What era was stronger 2004-2006 or 2014-2016?

[UnderratedSlam]

Fed had a pretty bad season in 2016.

We are not talking about one season, but three seasons.

You are too Fedcentric. Just because he had ONE crap season sudden;y the ENTIRE era is crap?

Makes a lot of sense...

Fact is that he would have won FOUR slams in that era were it not for Djokovic. Doesn't mean it was a Weak Era, it means Djokovic was too good.

Still is.

 

[NoleFam]

I disagree with that but i agree with a lot of what Nolefam writes.

Likewise and that's because we actually write things rooted in reason.

 

[NoleFam]

What @NoleFam writes is not the truth anyway. I didn't say it was not a good year. I said it was not a GREAT year.

Whatever you said, it isn't true. Just the 5th year in his career after 16 years were he won multiple Slams, not to mention only the second year after 2008 where he made the SF of all 4 Slams, and it's not a great year? Sure, hopy.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

I agree with you Feds generation was not a great just but just a good one you have had Federer generation. No 2nd ATG. But you left out some stuff that are important like 2014-16 not have any young talent to rock the top or having no surface ATG at peak level besides Djokovic on a constant basis even with Djok slumping in the 2nd half of the year.
The last few generations have been worse than the Roger gen as well.
To call the oppenents Federer faced piegons is harsh indeed it is lacking respect for oppenents.

In this discussion it is absolutely correct to call them pigeons, because in terms of what we're discussing that's exactly what they were.

As far as "no young challengers", well, Stan showed up as a veteran challenger, which meant that the slams 2014-2016 were split between three players playing at their best, plus RF who just wasn't lucky enough to win one despite playing great in 2015 and 2016 until Wimby injury.

LostGen sucks, yes, but unlike 2004-2006 there were already FIVE slam-winning veterans fighting over the slams 14-16. In 2004-2006 it was just one and half, RF and a teenage Nadal who was still just a clay expert. The young talent was useless 14-16 but it was more than balanced out by a competitive top 5. Sure, Nadal sucked in 15-16 but that's kinda his fault and that's why 11-13 was a tougher era. Doesn't mean 14-16 was weak, just slightly weaker.

 

[Third Serve]

We are not talking about one season, but three seasons.

You are too Fedcentric. Just because he had ONE crap season sudden;y the ENTIRE era is crap?

Makes a lot of sense...

Fact is that he would have won FOUR slams in that era were it not for Djokovic. Doesn't mean it was a Weak Era, it means Djokovic was too good.

Still is.

I was correcting you. You probably meant 2014-2015 and not 2015-2016. No need to throw a hissy fit.

 

[StrongRule]

Whatever you said, it isn't true. Just the 5th year in his career after 16 years were he won multiple Slams, not to mention only the second year after 2008 where he made the SF of all 4 Slams, and it's not a great year? Sure, hopy.

Do you have a youtube account?

 

[UnderratedSlam]

I was correcting you. You probably meant 2014-2015 and not 2015-2016. No need to throw a hissy fit.

If you feel hissy-fitty, feel free to project it onto me, I don't mind... I'm used to projection.

They day you manage to correct me (properly) will be the day Zverev wins the Calendar Slam.

 

[NoleFam]

Well, this is a guy who believes Dimitrov played in USO 2019 just as well as in AO 2017.

Thought I think he might be just trolling. If he really believes that then I'm not sure how to react.

Oh hopy. Me thinking AO 2017 is comparable to 2019 USO for Dimitrov is at least is a reasonable opinion being that both were SF runs but even if it that is incorrect, that is nothing compared to the gems you have posted all over YouTube. The level of ridiculous cannot be measured. Don't make me post some of your great hypotheses. Lmao.

 

[Fedforever]

The great thing about the thread is you can go straight to the last page and know everything that has been said........

 

[RS]

In this discussion it is absolutely correct to call them pigeons, because in terms of what we're discussing that's exactly what they were.

As far as "no young challengers", well, Stan showed up as a veteran challenger, which meant that the slams 2014-2016 were split between three players playing at their best, plus RF who just wasn't lucky enough to win one despite playing great in 2015 and 2016 until Wimby injury.

LostGen sucks, yes, but unlike 2004-2006 there were already FIVE slam-winning veterans fighting over the slams 14-16. In 2004-2006 it was just one and half, RF and a teenage Nadal who was still just a clay expert. The young talent was useless 14-16 but it was more than balanced out by a competitive top 5. Sure, Nadal sucked in 15-16 but that's kinda his fault and that's why 11-13 was a tougher era. Doesn't mean 14-16 was weak, just slightly weaker.

