Want to see how close the slam race actually was?

Hitman said:
How come Djokovic benefits from weak competition from 2016 onward, yet Federer had strong competition according to this in AO 2017? He was 35, he doesn't win that either under circumstances painted for Djokovic.
Click to expand...
You have done this merry go round with Fed fans so many times lol.
 
abmk said:
weak era doesn't mean all slams have weak competition.
Wim 18 and RG 21 weren't weak for djoko either for example.

I don't know what you mean by the bold part.
Click to expand...

I mean we hear about how these players in their 30s plus wouldn't be winning slams if ATGs had arrived, right?

So, Federer at 35 doesn't win AO 2017 either if a mid 20s ATG was there, his best competition was also past his prime there.
 
Hitman said:
I mean we hear about how these players in their 30s plus wouldn't be winning slams if ATGs had arrived, right?

So, Federer at 35 doesn't win AO 2017 either if a mid 20s ATG was there, his best competition was also past his prime there.
Click to expand...

I said "with decent competition, djokovic in 21-23 would win 2-3 slams tops, nothing more, not fricking 7 slams."

and if the prime ATG was like prime fed/djoko consistent and across surfaces/slams, yes, could be blocked for a period like fed in 14-early 16 or even agassi in 04/05. so?

if some ATG like edberg/wilander/becker, they'd get those slams here and there.
 
abmk said:
I said "with decent competition, djokovic in 21-23 would win 2-3 slams tops, nothing more, not fricking 7 slams."

and if the prime ATG was like prime fed/djoko consistent and across surfaces/slams, yes, could be blocked for a period like fed in 14-early 16 or even agassi in 04/05. so?

if some ATG like edberg/wilander/becker, they'd get those slams here and there.
Click to expand...

You do disagree with the statement that if an ATG had arrived in the mid 20s, you know, what Federer fans always talk about that Djokovic was missing, if ATG had arrived, then 35 Federer doesn't win AO 2017, especially considering how many five setters he played?
 
Hitman said:
You do disagree with the statement that if an ATG had arrived in the mid 20s, you know, what Federer fans always talk about that Djokovic was missing, if ATG had arrived, then 35 Federer doesn't win AO 2017, especially considering how many five setters he played?
Click to expand...

dude, federer was already stopped by a prime ATG in Wim 14, Wim 15, USO 15 and AO 16.

so just BS to extend that to AO 17 also just for your convenience.

But *in isolation* yes, fed would have lost to an in-form prime ATG in AO 17.
but then so would djoko in almost every slam from Wim 19-current if taken *in isolation*

and how does it change that comepetition was actually good for fed in AO 17 (or RG 21 for djokovic for that matter - who would have lost to prime ATG as well)?
 
Last edited:
abmk said:
dude, federer was already stopped by a prime ATG in Wim 14, Wim 15, USO 15 and AO 16.

so just BS to extend that to AO 17 also just for your convenience.

But *in isolation* yes, fed would have lost to an in-form prime ATG in AO 17.
but then so would djoko in every slam from AO 21-current if taken *in isolation* (with maybe possible exception of AO 21 SF/F)

and how does it change that comepetition was actually good for fed in AO 17 (or RG 21 for djokovic for that matter - who would have lost to prime ATG as well)?
Click to expand...

BS? I am simply asking the question, and you answered it, that if Federer's competition was stronger with an ATG in it, he doesn't win AO 2017 either.

The point I am making is very simple, Federer's slam winning days would be over after Wimbledon 2012 if as Federer fans like to say, an ATG came up behind Djokovic, like there should have been. AO 2017 in a sense is inflated then.
 
Hitman said:
BS? I am simply asking the question, and you answered it, that if Federer's competition was stronger with an ATG in it, he doesn't win AO 2017 either.

The point I am making is very simple, Federer's slam winning days would be over after Wimbledon 2012 if as Federer fans like to say, an ATG came up behind Djokovic, like there should have been. AO 2017 in a sense is inflated then.
Click to expand...

