed's easily, so Fed wins here too.
 

The Guru

Legend
Djokovic was at a point when he should have faced younger players. Don't see why Fed was supposed to face the previous gen in his early 20's when his own gen was good enough.
Because basically every other generation ever has faced significant competition from the one before. Lost/Next Gen got it from Gold Gen Transition Gen from American Gen American Gen from Becker/Edberg Becker/Edberg from Wilander/Lendl etc. Every Gen got it but New Balls Gen. Hell, Next Gen is getting it from two Gens before. Federer absolutely was lucky to avoid a strong older player and to say otherwise is just inarguably wrong. Absolutely, Djokodal (and Fed to a lesser extent) got lucky that Lost Gen stinks but Transition Gen sucking and America Gen being skewed to the older side (Sampras, Agassi, Courier born in 70-71) absolutely effected the competition Fed faced in his prime. It just shows the insane amount of bias present on here that's this is even a contested statement. It's also another washed over fact that Fed failed to capitalize on weakness before 04 that Djokodal would've done much better against.
 

The Guru

Legend
Uhhh, Fed had on average the toughest USO competition among the Big 3.

2011 Djok was the strongest individual USO win, but his other 2 titles are weak sauce, weaker than Fed's easily, so Fed wins here too.
I actually might agree with this if we're talking only about the ones they won but that doesn't make Fed's competition any better. USO has just been the weakest slam by far for a long time now. I retract my statement though.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Because basically every other generation ever has faced significant competition from the one before. Lost/Next Gen got it from Gold Gen Transition Gen from American Gen American Gen from Becker/Edberg Becker/Edberg from Wilander/Lendl etc. Every Gen got it but New Balls Gen. Hell, Next Gen is getting it from two Gens before. Federer absolutely was lucky to avoid a strong older player and to say otherwise is just inarguably wrong. Absolutely, Djokodal (and Fed to a lesser extent) got lucky that Lost Gen stinks but Transition Gen sucking and America Gen being skewed to the older side (Sampras, Agassi, Courier born in 70-71) absolutely effected the competition Fed faced in his prime. It just shows the insane amount of bias present on here that's this is even a contested statement. It's also another washed over fact that Fed failed to capitalize on weakness before 04 that Djokodal would've done much better against.
Just like every other generation eventually dealt with strong younger gens except Djokodal who are now going up against 2 bad generations in a row.

Yes, the 75-79 gen wasn't great, but that was just 1 gen, not 2 in a row. And they still got enough competition from Sampras-Agassi anyway. The Next Gen also isn't dealing with a previous great generation.

FWIW, 75-79 will still won plenty of big titles. Meanwhile Raonic and Nishikori will retire with no big titles to their names.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I actually might agree with this if we're talking only about the ones they won but that doesn't make Fed's competition any better. USO has just been the weakest slam by far for a long time now. I mean seriously across 5 titles who's the toughest opponent he faced 08 Djoker? 06 Roddick? 04 Agassi? We're not exactly talking about world beaters here.
We're not, but he still went through many more top players than Djokodal have done.

And USO 2011 was tough because of Fed, because 2011 Nadal didn't provide better competition on HC to Djok than 2004 Agassi to Fed.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
We're not, but he still went through many more top players than Djokodal have done.

And USO 2011 was tough because of Fed, because 2011 Nadal didn't provide better competition on HC to Djok than 2004 Agassi to Fed.

2004 Agassi was a similar quality of opponent to 2011 Fed pre-wind.
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
I actually might agree with this if we're talking only about the ones they won but that doesn't make Fed's competition any better. USO has just been the weakest slam by far for a long time now. I retract my statement though.

ha you changed your comment.
Wanted to point out that 2008 Djokovic was the best hardcourter of the season (AO, YEC, USO SF, IW, Cincy F) and 2004 Agassi was the second best outdoor hardcourter (AO SF, Cincy W and clearly 2nd best player at IW/USO despite drawing Federer in SF/QF).
 