Players won slams in 2014-16 like Wawrinka but Djokovic was less lethal in 14-16 than Federer was in 04-06 and got hurt in the 2nd half of the year allowing other players to win slams while . I do not think 2004-06 Nadal was worse than 2014-16 Federer or 2014-16 Murray as well. Federer was quite good but he was not so much more scary form wise in slams than guys Roger was playing.
2011-2013 was stronger than both of course.

 

[Third Serve]

If you feel hissy-fitty, feel free to project it onto me, I don't mind... I'm used to projection.

They day you manage to correct me (properly) will be the day Zverev wins the Calendar Slam.

No worries, I didn't know that it's impossible for you to make a mistake, my lord. /s

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Players won slams in 2014-16 like Wawrinka but Djokovic was less lethal in 14-16 than Federer was in 04-06 and got hurt in the 2nd half of the year allowing other players to win slams while . I do not think 2004-06 Nadal was worse than 2014-16 Federer or 2014-16 Murray as well. Federer was quite good but he was not so much more scary form wise in slams than guys Roger was playing.
2011-2013 was stronger than both of course.

Some people just can't stand the fact that Djokovic managed to win 4 slams in a row...

This is what this thread is really about.

Right?

 

[UnderratedSlam]

No worries, I didn't know that it's impossible for you to make a mistake, my lord. /s

You don't HAVE to address me with "my Lord", that is how you address MurryGOAT Sir Mandy. He got the Holy Sword slapped on his head, not me.

You can call me, Lord Master of the Universe, and that's quite enough...

 

[NatF]

Fedfans insist that he made his 2004-2006 Era seem weak because he prevented all his pigeons from winning (more) slams, but that is easily disprovable.

Not only did he always get different slam finale opponents every time (except the teenage Nadal) which proves a lack of consistency at the top 5 level, but RF waited until 2003 to win a slam and until 2004 until he finally started fulfilling his potential. So the years 2000-2002 (when the 1977-1979 birth year gen should have dominated because they were just at the right age to peak, and which Fed's 1980-1982 gen should have also been winning a lot) should be full of slam wins from the 1977-1982 gens? They are not.

Until 2003 Gonzalez, Safin, Haas, Kiefer, and many others had plenty of time to loot the slams in RF's "absence" yet they didn't. Who won the slams 2000-2003?

Sampras, Agassi, Ivanisevic (1970-1972 should already retire gen) combined won a whopping 5 slams, plus 1973-1976 gen Kuerten, Costa and Johansson 4 more = 9.

That's NINE slams out of a possible 12. The other three slams - JUST THREE - were won by Hewitt and Safin and ZERO were won by the 1977-1979 gen, that pigeon generation that RF could push around because they were useless. (How ironic that one of those pigeons is now RF's coach - as if that gen was created just to advance the GOAT cause...)

In other words, both the 1977-1979 gen and the 1980-1982 gen underperformed, because already the next gen Rafa/Djokovic/Delpo won their first slams either as teens or 20/21 year-olds. Because back in that era it was NORMAL and EXPECTED that talents win slams already at the age of 20-22. This was before GAS, the Great Age Shift.

This proves that RF did NOT prevent the crap gen (1977-1979) from winning anything. In fact, Gaudio won the only slam for this gen during RF's reign in 2004 when Kuerten beat RF in straight sets at FO).

So no, Fedfans trying to spin and spin and spin how strong 2004-2006 era was simply has no basis in facts. It is called the Weak Era by most experts for a reason.

This is just a laughable post on so many levels It wasn't the strongest period but you're contradicting yourself here and your arbitrary selection of generations is very revealing. Picking three year spans to make your point, really? Rarely have I seen that. Guess Djokovic is two generations behind Federer, yet I'm sure you'll parade Federer's losses around like the other haters lol.

Not to mention this seems like mostly an attack on 2000-2003, thread is 2004-2006 bro.

Most of Fed's generation was 19-21 in the years you're singling out. Historically peak for slam wins starts around 22 IIRC. Even then there were a bunch of 20-21 year old wins by Safin Hewitt, Federer and Roddick. You say they suck for not winning slams early enough and then talk up Nadal, Djokovic and Del Potro winning slams at the same age lol. This is just nonsensical from you lol.

Also Federer never played teenage Nadal in a slam final btw.

And the Sampras gen should have already retired by then? When they were only just 30? Interesting. Yet I'm sure you'll argue that Federer is peak or near peak in his mid 30's. So much change despite Fed being only 10 years older than Sampras....