I said in isolation, but things in real life may not work as they do in isolation.

what you said is possible, but fed would still likely sneak in a slam given his play in 14-15 and 17-early 18 somewhere.

Just as similarly as djoko's could possibly be over by AO 19. but he would likely sneak in a slam after that.

so where is the inconsistency?

and yes, your question was BS because federer was stopped time and again at 32.5+ by prime ATGs ( 5 times in AO 14-AO 16), djokovic was not. to to extend it for AO 17 is just BS with fed having beaten nadal/wawa/in-form nishi.

I've already defined what inflation slam means for me: not high enough level AND meh/worse competition.

If you want to re-define it to everything after prime-ish to call sort of inflated, I don't agree at all.

btw by your so called "definition", RG 21 is also sort of inflated, actually even more so.
and fed is 17 not at all inflated slams at end of Wim 12 and djokovic is at what 15 at the end of AO 19?
 
Fed played far more total matches than Nole, yet accumulated far fewer wins against top 5 and top 10 opponents.
When talking about competition, that's worth a laugh, LOL.
 
abmk said:
federer also benefitted from weak competition in AO 18 and Wim 17 (even if he played as flawless as a 36 yo old could at that age at Wim)

djokovic was MUCH better in 12-14 than in 21/23, yet he won 3 slams in 3 years in the former, but 6 slams in 21/23 combined.

djokovic benefitting from weak competition of 16-current > nadal >>> federer

with decent competition, djokovic in 21-23 would win 2-3 slams tops, nothing more, not fricking 7 slams.

and a 6 year difference in age is significant in tennis.

lets see if you have an actual decent response this time around.
Click to expand...
My man, listen. If Federer didn't have weak knees, if Nadal doesn't have issues with his foot his whole career and generally broken body, winners of the last 14 Grand Slams (from US Open 2020 onwards) would be - Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic. Rafael Nadal is winning AO 24 if healthy. Rafael Nadal is winning Wimbledon 2023 if healthy (this actually might be the only time one of the Big 3 wouldn't win it, Alcaraz was incredible). Novak Djokovic is winning USO 22 if participating, Nadal is winning USO 21 if participating, one of Big 3 wins USO 20 - Federer last slam I'd say.

For Gods sake stop underestimating Novak just because you don't like him or hate him, stop underestimating Rafa's capabilities if 100% healthy just because you don't like him or hate him, stop thinking Federer won it all just because Nadal and Djokovic were young, again just because you don't like him or hate him. These guys are monsters, all three playing in the same era, it's ridiculous. NEVER AGAIN will happen anything similar in any sport, ever. They are destroying all generations for 20 years now, dear Lord.​
 
abmk said:
I said in isolation, but things in real life may not work as they do in isolation.

what you said is possible, but fed would still likely sneak in a slam given his play in 14-15 and 17-early 18 somewhere.

Just as similarly as djoko's could possibly be over by AO 19. but he would likely sneak in a slam after that.

so where is the inconsistency?

and yes, your question was BS because federer was stopped time and again at 32.5+ by prime ATGs ( 5 times in AO 14-AO 16), djokovic was not. to to extend it for AO 17 is just BS with fed having beaten nadal/wawa/in-form nishi.

I've already defined what inflation slam means for me: not high enough level AND meh/worse competition.

If you want to re-define it to everything after prime-ish to call sort of inflated, I don't agree at all.

btw by your so called "definition", RG 21 is also sort of inflated, actually even more so.
and fed is 17 not at all inflated slams at end of Wim 12 and djokovic is at what 15 at the end of AO 19?
Click to expand...

Forget isolation here, and forget about Djokovic here, since we know all of his titles are weak and inflated.

The point is very simple, nothing works in isolation. If there was an ATG that came after Djokovic, as Federer fans continuously tell us that there should have been, then Federer doesn't win AO 2017. So his title, just like Djokovic's titles, and yes, I include everything that is post prime for them, is inflated.