RS

Bionic Poster
Because basically every other generation ever has faced significant competition from the one before. Lost/Next Gen got it from Gold Gen Transition Gen from American Gen American Gen from Becker/Edberg Becker/Edberg from Wilander/Lendl etc. Every Gen got it but New Balls Gen. Hell, Next Gen is getting it from two Gens before. Federer absolutely was lucky to avoid a strong older player and to say otherwise is just inarguably wrong. Absolutely, Djokodal (and Fed to a lesser extent) got lucky that Lost Gen stinks but Transition Gen sucking and America Gen being skewed to the older side (Sampras, Agassi, Courier born in 70-71) absolutely effected the competition Fed faced in his prime. It just shows the insane amount of bias present on here that's this is even a contested statement. It's also another washed over fact that Fed failed to capitalize on weakness before 04 that Djokodal would've done much better against.
Seen this mentioned only twice since i started here literally.
 

The Guru

Legend
Just like every other generation eventually dealt with strong younger gens except Djokodal who are now going up against 2 bad generations in a row.

Yes, the 75-79 gen wasn't great, but that was just 1 gen, not 2 in a row. And they still got enough competition from Sampras-Agassi anyway. The Next Gen also isn't dealing with a previous great generation.

FWIW, 75-79 will still won plenty of big titles. Meanwhile Raonic and Nishikori will retire with no big titles to their names.
If this ends up being true you will have a real point. I would still say competition evens out since Gold Gen>New Balls Gen but you would have a real argument depending on how long Djokodal can keep winning. Fed also probably has 3 less slams with a strong Lost Gen too so I think that needs to be mentioned for the sake of fairness. The point I was making was less about the which is worse as I agree having a bad young Gen helped Djokodal more than having a bad older Gen helped Federer but it's the fact that it's never mentioned which bothers me. It shows the bias that is so prevalent in the discussions here. With all the constant rushing of Lost/Next Gen you never hear about the fact that Transition Gen didn't even produce a Thiem quality HC player or a Raonic quality grass player. Off clay Lost Gen>Transition Gen. I don't think that's really arguable and yet I'm the only one as far as I know who's even brought that up.
 

The Guru

Legend
ha you changed your comment.
Wanted to point out that 2008 Djokovic was the best hardcourter of the season (AO, YEC, USO SF, IW, Cincy F) and 2004 Agassi was the second best outdoor hardcourter (AO SF, Cincy W and clearly 2nd best player at IW/USO despite drawing Federer in SF/QF).
Yeah it was a bad comment. These things happen when you respond too quickly and don't fully think things through.
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
Seen this mentioned only twice since i started here literally.
It's true, but easily covered by the fact that Federer was significantly more consistent in his prime as well as post-prime competition (which lasts much much longer than pre-prime).

Also, Nadal would pick up maybe 1 extra Wimby if he didn't have Fed in his "baby" years, Djokovic would maybe win 2 more, mostly 2008, if he didn't have Fedal pre-prime. Not like they'd be cleaning up 5-6 extra majors or anything. Fed on the other hand with their post-prime competition easily would. Not that it matters, because Federer would still play the exact same so those extra majors wouldn't mean anything.
 

The Guru

Legend
Lol you referenced my post to someone else otherwise I wouldn't have bothered.

Guy you whine about Fed fans all day long and then makes the same type of biased posts as everyone else. Pot calling the kettle black. Sorry for pointing out the obvious but you're always complaining lol.

Depends how you define quality opposition anyway, you said we can't even evaluate how good Fed is at the USO because his opposition has been so lacking. Add that to the long list of rubbish stuff you've said...
Call me biased fine sure whatever. I’m sure I am to some extent as much as I try to avoid it. Difference is I don’t mock and go to my buddys to giggle at the obvious stupidity of anyone who disagrees with me. You have consistently treated me with no decency. I have no respect for ppl who sneer at other opinions from their seat in the comfortable majority. I have my ideological differences from people like Mike or Octorok and I can be frustrated by their refusal to accept what I think is sound reasoning and I sometimes generalize that frustration to Fed fans I’m sure they feel the same way about me and other non Fed fans. That’s fine. The way you act is not imo. So next time don’t bother.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Fed actually faced the weakest gen for grass and hard. 75-79 is weaker than Lost Gen on those surfaces but that's always swept under the rug.