A whooping 5 slams? Lol 3/5 were from Agassi, a guy that squandered his prime years and only really got fully dedicated to physical training when he was 28/29. A couple of wins from very early 30's Sampras and Ivanisevic is hardly strange. And 5 were won by Federer's generation in 2000-2003 as well. The outlier is Agassi here but he had a strange career path.

Who was the 1977-1979 gen btw? Kuerten was born in September of 1976, it seems totally arbitrary for you to exclude him. In fact I know it's arbitrary...

The gen after Sampras was weaker, Kuerten and Moya being the only slam winners IIRC. However Agassi having his most consistent stretch of high level tennis in the 1999-2003 period balances this out somewhat.

BTW really funny how you seem to be arguing that Kuerten winning slams in his mid 20's is somehow indicative of a weak era in 2004-2006

But sure keep spitting them facts man lol.

 

[RS]

Some people just can't stand the fact that Djokovic managed to win 4 slams in a row...

This is what this thread is really about.

Right?

No the thread was about eras. Djokovic possibly had the best 18 month peak in OE but he was worse in 2014 before Beijing and in the 2nd half of 2016.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

This is just a laughable post on so many levels It wasn't the strongest period but you're contradicting yourself here and your arbitrary selection of generations is very revealing. Picking three year spans to make your point, really? Rarely have I seen that. Guess Djokovic is two generations behind Federer, yet I'm sure you'll parade Federer's losses around like the other haters lol.

Not to mention this seems like mostly an attack on 2000-2003, thread is 2004-2006 bro.

Most of Fed's generation was 19-21 in the years you're singling out. Historically peak for slam wins starts around 22 IIRC. Even then there were a bunch of 20-21 year old wins by Safin Hewitt, Federer and Roddick. You say they suck for not winning slams early enough and then talk up Nadal, Djokovic and Del Potro winning slams at the same age lol. This is just nonsensical from you lol.

Also Federer never played teenage Nadal in a slam final btw.

And the Sampras gen should have already retired by then? When they were only just 30? Interesting. Yet I'm sure you'll argue that Federer is peak or near peak in his mid 30's. So much change despite Fed being only 10 years older than Sampras....

A whooping 5 slams? Lol 3/5 were from Agassi, a guy that squandered his prime years and only really got fully dedicated to physical training when he was 28/29. A couple of wins from very early 30's Sampras and Ivanisevic is hardly strange. And 5 were won by Federer's generation in 2000-2003 as well. The outlier is Agassi here but he had a strange career path.

Who was the 1977-1979 gen btw? Kuerten was born in September of 1976, it seems totally arbitrary for you to exclude him. In fact I know it's arbitrary...

The gen after Sampras was weaker, Kuerten and Moya being the only slam winners IIRC. However Agassi having his most consistent stretch of high level tennis in the 1999-2003 period balances this out somewhat.

BTW really funny how you seem to be arguing that Kuerten winning slams in his mid 20's is somehow indicative of a weak era in 2004-2006

But sure keep spitting them facts man lol.

I knew there would be Fedfans who would be in total denial about the facts I offered. The LOLs and the BROs... was to be expected. No DUDEs? OK, no DUDEs...

Even if we expand the loser gen to 1976-1979, we still have ONLY 2 slams won during 2000-2002 by a gen that should have been DOMINATING that period. A gen that was on average 22-25 years old during this period i.e. the peak years. (Before GAS, this was...)

So how do you explain the fact that the 1976-79 gen won only 2/12 slams during an era when THEY should have been dominant?

We can explain it only by admitting that it was a very bad generation, similar to LostGen, one which ALLOWED RF to start dominating so much.

In fact, let's expand the loser gen to 1975-1979, because you seem to believe I am manipulating numbers here. That means only 4/12 slams won during an era (2000-2002) when THAT gen should have dominated or at least been equal to the generation BEFORE theirs.

However, the gen BEFORE them (1970-1974) won 5/12, i.e. they did BETTER during a period when the 75-79 gen should have destroyed that gen as 30 or close-to-30 year-olds. (This was before GAS, of course, when most top pros retired at 30 or before 30.)

I can't make it any clearer.

Now try to refute this post. But please, no denial and do try to UNDERSTAND these facts before posting anything.

And no Fedbias. Try to be objective. RF doesn't have you on a salary to defend his imaginary GOAT status...

 

[KINGROGER]

2004-2006 slightly stronger. Clay very clearly stronger, grass/HC about even. Roddick/Hewitt/Safin/Nalbandian/Davydenko/Old Agassi = Old Fed, Murray, Wawrinka, Berdych etc.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

No the thread was about eras. Djokovic possibly had the best 18 month peak in OE but he was worse in 2014 before Beijing and in the 2nd half of 2016.