I am seeing very cleverly crafted explanations to try to boost up wins while killing others. You know, and I know it, if this mythical ATG existed as we are told that he was meant to, Federer doesn't vulture AO 2017 either. Think about it, a 35 year coming back after 6 months of not playing, doesn't win the title with an ATG at his peak there.
 
AO13 said:
My man, listen. If Federer didn't have weak knees, if Nadal doesn't have issues with his foot his whole career and generally broken body, winners of the last 14 Grand Slams (from US Open 2020 onwards) would be - Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic. Rafael Nadal is winning AO 24 if healthy. Rafael Nadal is winning Wimbledon 2023 if healthy (this actually might be the only time one of the Big 3 wouldn't win it, Alcaraz was incredible). Novak Djokovic is winning USO 22 if participating, Nadal is winning USO 21 if participating, one of Big 3 wins USO 20 - Federer last slam I'd say.

For Gods sake stop underestimating Novak just because you don't like him or hate him, stop underestimating Rafa's capabilities if 100% healthy just because you don't like him or hate him, stop thinking Federer won it all just because Nadal and Djokovic were young, again just because you don't like him or hate him. These guys are monsters, all three playing in the same era, it's ridiculous. NEVER AGAIN will happen anything similar in any sport, ever. They are destroying all generations for 20 years now, dear Lord.​
Click to expand...

Federer, Nadal and Djokovic can be 3 great monsters and the 2 generations of Nishi-Rao-Dimi and Z-Tpas-Med can be horrible. both can be true.

nadal-djokovic own gen did MUCH better than those losers of worst generations and they were up vs much better versions of fed/nadal/djokovic.

murray won 3 slams, wawa 3 slams, delpo 1 slam, cilic 1 slam - 8 slams

the 89-99 generations have won 2 slams combined. that's pathetic.

for god's sake, stop being under the delusions that these worst gens are anything good and thinking ancient versions of djoko/nadal/fed are unstoppable. they are still pretty good, but not unstoppable.


and listen. fed, nadal even with their physical issues have had better longevity than most ATGs in the past.
 
Last edited:
NoleFam said:
I don't know. I was under the impression that ATGs grow on trees, even if 3 GOATs are hovering up everything including 66 Slams.
Click to expand...

This must be more than a once in a life time thing, more like once every 1000 year phenomenon. That Djokovic was born with more luck than any sportsman ever.
 
Hitman said:
This must be more than a once in a life time thing, more like once every 1000 year phenomenon. That Djokovic was born with more luck than any sportsman ever.
Click to expand...
Has to be. If he's a weaker player than the other two, that's the only plausible explanation.
 
Hitman said:
Forget isolation here, and forget about Djokovic here, since we know all of his titles are weak and inflated.

The point is very simple, nothing works in isolation. If there was an ATG that came after Djokovic, as Federer fans continuously tell us that there should have been, then Federer doesn't win AO 2017. So his title, just like Djokovic's titles, and yes, I include everything that is post prime for them, is inflated.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with that definition at all and I think its bad, but atleast there is consistency. that much I will give you.

Hitman said:
I am seeing very cleverly crafted explanations to try to boost up wins while killing others. You know, and I know it, if this mythical ATG existed as we are told that he was meant to, Federer doesn't vulture AO 2017 either. Think about it, a 35 year coming back after 6 months of not playing, doesn't win the title with an ATG at his peak there.
Click to expand...
there's nothing clever. I straight-forward answered even your BS question with consistency.
 
NoleFam said:
Has to be. If he's a weaker player than the other two, that's the only plausible explanation.
Click to expand...

He just happened to be the right guy at the right place at the right time, he just managed to do it 24 times in slams, 7 times in YEC and 40 times in masters...
 
socallefty said:
A weird stat is that once Djokovic figured out how to beat Federer at a Slam for the first time, Federer never ever beat him again at that Slam.
Click to expand...