LOL, wut?
firstly fed had his own gen+agassi in 03-05 apart from 75-79 gen on HC&grass. Even Nadal joined in 05 on HC and 06 on grass. Nole from 07 onwards and Murray from 08 onwards.

So your argument is utter and complete BS at first.

secondly from 75-79 gen:

Kuerten: 3 slams+1 YEC+5 masters(incl 1 Cincy)+#1 ranking
Scud: 2 slam finals+1 masters(Indian Wells)+that spectacular perf. in DC win in 99
Moya: 1 slam+1 slam final+3 masters(incl. 1 Cincy)
Gaudio: 1 slam
Johansson: 1 slam+1 slam semi+Canada Masters
Rios: 1 slam final (AO)+5 Masters(incl IW+Miami)+1 grand slam cup, #1 ranking
Haas: 4 slam semis,1 Masters, #2 ranking
Norman: 1 slam final, 1 slam semi, 1 Masters

(Verkerk, Scheuttler,Puerta - 1 slam final each, a mention to Blake for those 2 USO QFs and YEC final, Canas- 1 Masters)


Lost gen:

Raonic: 1 slam final, 2 slam semis
Nishikori: 1 slam final
Dimi: 3 slam semis, 1 YEC+1 Masters(Cincy)

There is literally no one else of note till Sep 93 Thiem


75-79 gen was wayyyyy better than 89-Aug 93 timeframe


For a second lets leave clay from 75-79:

Kuerten: 1 YEC+1 Cincy
Scud: 2 slam finals+1 Indian Wells
Moya: 1 slam final+1 Cincy
Johansson: 1 slam+1 slam semi+Canada Masters
Rios: 1 slam final (AO)+2 Masters+1 grand slam cup
Haas: 4 slam semis, 1 Masters

(Scheuttler 1 slam final, a mention to Blake for those 2 USO QFs and YEC final, Canas 1 Masters)

That's like 1 slam+5 slam finals+1 YEC+8 Masters+grand slam cup

as compared to:

2 slam finals+1 YEC+1 Masters

Not that particularly close either.

Your post is an utter disaster just like your USO one. It was Sampras who had the chance to benefit more from the weakness of the 75-79 gen than Federer >> Which you would know if you followed tennis of that time frame

75-79 gen was a weaker gen indeed, but fail gen makes it look pretty decent in comparision.
Truth is it was a significantly more talented gen than fail gen by far and achieved far more. But affected significantly more by injuries - with all due respect to the injury issues of Nishi&Raonic.

What does it say when old Haas can dominate&beat Djokovic at his best Masters - Miami in 2013 - a prime year and Raonic can't even finish off an ailing/not in form or whatever not prime Djokovic in Cincy 20?
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
Yeah it was a bad comment. These things happen when you respond too quickly and don't fully think things through.

It happens when you have so much bias&agenda(&maybe didn't watch that much). It slips out. Just because USO in 2010s has been relatively weaker don't extend that to 2000s., lulz.

I actually might agree with this if we're talking only about the ones they won but that doesn't make Fed's competition any better. USO has just been the weakest slam by far for a long time now. I mean seriously across 5 titles who's the toughest opponent he faced 08 Djoker? 06 Roddick? 04 Agassi? We're not exactly talking about world beaters here.

I know you deleted your post, but note that you didn't mention Roddick of USO 07 QF.
I could obviously poke more holes at it, but I'll leave at that one most important note.
 
Last edited:

The Guru

Legend
LOL, wut?
firstly fed had his own gen+agassi in 03-05 apart from 75-79 gen on HC&grass. Even Nadal joined in 05 on HC and 06 on grass. Nole from 07 onwards and Murray from 08 onwards.