No. If Novak had lost that FO finale to Murray we wouldn't even have this thread.

This is all about trying to put down Novak's grand achievement. Some TTW posters have been doing this for 3 and a half years...

 

[UnderratedSlam]

2004-2006 slightly stronger. Clay very clearly stronger, grass/HC about even. Roddick/Hewitt/Safin/Nalbandian/Davydenko/Old Agassi = Old Fed, Murray, Wawrinka, Berdych etc.

Or you can read my lengthy post, earlier on, that explains why the 04-06 is a very Weak Era... Post 139.

 

[NatF]

I knew there would be Fedfans who would be in total denial about the facts I offered. The LOLs and the BROs... was to be expected. No DUDEs? OK, no DUDEs...

Even if we expand the loser gen to 1976-1979, we still have ONLY 2 slams won during 2000-2002 by a gen that should have been DOMINATING that period. A gen that was on average 22-25 years old during this period i.e. the peak years. (Before GAS, this was...)

So how do you explain the fact that the 1976-79 gen won only 2/12 slams during an era when THEY should have been dominant?

We can explain it only by admitting that it was a very bad generation, similar to LostGen, one which ALLOWED RF to start dominating so much.

In fact, let's expand the loser gen to 1975-1979, because you seem to believe I am manipulating numbers here. That means only 4/12 slams won during an era (2000-2002) when THAT gen should have dominated or at least been equal to the generation BEFORE theirs.

However, the gen BEFORE them (1970-1974) won 5/12, i.e. they did BETTER during a period when the 75-79 gen should have destroyed that gen as 30 or close-to-30 year-olds. (This was before GAS, of course, when most top pros retired at 30 or before 30.)

I can't make it any clearer.

Now try to refute this post. But please, no denial and do try to UNDERSTAND these facts before posting anything.

And no Fedbias. Try to be objective. RF doesn't have you on a salary to defend his imaginary GOAT status...

Facts in this case being contradictory statements and biased segmentation. Would you like another lol?

I see you've abandoned the other strand of your post about Fed's generation not winning early enough, when they clearly won slams basically as early as the Djokodal generation...

The 1975-1979 crop was were weak for sure, but still better than the Lost Gen so I don't see why that's such a big black stain for 2004-2006 but 2014-2016 gets a free pass...

If there had been an ATG level player born in that span then sure it would be have been tougher for Federer to start dominating, but on the flip side Nadal was extremely precocious and Agassi was playing prime tennis until 2003 IMO. It's rare for 5 years to go by without an ATG, but as I said before Agassi had his most consistent period of tennis then and filled that role until 2003. After that Federer's generation had arrived, the 2004 top 10 had 7 slam winners in it, which is an actual fact BTW - so yeah I don't see how 2004-2005 were terribly weak.

Have you got actual facts to back up that most players retired at or before 30 BTW? You don't need to reply because I know you don't...The length players could compete in tennis was already shifting somewhat by the mid 00's, it's been a gradual trend not an instant change.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Facts in this case being contradictory statements and biased segmentation. Would you like another lol?

I see you've abandoned the other strand of your post about Fed's generation not winning early enough, when they clearly won slams basically as early as the Djokodal generation...

The 1975-1979 crop was were weak for sure, but still better than the Lost Gen so I don't see why that's such a big black stain for 2004-2006 but 2014-2016 gets a free pass...

If there had been an ATG level player born in that span then sure it would be have been tougher for Federer to start dominating, but on the flip side Nadal was extremely precocious and Agassi was playing prime tennis until 2003 IMO. It's rare for 5 years to go by without an ATG, but as I said before Agassi had his most consistent period of tennis then and filled that role until 2003. After that Federer's generation had arrived, the 2004 top 10 had 7 slam winners in it, which is an actual fact BTW - so yeah I don't see how 2004-2005 were terribly weak.

Have you got actual facts to back up that most players retired at or before 30 BTW? You don't need to reply because I know you don't...The length players could compete in tennis was already shifting somewhat by the mid 00's, it's been a gradual trend not an instant change.

Who says LostGen are absolved of guilt?

They are guilty of sucking, but in their defense they entered the GAS era, a new era when established pros started having longer careers due to medical advances, hence LostGen didn't have the youth-is-on-my-side advantage that CrapGen 76-79 had and many other gens before LostGen. I explained all this in great detail in my GAS threads...

I didn't abandon anything. (At this point I might add a LOL but since I know that LOL means LAUGHOUTLOUD and not IMBEINGSARCASTICWHILENOTEVENSMILING I don't use it off-hand... like some people) I merely don't have to repeat EVERYTHING.