This is the younger player taking over the reins from the older player. Normal Order tennis...something those who just started watching tennis in the 2010s are unfamiliar with.
 
abmk said:
I don't agree with that definition at all and I think its bad, but atleast there is consistency. that much I will give you.


there's nothing clever. I straight-forward answered even your BS question with consistency.
Click to expand...

You don't agree with it, because it makes it even easier to pick and choose. You just washed away Djokovic's slams from 2016 onwards really, and then give Federer the AO 2017, I guess because you don't want anything to be taken away from Nadal being beaten in the final. I understand.

You see, I see BS double standards here all the time. It's always about how do we tear down the other guy and prop up our guy to show who is the best.
 
Hitman said:
He just happened to be the right guy at the right place at the right time, he just managed to do it 24 times in slams, 7 times in YEC and 40 times in masters...
Click to expand...
So you and @NoleFam think there are only 2 options: NONE of the 24 slams were lucky, or ALL of the 24 slams were lucky. Nothing else is possible, right? Ok.
 
abmk said:
Federer, Nadal and Djokovic can be 3 great monsters and the 2 generations of Nishi-Rao-Dimi and Z-Tpas-Med can be horrible.

nadal-djokovic own gen did MUCH better than those losers of worst generations and they were up vs much better versions of fed/nadal/djokovic.

murray won 3 slams, wawa 3 slams, delpo 1 slam, cilic 1 slam - 8 slams

the 89-99 generations has won 2 slams combined. that's pathetic.

for god's sake, stop being under the delusions that these worst gens are anything good.


and listen. fed, nadal even with their physical issues have had better longevity than most ATGs in the past.
Click to expand...
Murray is class below Big 3, but above everyone else. Wawrinka played match of his life in RG 2015 and had mentally weak Djokovic, who was done after beating Nadal in QF as he was thinking RG is his and Wawrinka had 2 other finals where the opponent was clearly injured. We all know about Del Potro, and Cilic is, I don't know. Fluke, luck, right place in the right time, skill. all combined.

Nevertheless, you can't expect 3 people winning every single Grand Slam tournament for 20 years. But my point is, nobody would speak about weak era if Federer played untill let's say 2021, and Rafa alongside Djokovic all these years, as they would too win slams and all three fanbases would be happy and not bitter, angry, sad, depressed even, because player of Big 3 they hate is winning slams and his player don't.​
 
Hitman said:
He just happened to be the right guy at the right place at the right time, he just managed to do it 24 times in slams, 7 times in YEC and 40 times in masters...
Click to expand...
The triple career Slam, the NCYGS, the most amount of accumulated points, the most YE #1s, etc., and etc...If he needed the money, he could easily win the lottery.
 
Hitman said:
You don't agree with it, because it makes it even easier to pick and choose. You just washed away Djokovic's slams from 2016 onwards really, and then give Federer the AO 2017, I guess because you don't want anything to be taken away from Nadal being beaten in the final. I understand.

You see, I see BS double standards here all the time. It's always about how do we tear down the other guy and prop up our guy to show who is the best.
Click to expand...

I just gave credit for Djoko in Wim 18 (nadal) and RG 21 as facing good competition (nadal+tpas)
I've never once said djoko's USO 18 or AO 19 were inflated either - since he was playing at a high level.

I didn't wash away all of djokovic's slams in 21-23 either.
The first post of mine in this thread you responded to I said "with decent competition, djokovic in 21-23 would win 2-3 slams tops, nothing more, not fricking 7 slams."

So your bold part is a straight up lie and I do not appreciate that at all.
Look in the mirror first.
 
StrongRule said:
So you and @NoleFam think there are only 2 options: NONE of the 24 slams were lucky, or ALL of the 24 slams were lucky. Nothing else is possible, right? Ok.
Click to expand...

Right, let me give you the list then of how we get told how lucky Djokovic was on a daily basis here.