So your argument is utter and complete BS at first.

secondly from 75-79 gen:

Kuerten: 3 slams+1 YEC+5 masters(incl 1 Cincy)+#1 ranking
Scud: 2 slam finals+1 masters(Indian Wells)+that spectacular perf. in DC win in 99
Moya: 1 slam+1 slam final+3 masters(incl. 1 Cincy)
Gaudio: 1 slam
Johansson: 1 slam+1 slam semi+Canada Masters
Rios: 1 slam final (AO)+5 Masters(incl IW+Miami)+1 grand slam cup, #1 ranking
Haas: 4 slam semis,1 Masters, #2 ranking
Norman: 1 slam final, 1 slam semi, 1 Masters

(Verkerk, Scheuttler,Puerta - 1 slam final each, a mention to Blake for those 2 USO QFs and YEC final, Canas- 1 Masters)


Lost gen:

Raonic: 1 slam final, 2 slam semis
Nishikori: 1 slam final
Dimi: 3 slam semis, 1 YEC+1 Masters(Cincy)

There is literally no one else of note till Sep 93 Thiem


75-79 gen was wayyyyy better than 89-Aug 93 timeframe


For a second lets leave clay from 75-79:

Kuerten: 1 YEC+1 Cincy
Scud: 2 slam finals+1 Indian Wells
Moya: 1 slam final+1 Cincy
Johansson: 1 slam+1 slam semi+Canada Masters
Rios: 1 slam final (AO)+2 Masters+1 grand slam cup
Haas: 4 slam semis, 1 Masters

(Scheuttler 1 slam final, a mention to Blake for those 2 USO QFs and YEC final, Canas 1 Masters)

That's like 1 slam+5 slam finals+1 YEC+8 Masters+grand slam cup

as compared to:

2 slam finals+1 YEC+1 Masters

Not that particularly close either.

Your post is an utter disaster just like your USO one. It was Sampras who had the chance to benefit more from the weakness of the 75-79 gen than Federer >> Which you would know if you followed tennis of that time frame

75-79 gen was a weaker gen indeed, but fail gen makes it look pretty decent in comparision.
Truth is it was a significantly more talented gen than fail gen by far and achieved far more. But affected significantly more by injuries - with all due respect to the injury issues of Nishi&Raonic.

What does it say when old Haas can dominate&beat Djokovic at his best Masters - Miami in 2013 - a prime year and Raonic can't even finish off an ailing/not in form or whatever not prime Djokovic in Cincy 20?
I'm going to pretend this is an actual mistake and not a deliberate misreading of what I said on the small chance that you actually misunderstood and are not being a jackass and intentionally trying to make it seem like I said something that I never actually did. My claim was that Transition Gen (75-79) was the weakest Gen of all time for hard and grass court surfaces even weaker than the much-maligned Lost Gen (90-94). So yes including clay 75-79 is clearly stronger hell Keurten on his own might be stronger than the whole Gen. I definitely would never make such a ridiculous claim but let's look at hard and grass only which was my claim.

For Lost Gen we got:

Thiem: 1 slam 1 slam RU 1 masters 2 WTF RUs
Raonic: 1 slam final 2 semis
Nishikori: 1 slam final 2 semis
Dimi: 3 semis 1 WTF 1 masters
Sock: 1 masters

For Transition Gen

Guga: 1 WTF 1 Masters
Scud: 2 masters 1 slam final
Moya: 1 slam final 1 masters 1 WTF RU
Johansson: 1 slam+1 slam semi+Canada Masters
Rios: 1 slam final (AO)+2 Masters+1 grand slam cup
Haas: 4 slam semis, 1 Masters

Lost Gen has the best HCer (Thiem) and the best grass courter (Raonic) and generally far more consistent players with the exception of Dimitrov. They also played in a tougher era having to face Gold Gen (Thiem less so). Given all of this info and the fact that they're not done, I think it's reasonable to conclude Lost Gen is stronger than Transition Gen on hard/grass which was my claim.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
I'm going to pretend this is an actual mistake and not a deliberate misreading of what I said on the small chance that you actually misunderstood and are not being a jackass and intentionally trying to make it seem like I said something that I never actually did. My claim was that Transition Gen (75-79) was the weakest Gen of all time for hard and grass court surfaces even weaker than the much-maligned Lost Gen (90-94). So yes including clay 75-79 is clearly stronger hell Keurten on his own might be stronger than the whole Gen. I definitely would never make such a ridiculous claim but let's look at hard and grass only which was my claim.