FedGen only won 3 slams during 2000-2002. Nothing special. The notion that Hewitt was ATG potential but RF ruined him is laughable. His best years were 99-03 (he peaked very early, kinda like Courier and 90s Medvedev) and he "only" managed 2 slams. Safin won USO then went AWOL for basically the next 4 years. Ferrero was motivated until 2003 then basically gave up, soon dropped out of top 10 entirely. That's RF's doing too?

RF had weaker competition 04-06 than he should have had. It's so bloody obvious, but not too much to fans with fanatical denial agendas...

 

[NatF]

Who says LostGen are absolved of guilt?

They are guilty of sucking, but in their defense they entered the GAS era, a new era when established pros started having longer careers due to medical advances, hence LostGen didn't have the youth-is-on-my-side advantage that CrapGen 76-79 had and many other gens before LostGen. I explained all this in great detail in my GAS threads...

I didn't abandon anything. (At this point I might add a LOL but since I know that LOL means LAUGHOUTLOUD and not IMBEINGSARCASTICWHILENOTEVENSMILING I don't use it off-hand... like some people) I merely don't have to repeat EVERYTHING.

FedGen only won 3 slams during 2000-2002. Nothing special. The notion that Hewitt was ATG potential but RF ruined him is laughable. His best years were 99-03 (he peaked very early, kinda like Courier and 90s Medvedev) and he "only" managed 2 slams. Safin won USO then went AWOL for basically the next 4 years. Ferrero was motivated until 2003 then basically gave up, soon dropped out of top 10 entirely. That's RF's doing too?

RF had weaker competition 04-06 than he should have had. It's so bloody obvious, but not too much to fans with fanatical denial agendas...

Keep trying to coin that term man, the irony is that most of your posts are just hot air.

Increased longevity or not the Lost Gen sucks and is clearly the worst we've ever seen IMO. Generally as you noted the younger generation has had the advantage over the proceeding ones, so logically having a weaker young gen is more of a benefit than a weaker old one no?

And you could add a lol, but considering how crap your points are it would just come off as self-deprecating

The Djokodal gen only won three slams in 05-07, nothing special I guess? Again if you look at the age of slam winners historically the peak years start at 21 (I said 22 before I was mistaken), the number of slam winners in their teens and at 20 even historically is lower than those at 29/30. So there was nothing unusual about Fed's gen starting to win slams at 20 years old. Can you name a generation in the OE with substantially more slam wins at that age?

Few say Hewitt was an ATG, great player and underrated but not an ATG. Calling 1999 one of his best years is hilarious though, 2004-2005 were probably his best years in terms of form and both clearly stronger than 2003 which you included. Safin missed the whole of 2003 due to injury, Ferrero had injuries after 2003 as well. Federer's gen was the unlucky gen as they were plagued by injuries. Not sure where I said anything was RF's fault? You're projecting, which is a common trait of haters like you. You basically show up to refute arguments you've imagined or read somewhere else - and then claim other people are biased

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Keep trying to coin that term man, the irony is that most of your posts are just hot air.

Increased longevity or not the Lost Gen sucks and is clearly the worst we've ever seen IMO. Generally as you noted the younger generation has had the advantage over the proceeding ones, so logically having a weaker young gen is more of a benefit than a weaker old one no?

And you could add a lol, but considering how crap your points are it would just come off as self-deprecating

The Djokodal gen only won three slams in 05-07, nothing special I guess? Again if you look at the age of slam winners historically the peak years start at 21 (I said 22 before I was mistaken), the number of slam winners in their teens and at 20 even historically is lower than those at 29/30. So there was nothing unusual about Fed's gen starting to win slams at 20 years old. Can you name a generation in the OE with substantially more slam wins at that age?

Few say Hewitt was an ATG, great player and underrated but not an ATG. Calling 1999 one of his best years is hilarious though, 2004-2005 were probably his best years in terms of form and both clearly stronger than 2003 which you included. Safin missed the whole of 2003 due to injury, Ferrero had injuries after 2003 as well. Federer's gen was the unlucky gen as they were plagued by injuries. Not sure where I said anything was RF's fault? You're projecting, which is a common trait of haters like you. You basically show up to refute arguments you've imagined or read somewhere else - and then claim other people are biased

I give up.

You're a Fedfan with a Fedbias agenda and you refuse to even consider anything any objective person posts. You made at least ten fallacies and flawed comparisons in your several posts here, it'd take me a year to deconstruct them all. It would be a 100,000-word essay. There is that much material to crush, yes.