AO 2008 - Lucky, only won it because Federer had mono.
AO 2011 - Lucky that Federer was already past his prime, had he faced Federer from 2004-2007 he would have lost. Also lucky surface changed for him, doesn't win on Rebound Ace.
W 2011 - Lucky that Tsonga got rid of Federer, because we all saw what Federer did in 2012 when they played
USO 2011 - Lucky shot 40-15 against Federer, he should have lost
AO 2012 - Lucky Nadal missed the BHDTL, otherwise Nadal wins AO
AO 2013 - Lucky the call went against Wawrinka, Djokovic was losing and going out.
W 2014 - Lucky he didn't have to face prime Federer from 2004-2007 like Nadal did
AO 2015 - Lucky that his main rivals are past their prime and Wawrinka played badly in the semi
W 2015 - Lucky he got 30s Federer, he doesn't beat prime Federer
USO 2015 - Lucky that Federer choked so many BPs
AO 2016 - Lucky he had weak competition
RG 2016 - Lucky his best competition was Murray
W 2018 - Lucky there was a roof or he loses to Nadal
USO 2018 - Lucky he had a weak draw, Nadal had all the tough players, then got his pigeon Del Potro in the final
AO 2019 - Lucky that Nadal was coming back from ankle injury and wasn't match fit
W 2019 - Lucky for the epic Federer choke on 40-15 CP, he should have lost
AO 2020 - Lucky for Thiem choking away a 2-1 lead in the final
AO 2021 - Lucky for weak competition, and Medvedev choking
RG 2021 - Lucky that Nadal was injured and Tsitsipas choked a 2-0 set lead
W 2021 - Lucky for having no grass players, weakest competition ever
W 2022 - Lucky for playing his biggest fanboy Kyrgios in the final and Nadal getting injured
AO 2023 - Lucky for a weak draw with Tsitsipas being pathetic in the final
RG 2023 - Lucky that Alcaraz cramped and gave the match away, and he got Ruud in the final
US 2023 - Lucky that he had an easy draw and Medvedev laid an egg in the final


The man robbed the sport of 24 slams according to what I read on a daily basis here.
 
AO13 said:
Murray is class below Big 3, but above everyone else. Wawrinka played match of his life in RG 2015 and had mentally weak Djokovic, who was done after beating Nadal in QF as he was thinking RG is his and Wawrinka had 2 other finals where the opponent was clearly injured. We all know about Del Potro, and Cilic is, I don't know. Fluke, luck, right place in the right time, skill. all combined.​
Click to expand...

BS excuse for djokovic loss in RG 15. guess you missed that wawa also beat prime djoko in AO 14 (that was his best win actually in that tourney). and he was up a set and break when nadal was fine and would've likely won anyway.

you should be particularly so ashamed of calling delpo slam a fluke given he beat both fed and nadal.
cilic was also playing at a high level and beat berdych, fed and nishi (&simon).

both of these guys have also played at high levels in other slams (delpo in RG 09, Wim 13, Wim 18 etc), cilic (AO 18, Wim 14 etc). so not a fluke.

you put down wawa, delpo, cilic and then whine when I call out much worse players of 2 worst generations for what they are? jeez.

AO13 said:
Nevertheless, you can't expect 3 people winning every single Grand Slam tournament for 20 years. But my point is, nobody would speak about weak era if Federer played untill let's say 2021, and Rafa alongside Djokovic all these years, as they would too win slams and all three fanbases would be happy and not bitter, angry, sad, depressed even, because player of Big 3 they hate is winning slams and his player don't.​
Click to expand...

brother, fed fans were talking about era being weak in 17-early 18 also when fed was dominating winning 3 out of 5 slams.

thread from May 18 when djokovic hadn't even made his comeback.

We're living the Career Inflation Era

We're in an unprecedented era in tennis. We have a World #1 who is actually close to the age that normal people retire. Slam counts of the top players have gone through the roof. Former top players have faded, broken down. Meanwhile, the early 90s generation came and did..... pretty much...
tt.tennis-warehouse.com tt.tennis-warehouse.com

my thread about Wim 18 easily being best slam after AO 17 (indicating slams in between weren't that great)

Wimbledon 2018 - best slam after AO 17 easily !