For Lost Gen we got:

Thiem: 1 slam 1 slam RU 1 masters 2 WTF RUs
Raonic: 1 slam final 2 semis
Nishikori: 1 slam final 2 semis
Dimi: 3 semis 1 WTF 1 masters
Sock: 1 masters

For Transition Gen

Guga: 1 WTF 1 Masters
Scud: 2 masters 1 slam final
Moya: 1 slam final 1 masters 1 WTF RU
Johansson: 1 slam+1 slam semi+Canada Masters
Rios: 1 slam final (AO)+2 Masters+1 grand slam cup
Haas: 4 slam semis, 1 Masters

Lost Gen has the best HCer (Thiem) and the best grass courter (Raonic) and generally far more consistent players with the exception of Dimitrov. They also played in a tougher era having to face Gold Gen (Thiem less so). Given all of this info and the fact that they're not done, I think it's reasonable to conclude Lost Gen is stronger than Transition Gen on hard/grass which was my claim.

I didn't misread anything. That's why I cut out clay to show the difference as well


Thiem is not a part of lost gen. He's part of his own gen with Kyrgios, Edmund, Coric etc.
and finally: Scud > Raonic on grass skill wise/level wise.

the Kuerten-Rios-Haas gen was better on grass/HC itself.
And what competition? Raonic can't even finish off Djokovic of Cincy 2020. Dimi of course needed a depleted Cincy to win his masters (you missed Canas btw who won his masters through a brutal brutal draw). And fed to play 2 really off sets vs Goffin in the YEC semi.
How many more excuses?

Again, in the end your point doesn't even hold much relevance since: firstly fed had his own gen+agassi in 03-05 apart from 75-79 gen on HC&grass. Even Nadal joined in 05 on HC and 06 on grass. Nole from 07 onwards and Murray from 08 onwards.

Way stronger than your your non-knowledge and agenda about 2000s make it out to be - as has been exposed with your USO post.
 
Last edited:

mike danny

Bionic Poster
If this ends up being true you will have a real point. I would still say competition evens out since Gold Gen>New Balls Gen but you would have a real argument depending on how long Djokodal can keep winning. Fed also probably has 3 less slams with a strong Lost Gen too so I think that needs to be mentioned for the sake of fairness. The point I was making was less about the which is worse as I agree having a bad young Gen helped Djokodal more than having a bad older Gen helped Federer but it's the fact that it's never mentioned which bothers me. It shows the bias that is so prevalent in the discussions here. With all the constant rushing of Lost/Next Gen you never hear about the fact that Transition Gen didn't even produce a Thiem quality HC player or a Raonic quality grass player. Off clay Lost Gen>Transition Gen. I don't think that's really arguable and yet I'm the only one as far as I know who's even brought that up.
Yes, Fed was helped a bit by the previous gen not being up to par, but he still received competition from a great 2 generations before and Henman, one generation before.

And Fed at least was at his very best after 2003 anyway, so it wouldn't have been ultra problematic.

Off clay, the Lost Gen is better, but overall they will quickly be forgotten in the grand scheme of things given that the 75-79 gen still won many big titles in their careers.

Next Gen by default will turn out having better careers when all is said and done, but I think it will mostly be because father time will have pushed the Big 3 away from the tour rather than them actually rising up to the occasion. For now, while the Big 3 have still been contenders, they have been useless.
 