Keep LOLing... And making excuses for Rogerinho. Someone opened a "Federer excuses" thread... I'll be there.

 

[NatF]

I give up.

You're a Fedfan with a Fedbias agenda and you refuse to even consider anything any objective person posts. You made at least ten fallacies and flawed comparisons in your several posts here, it'd take me a year to deconstruct them all. It would be a 100,000-word essay. There is that much material to crush, yes.

Keep LOLing... And making excuses for Rogerinho. Someone opened a "Federer excuses" thread... I'll be there.

This is basically a concession, I'm used to it though. Most of you can't sustain your points for more than a couple of posts before "giving up".

Yet more irony is you accusing me of bias when you're admitting that you going to go spend your time in the latest Fed hating thread. And BTW I haven't put lol for the last two posts...

 

[RS]

No. If Novak had lost that FO finale to Murray we wouldn't even have this thread.

This is all about trying to put down Novak's grand achievement. Some TTW posters have been doing this for 3 and a half years...

I haven’t t put down his feat....
Even if Djokovic lost to Murray this thread would still be around but obviously Murray stock will be higher.

 

[Lew II]

Best #1 = 2004, 2005, 2006, 2014, 2015 (Federer, Djokovic)

Best #2 = 2005, 2006, 2014, 2016 (Nadal, Federer, Djokovic)

Best #3 = 2014, 2015 (Nadal, Federer)

Best #4 = 2004, 2005, 2014, 2015, 2016 (Safin, Hewitt, Wawrinka)

Best #5 = 2015 (Nadal)


Nominations:

2014 / 2015 - 4
2005 - 3
2004 / 2006 / 2016 - 2

 

[UnderratedSlam]

This is basically a concession, I'm used to it though. Most of you can't sustain your points for more than a couple of posts before "giving up".

Yet more irony is you accusing me of bias when you're admitting that you going to go spend your time in the last Fed hating thread. And BTW I haven't put lol for the last two posts...

Nah, I defended RF on several occasions and openly criticize Rafa and Novak for their shortcomings.

Do you EVER not make excuses for RF?...

This may come as a shock to you, but there ARE tennis fans who aren't fanboys...

 

[UnderratedSlam]

I haven’t t put down his feat....
Even if Djokovic lost to Murray this thread would still be around but obviously Murray stock will be higher.

I don't mean you. What you did was merely parrot Novak haters who invented the 14-16 Weak Era thing, despite most of them denying that weak eras even existed until just a few years ago...

 

[NatF]

Nah, I defended RF on several occasions and openly criticize Rafa and Novak for their shortcomings.

Do you EVER not make excuses for RF?...

This may come as a shock to you, but there ARE tennis fans who aren't fanboys...

I don't think I often make excuses for Fed, got some recent quotes to back that up?

Please don't pretend like you're a balanced poster. I defend Federer often, but it's rare for me to attack Nadal or Djokovic in the manner you do constantly. I would think an actual tennis fan would have more respect for the game than to make huge posts decrying the achievements of one of it's greatest players.

 

[RS]

I don't mean you. What you did was merely parrot Novak haters who invented the 14-16 Weak Era thing, despite most of them denying that weak eras even existed until just a few years ago...

That is true but then you have basically saying that Djokovic always won he strongest periods while Fed won in weak periods......

 

[mike danny]

They are equal really and only the Djokovic fanboys would claim otherwise.

2004-2006 had 2 ATGs: a young one in Nadal and an old one in Agassi.

2014-2016 also had 2 ATGs: Nadal and an old one in Fed. Nadal was only good for half a year in 2014 though, so I'm not sure how much he counts. And even in that half of year, he wasn't exactly shining, just being decent.

Old Fed was good, but just like old Agassi, stood no chance against an ATG in his prime/peak.

Young Nadal was at least dominant on clay and decent to good on grass. Old Fed was good on 2 surfaces, but dominant in neither.

Then you have Murray and Stan, among whom Muirray was of little threat to the top guys and only Stan was a threat and mostly to Djokovic, but that is mostly because of the nature of their match-up.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

I don't think I often make excuses for Fed, got some recent quotes to back that up?

Please don't pretend like you're a balanced poster. I defend Federer often, but it's rare for me to attack Nadal or Djokovic in the manner you do constantly. I would think an actual tennis fan would have more respect for the game than to make huge posts decrying the achievements of one of it's greatest players.

If you actually believe I am going to spend hours perusing through your TTW posts... you are an optimist.

Nor do I understand why recognizing the weakness of the 04-06 era or the obviously bad 76-79 gen has to do with Fed-bashing. You are making irrational cause-and-effect conclusions based on flimsy assumptions that have at their core the belief that EVERY poster is a fanboy.