After AO 2017, Wim 18 has easily been the best slam. 2 dramatic quarters- Nadal/Delpo, Fed/Anderson 2 dramatic semis - Anderson/Isner, Djokovic/Nadal
tt.tennis-warehouse.com tt.tennis-warehouse.com
 
Last edited:
abmk said:
I just gave credit for Djoko in Wim 18 (nadal) and RG 21 as facing good competition (nadal+tpas)
I've never once said djoko's USO 18 or AO 19 were inflated either - since he was playing at a high level.

I didn't wash away all of djokovic's slams in 21-23 either.
The first post of mine in this thread you responded to I said "with decent competition, djokovic in 21-23 would win 2-3 slams tops, nothing more, not fricking 7 slams."

So your bold part is a straight up lie and I do not appreciate that at all.
Look in the mirror first.
Click to expand...

You know full well Federer doesn't win AO 2017 with ATG competition around. It ain't not BS isolation thing, that ATG would be owning the tour. So, without that ATG around, Federer did in fact vulture AO 2017, and hey, I'll put all of Djokovic's win in there as well. Because why not.
 
NoleFam said:
The triple career Slam, the NCYGS, the most amount of accumulated points, the most YE #1s, etc., and etc...If he needed the money, he could easily win the lottery.
Click to expand...

Win the lottery, just snap his fingers more like. I mean, that is how he got all those slams and other records, right? The guy can't even tie his shoelaces if he wasn't so lucky.
 
Just amazing!

Federer has an amazing game, but I feel he failed to adapt and as a result Novak capitalized big-time while Federer looked and sounded like a fool
 
''Any word from the grand slam record intelligence? If there IS such a thing? ''

''Not yet, sir.''

''Of course not, because we're a covert grand slam record team that is so secret, that when we snap our fingers NOTHING HAPPENS!''
 
Hitman said:
You know full well Federer doesn't win AO 2017 with ATG competition around. It ain't not BS isolation thing, that ATG would be owning the tour. So, without that ATG around, Federer did in fact vulture AO 2017, and hey, I'll put all of Djokovic's win in there as well. Because why not.
Click to expand...

I already explained isolation part and also that it depends on kind of ATG if we have to take across a period (not just 1 slam).

I think both fed/djoko sneak in a slam post Wim 12/AO 19 even with prime ATG in field because even prime ATGs can get upset or have below par days across a long period. -- **if we look at it in totality**
But you can take your thing as long as you are consistent - no slams for fed after Wim 12 and for djoko after AO 19. I disagree, but its not totally bad.

Just don't put a straight up lie about what I said.
 
abmk said:
I already explained isolation part and also that it depends on kind of ATG if we have to take across a period (not just 1 slam).

I think both fed/djoko sneak in a slam post Wim 12/AO 19 even with prime ATG in field because even prime ATGs can get upset or have below par days across a long period. -- **if we look at it in totality**
But you can take your thing as long as you are consistent - no slams for fed after Wim 12 and for djoko after AO 19. I disagree, but its not totally bad.

Just don't put a straight up lie about what I said.
Click to expand...
Hewitt AO 05 SF or Roddick USO 07 QF by level?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Interesting thread: what if the Big Three retained their peak level of tennis throughout their entire career without any decline?
Replies
19
Views
562
Sport
Sport
M
Let's play the game--what if the Big 3 were all born in 1981?
2
Replies
66
Views
3K
serve
S
M
Part 2 of What if the Big Three retained their peak level of tennis throughout their entire career without any decline? 2011 Djokovic's turn now
Replies
2
Views
275
Megafanoftennis100
M
F
How do Federer and Djokovic perform in their 30s if you swap their birthdays?
2
Replies
76
Views
2K
Silentchimera
Silentchimera
M
"it was decided in 1st set" -Losing a Tiebreaker in Grand Slam Quarterfinal/Semifinal/Final - Big 3
Replies
4
Views
641
Surion
S
Back
Top