The Guru

Legend
I didn't misread anything. That's why I cut out clay to show the difference as well


Thiem is not a part of lost gen. He's part of his own gen with Kyrgios, Edmund, Coric etc.
and finally: Scud > Raonic on grass skill wise/level wise.
Ok, so you are intentionally being an ass. Shocking. Thiem is part of Lost Gen. There is no 2 year generation of 93-94 just so you can pretend you're right about this. Generations are generally accepted as 5 years and Lost Gen is 90-94 and Next Gen is 95-99. That is obviously what I was referring to or else I could just define Transition Gen as 78-79 and cut out most of the good players and be like ha what an idiot abmk is. He thinks 78-79 is better than lost gen. What a moron. LOL. Another disastrous fail of a take. This is what you sound like btw.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I'm going to pretend this is an actual mistake and not a deliberate misreading of what I said on the small chance that you actually misunderstood and are not being a jackass and intentionally trying to make it seem like I said something that I never actually did. My claim was that Transition Gen (75-79) was the weakest Gen of all time for hard and grass court surfaces even weaker than the much-maligned Lost Gen (90-94). So yes including clay 75-79 is clearly stronger hell Keurten on his own might be stronger than the whole Gen. I definitely would never make such a ridiculous claim but let's look at hard and grass only which was my claim.

For Lost Gen we got:

Thiem: 1 slam 1 slam RU 1 masters 2 WTF RUs
Raonic: 1 slam final 2 semis
Nishikori: 1 slam final 2 semis
Dimi: 3 semis 1 WTF 1 masters
Sock: 1 masters

For Transition Gen

Guga: 1 WTF 1 Masters
Scud: 2 masters 1 slam final
Moya: 1 slam final 1 masters 1 WTF RU
Johansson: 1 slam+1 slam semi+Canada Masters
Rios: 1 slam final (AO)+2 Masters+1 grand slam cup
Haas: 4 slam semis, 1 Masters

Lost Gen has the best HCer (Thiem) and the best grass courter (Raonic) and generally far more consistent players with the exception of Dimitrov. They also played in a tougher era having to face Gold Gen (Thiem less so). Given all of this info and the fact that they're not done, I think it's reasonable to conclude Lost Gen is stronger than Transition Gen on hard/grass which was my claim.
Scud has 2 slam finals off clay, not 1.

Overall, Lost Gen is a bit better, but not by much.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Ok, so you are intentionally being an ass. Shocking. Thiem is part of Lost Gen. There is no 2 year generation of 93-94 just so you can pretend you're right about this. Generations are generally accepted as 5 years and Lost Gen is 90-94 and Next Gen is 95-99. That is obviously what I was referring to or else I could just define Transition Gen as 78-79 and cut out most of the good players and be like ha what an idiot abmk is. He thinks 78-79 is better than lost gen. What a moron. LOL. Another disastrous fail of a take. This is what you sound like btw.

Thiem is at the borderline of 89-93 period. Who says 5 year period has to be starting from 5 or 0?
He is closer in gen with Kyrgios, , Edmund, Coric etc. than with Nishi/Raonic/Dimi gen. Edmund is 95 born and Coric is 96 born.

Like I said:

the Kuerten-Rios-Haas gen was better on grass/HC itself.
And competition? Raonic can't even finish off Djokovic of Cincy 2020. Dimi of course needed a depleted Cincy to win his masters .And dimi needed fed to play 2 really off sets vs Goffin in the YEC 17 semi. you missed Canas btw who won his masters through a brutal brutal draw and Scud having 2 slam finals off clay (not 1) - which is as much as Rao-Nishi-Dimi gen combined.
How many more excuses?

Again, in the end your point doesn't even hold much relevance since: firstly fed had his own gen+agassi in 03-05 apart from 75-79 gen on HC&grass. Even Nadal joined in 05 on HC and 06 on grass. Nole from 07 onwards and Murray from 08 onwards.

Way stronger than your your non-knowledge and agenda about 2000s make it out to be - as has been exposed with your USO post.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Thiem is at the borderline of 89-93 period. Who says 5 year period has to be starting from 5 or 0?
He is closer in gen with Kyrgios, , Edmund, Coric etc. than with Nishi/Raonic/Dimi gen. Edmund is 95 born and Coric is 96 born.