 

[mike danny]

I don't think I often make excuses for Fed, got some recent quotes to back that up?

Please don't pretend like you're a balanced poster. I defend Federer often, but it's rare for me to attack Nadal or Djokovic in the manner you do constantly. I would think an actual tennis fan would have more respect for the game than to make huge posts decrying the achievements of one of it's greatest players.

Just ignore that guy. He is a phoney who hates Federer and who thinks that only he had luck while Djokodal never.

And hiding under the objectivity cloak like others before him.

 

[RF-18]

They are equal really and only the Djokovic fanboys would claim otherwise.

2005-2006 had 2 ATGs: a young one in Nadal and an old one in Agassi.

2014-2016 also had 2 ATGs: Nadal and an old one in Fed. Nadal was only good for half a year in 2014 though, so I'm not sure how much he counts. And even in that half of year, he wasn't exactly shining, just being decent.

Old Fed was good, but just like old Agassi, stood no chance against an ATG in his prime/peak.

Young Nadal was at least dominant on clay and decent to good on grass. Old Fed was good on 2 surfaces, but dominant in neither.

Then you have Murray and Stan, among whom Muirray was of little threat to the top guys and only Stan was a threat, but that is mostly because of the nature of their match-up.

Nadal was no ATG back then though. He had couple of slams.

And i wouldn't put oldgassi in the same sentence as old Fed. Enormous difference. Federer is in Another league at that age.

 

[mike danny]

Nadal was no ATG back then though. He had couple of slams.

Who cares? Fed was no ATG in 2004 either, but he was sure as heck much better than in 2015.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

That is true but then you have basically saying that Djokovic always won he strongest periods while Fed won in weak periods......

Facts support the claim that Novak's successes were harder-earned and fought for than RF's. There have been many threads with detailed stats that prove that Novak's slam wins have more weight - overall. This does NOT mean that RF is a "Weak Era champ". It simply means that Novak had a tougher time winning his 16 compared to RF's 20.

RF is a great champ but the Rolex Brigade has overrated him prematurely.

 

[RS]

Facts support the claim that Novak's successes were harder-earned and fought for than RF's. There have been many threads with detailed stats that prove that Novak's slam wins have more weight - overall. This does NOT mean that RF is a "Weak Era champ". It simply means that Novak had a tougher time winning his 16 compared to RF's 20.

RF is a great champ but the Rolex Brigade has overrated him prematurely.

You can make a case for any of the big 3 having it tougher or weaker than the other. Djokovic had overall harder paths than Federer at slams by far until the last few years but he has had easier in slams like AO16/RG16/AO19/ in the last few years which make up for it. If Djokovic wins 1-2 slams which are easier he has 100% equalled up Federer.

 

[NatF]

If you actually believe I am going to spend hours perusing through your TTW posts... you are an optimist.

Nor do I understand why recognizing the weakness of the 04-06 era or the obviously bad 76-79 gen has to do with Fed-bashing. You are making irrational cause-and-effect conclusions based on flimsy assumptions that have at their core the belief that EVERY poster is a fanboy.

I am an optimist. I also know those quotes don't exist so it's just another example of you eating your words now...

Perhaps look at your posts and then get back to my why I made the connection between your post and your Fed hating. All the capitals, the use of the words crap and pigeons - you were basically foaming at the mouth. You've already said you're going to hang out in the latest Fed hating circle jerk thread as well but yes I'm the one that's biased...

This is just gold tbh. I'd tell you to leave now and save face but at this point your best bet is to hope the thread gets deleted.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

You can make a case for any of the big 3 having it tougher or weaker than the other. Djokovic had overall harder paths than Federer at slams by far until the last few years but he has had easier in slams like AO16/RG16/AO19/ in the last few years which make up for it. If Djokovic wins 1-2 slams which are easier he has 100% equalled up Federer.

If RF can vulture slams, why can't Novak do it occasionally?

Besides, the three slams you mention, Novak beat a Big 3 player in two of those. RF's slam tally drastically went down the moment Novak and Rafa became serious contenders, which was WAY before RF became "old".

We should visit the "Federer Excuses" thread...

 

[NatF]

Just ignore that guy. He is a phoney who hates Federer and who thinks that only he had luck while Djokodal never.

And hiding under the objectivity cloak like others before him.

I mean it's totally a waste of time but every now and then I do a public service by forcing these guys to back up their positions for more than two posts and watching them fold...

 

[UnderratedSlam]

I am an optimist. I also know those quotes don't exist so it's just another example of you eating your words now...