Like I said:

the Kuerten-Rios-Haas gen was better on grass/HC itself.
And competition? Raonic can't even finish off Djokovic of Cincy 2020. Dimi of course needed a depleted Cincy to win his masters .And dimi needed fed to play 2 really off sets vs Goffin in the YEC semi. you missed Canas btw who won his masters through a brutal brutal draw and Scud having 2 slam finals off clay (not 1) - which is as much as Rao-Nishi-Dimi gen combined.
How many more excuses?

Again, in the end your point doesn't even hold much relevance since: firstly fed had his own gen+agassi in 03-05 apart from 75-79 gen on HC&grass. Even Nadal joined in 05 on HC and 06 on grass. Nole from 07 onwards and Murray from 08 onwards.

Way stronger than your your non-knowledge and agenda about 2000s make it out to be - as has been exposed with your USO post.
I do think Thiem is part of Lost Gen though. He single handedly rescues the Lost Gen from utter mediocrity.
 

The Guru

Legend
Yes, Fed was helped a bit by the previous gen not being up to par, but he still received competition from a great 2 generations before and Henman, one generation before.

And Fed at least was at his very best after 2003 anyway, so it wouldn't have been ultra problematic.

Off clay, the Lost Gen is better, but overall they will quickly be forgotten in the grand scheme of things given that the 75-79 gen still won many big titles in their careers.

Next Gen by default will turn out having better careers when all is said and done, but I think it will mostly be because father time will have pushed the Big 3 away from the tour rather than them actually rising up to the occasion. For now, while the Big 3 have still been contenders, they have been useless.
I mostly agree with this but I think you're underrating the impact it would have had on Fed's career if there was an ATG born in 78 or whatever or maybe a couple of them like a lot of Gens have and a couple other hall of fame players. It's not career changing but it makes Fed's life significantly harder. The closest older ATG was what 12 years older? That's a big gap. As I said, I think **** young Gen has probably been better for Djokodal than **** old gen was for Fed but who knows. My general point is that it's unfair that this never gets mentioned which I think you agree with.

As far as Next Gen goes I'm starting to agree with you but who knows they still have time to turn it around. There's hope for some of them still. We'll see. If it turns out your right then we can have that discussion another day.
 

The Guru

Legend
Thiem is at the borderline of 89-93 period. Who says 5 year period has to be starting from 5 or 0?
He is closer in gen with Kyrgios, , Edmund, Coric etc. than with Nishi/Raonic/Dimi gen. Edmund is 95 born and Coric is 96 born.

Like I said:

the Kuerten-Rios-Haas gen was better on grass/HC itself.
And competition? Raonic can't even finish off Djokovic of Cincy 2020. Dimi of course needed a depleted Cincy to win his masters .And dimi needed fed to play 2 really off sets vs Goffin in the YEC 17 semi. you missed Canas btw who won his masters through a brutal brutal draw and Scud having 2 slam finals off clay (not 1) - which is as much as Rao-Nishi-Dimi gen combined.
How many more excuses?

Again, in the end your point doesn't even hold much relevance since: firstly fed had his own gen+agassi in 03-05 apart from 75-79 gen on HC&grass. Even Nadal joined in 05 on HC and 06 on grass. Nole from 07 onwards and Murray from 08 onwards.

Way stronger than your your non-knowledge and agenda about 2000s make it out to be - as has been exposed with your USO post.
*sigh*
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
I do think Thiem is part of Lost Gen though. He single handedly rescues the Lost Gen from utter mediocrity.

its borderline. I didn't consider him as part of lost gen, even way back in 2017.
This is from Sep 2017

At 24 is Thiem a part of the so called Lost Generation?

no, he's closer to the new gen -- not a part of lost gen.


Also since discussion is about HC/grass,
Keep in mind, Thiem only started becoming a force on HC since since IW 19 and in HC slams in 2020

Nishi/Dimi/Raonic started hitting their strides in 2014 on HC/grass.

edit: what happened to Hitman's account? deleted?
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I mostly agree with this but I think you're underrating the impact it would have had on Fed's career if there was an ATG born in 78 or whatever or maybe a couple of them like a lot of Gens have and a couple other hall of fame players. It's not career changing but it makes Fed's life significantly harder. The closest older ATG was what 12 years older? That's a big gap. As I said, I think **** young Gen has probably been better for Djokodal than **** old gen was for Fed but who knows. My general point is that it's unfair that this never gets mentioned which I think you agree with.

As far as Next Gen goes I'm starting to agree with you but who knows they still have time to turn it around. There's hope for some of them still. We'll see. If it turns out your right then we can have that discussion another day.
Yeah, Fed's life would have been tougher with an ATG from the previous gen, but it wouldn't last long. His fortune didn't last long anyway.

As for the Next Gen, even if they become better, it will happen mostly because of Djokodal's age and so far none of them have displayed ATG talent.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Just in case you thought that was a one-off, @mike danny and @The Guru :

Aug 2017: about Kyrgios:

of course, he's nowhere near the ATGs , overall or at slams.
But he's a promising young guy, who if he gets his act together , can win a slam or more.

He's not a part of lost gen -- Raonic, Nishi, Dimi etc.

He's part of the new gen -- Kyrgios, Thiem, Zverev etc.
He's just 22 now.

Jan 2018:

6 generations actually :

Sampras/Agassi/Chang/Krajicek/Goran gen

Kafelnikov/Scud/Henman/Kuerten/Rios/Norman gen

his own gen -- hewitt/safin/roddick/nalby/ferrero

nadal/djoko/murray/delpo

nishi/dimi/raonic gen

and now kyrgios/zverev/thiem/chung gen
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Call me biased fine sure whatever. I’m sure I am to some extent as much as I try to avoid it. Difference is I don’t mock and go to my buddys to giggle at the obvious stupidity of anyone who disagrees with me. You have consistently treated me with no decency. I have no respect for ppl who sneer at other opinions from their seat in the comfortable majority. I have my ideological differences from people like Mike or Octorok and I can be frustrated by their refusal to accept what I think is sound reasoning and I sometimes generalize that frustration to Fed fans I’m sure they feel the same way about me and other non Fed fans. That’s fine. The way you act is not imo. So next time don’t bother.

If you stopped generalising I'd have no problem with you but when you're constantly generalising and coming up with imo unreasonable opinions at the same time I have no inclination to give slack.

As far as I'm concerned once you start generalising you're not debating in good faith.
 

DSH

Talk Tennis Guru
AO: Fed, Novak, Andre, Edberg, Lendl
FO: Rafa, Borg, Wilander, Lendl, Kuerten
WMB: Fed, Pete, Novak, Becker, McEnroe
USO: Pete, Fed, Connors, McEnroe, Rafa
Come on, Djokovic is clearly the best Australian Open tennis player not only in the OE but in History.

About the USO, each of these three guys (Jimbo, Pistol, Maestro) can an argument to claim the first position but the margins are very narrow between then in that GS.
:D
 

RS

Bionic Poster
It's true, but easily covered by the fact that Federer was significantly more consistent in his prime as well as post-prime competition (which lasts much much longer than pre-prime).

Also, Nadal would pick up maybe 1 extra Wimby if he didn't have Fed in his "baby" years, Djokovic would maybe win 2 more, mostly 2008, if he didn't have Fedal pre-prime. Not like they'd be cleaning up 5-6 extra majors or anything. Fed on the other hand with their post-prime competition easily would. Not that it matters, because Federer would still play the exact same so those extra majors wouldn't mean anything.
Not for the fact Nadal and Djokovic certainly win a lot more but Fed could have won more in that period which would have distanced him from Djokovic and kept him ahead of Rafa for now.

The post-prime stuff can be true but it has been mentioned unlike that.
 
Top