Perhaps look at your posts and then get back to my why I made the connection between your post and your Fed hating. All the capitals, the use of the words crap and pigeons - you were basically foaming at the mouth. You've already said you're going to hang out in the latest Fed hating circle jerk thread as well but yes I'm the one that's biased...

This is just gold tbh. I'd tell you to leave now and save face but at this point your best bet is to hope the thread gets deleted.

Hey, you're the one LOLing, BROing and DUDEing... Those are the foaming signs...

 

[NatF]

Hey, you're the one LOLing, BROing and DUDEing... Those are the foaming signs...

You're still using caps bro lol...



Also, I feel bad for you if you equate laughing and calling some bro with foaming at the mouth.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

You're still using caps bro lol...



Also, I feel bad for you if you equate laughing and calling some bro with foaming at the mouth.

Those specific caps were for reasons related to proper writing i.e. avoiding misunderstandings... Without them they seem like plural form: i.e. bros, dudes... I wasn't going for plural. Not the usual kind of plural anyway.

Do I have to school you in English Writing too? Seems so...

 

[RS]

If RF can vulture slams, why can't Novak do it occasionally?

Besides, the three slams you mention, Novak beat a Big 3 player in two of those. RF's slam tally drastically went down the moment Novak and Rafa became serious contenders, which was WAY before RF became "old".

We should visit the "Federer Excuses" thread...

What does much of that have to do with this thread.
Federer has lost too many matches to Djokovic/Nadal IMO he should have done more with Nadal in his best years and even vs Djokovic in his post prime years he could have nabbed at least one slam of the 4 final losses naturally he wasn’t gonna win slams at the same rate he used to in 2004-2007. The field did get better but Federer post AO10 look shaky in slams to non Djokdal oppenents.
Nadal wasn’t good in AO19 Final tbh. And the big 3 did not vulture slams that word is the wrong word.

 

[NatF]

Those specific caps were for reasons related to proper writing i.e. avoiding misunderstandings... Without them they seem like plural form: i.e. bros, dudes... I wasn't going for plural.

Do I have to school you in English Writing too? Seems so...

No need for the English lesson, you've already schooled me in giving up today

 

[ForehandRF]

If RF can vulture slams, why can't Novak do it occasionally?

Besides, the three slams you mention, Novak beat a Big 3 player in two of those. RF's slam tally drastically went down the moment Novak and Rafa became serious contenders, which was WAY before RF became "old".

We should visit the "Federer Excuses" thread...

Oh c'monn, I am tired with this old story.So, was Federer supposed to win 3 slams per season for 5 years more ?Why you don't say the same thing about Djokovic cause he didn't have consecutive 3 slam seasons.Suddenly the competition got so much stronger in 2012 than in 2011 ? But yeah, it's simply to put a dent of Federer.No player shows the same form year after year after year and at some point, slam tally decreases independent on the competition.Guess what, 2008 was not stronger than 2007.
@NatF is right with your anti Fed agenda, but I already told you about that a few weeks ago and I like that other posters have noticed.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

No need for the English lesson, you've already schooled me in giving up today

You know how they say in Serbia, "pametni popusta, dalabu nastavlja"...

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Oh c'monn, I am tired with this old story.So, was Federer supposed to win 3 slams per season for 5 years more ?Why you don't say the same thing about Djokovic cause he didn't have consecutive 3 slam seasons.Suddenly the competition got so much stronger in 2012 than in 2011 ? But yeah, it's simply to put a dent of Federer.No player shows the same form year after year after year and at some point, slam tally decreases independent on the competition.Guess what, 2008 was not stronger than 2007.
@NatF is right with your anti Fed agenda, but I already told you about that a few weeks ago and I like that other posters have noticed.

2012 was the Big 4 era. 2004-2006 was the Big One And A Half Era.

4 > 1.5

 

[Sport]

But...Fed was the real #1 in 2017

Still butthurt? No he wasn't. YE #1 is given to the player who achieves more points in the calendar. It is mathematics, and so objective, not debatable. Nadal achieved more points than Federer in 2017 and so he was YE #1. If Federer wanted to be YE #1 in 2017, he should have played the clay season or reach 3 Slam finals as Nadal did. Federer only reached 2 Slam finals and played only in 2 surfaces. Nadal accumulated points on the 3 surfaces and reached 3 Slam finals, which gave him more points.

 

[Lew II]

LOL @ poll results.


2004-06 Federer Slam final opponents:

Roddick x3
Nadal x2
Agassi
Hewitt
Safin
Baghdatis


2014-16 Djokovic Slam final opponents:

Federer x3
Murray x3
Wawrinka x2
Nadal