Why do so many of you expect peak Fedal to still be challenging Djokovic in 2016?

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Seriously, I've lost count of the amount of times I hear "Djokovic is only winning so much because of Fedal's decline" but the question that always comes straight to my mind is "why do they expect peak Fedal to still be around anyway?'. Tbh I can understand more why some people believe Nadal should still be playing at a reasonably high level given he's only a year younger than Djokovic but Federer?! Think about it - the guy first became number 1 at the beginning of 2004 and was part of a different generation to Djokovic so it's wholly unrealistic to expect him to still be challenging the world's best player all these years later. He was bound to experience a natural decline so why on earth do some of you make out Novak should be grateful for it when it was going to happen anyway? :confused:

What gets me is how you never hear anyone say "oh Graf only won so much due to Navratilova's decline" or "Lendl only won so much due to Connors' decline". Most reasonable people just attribute it to one player hitting their stride and the other slowing down as is only natural in any sport but for some reason Fedal fans still expect them to be playing in 2016 like they were a decade earlier which just seems crazy to me. For those of you that don't expect this but still believe Djokovic should be grateful for their decline I could just as easily say Federer wouldn't have won as many Wimbledons with peak Sampras playing at the same time or Nadal not winning as many French Opens with peak Borg standing in his way. We could do this with most players throughout history but it really seems futile and serves no purpose.

The other thing to take into account is that Djokovic already beat both of them when they were playing closer to their peaks so it's not like he hasn't proven he can defeat such strong competition(see 2011 for evidence). So what if he has a slightly easier path to winning majors than he had before - most ATG's have one at some stage and Novak is no different.
I don't know, I just get the overwhelming impression from many of the posters on here(aka Nole haters) recently that unless he's defeating the prime versions of them, his Slams are somehow not worthy but this is just ridiculous. Time waits for no man, other players come along and just because they're not as great as Federer and Nadal(who is?) does not mean Novak shouldn't be given credit for beating them. And like I've said so many times before: the record books don't care about your competition, only your numbers.
 
Last edited:

NatF

Bionic Poster
The issue is not that anyone expects Fedal to still be his main challenge it's that no one else has stepped up in a big way to fill the void.

Regardless there have been many years where the #2 player was not an ATG - many. My only criticism is the younger generation being so relatively weak.
 
I think few expected Fed to still be challenging Djokovic at this point. Actually that Fed was probably the 2nd best player last year (despite being ranked #3) is a sign of the weakness of the field to many people. Although if that is the case, what does it say for the womens field when Serena who was born a month from Federer was the dominant #1 at the exact same age (and I am a huge Serena fan).

Nadal many would reasonably expect to still be competitive with Djokovic based on the fact he is only a year older. However on the other hand his earlier decline shouldnt be too big a surprise given his playing style, but it is pretty shocking how quickly and far he has fallen.

The issue is not that anyone expects Fedal to still be his main challenge it's that no one else has stepped up in a big way to fill the void.

Regardless there have been many years where the #2 player was not an ATG - many. My only criticism is the younger generation being so relatively weak.
The incredible weakness of the 89-92 players (probably the worst generation in tennis history) is why the field is so weak these few years. They were always a sucky generation, but it didnt really matter until now. In theory this is the time they would be shining, and they simply arent good enough to shine.

I do think the field will significantly improve in the next year or two when the 93-96 players have risen to the point of being real contenders, as I dont think they are as weak a generation as 89-92.
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
The issue is not that anyone expects Fedal to still be his main challenge it's that no one else has stepped up in a big way to fill the void.

Regardless there have been many years where the #2 player was not an ATG - many. My only criticism is the younger generation being so relatively weak.
Murray and old Fed the last couple years have been at least equal to many of Fed's slam semi and final opponents in 2004-2007 imo.
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
and add in Wawinka there too, actually very similar streaky player in a way to Safin
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Murray and old Fed the last couple years have been at least equal to many of Fed's slam semi and final opponents in 2004-2007 imo.
I agree - Federer especially. Murray hasn't really impressed me tbh but he's still a solid opponent at least most of the time.
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
Yes the issue I have with some Federer fans is their not pointing out Djokovic has a weak field currently, which I concur is somewhat true. It is their pretending at the same time (note I said some, not all) that Federer reigned over some type of golden age of tennis or something. :D
Many Fedfans point out that the weak era thing started with criticisms of Roger---and so the slam record was touted as being the most important thing, i.e. records are all that matter (I agree to a large extent actually). But now that there is someone who might have a chance to come close or even surpass them, out comes the....you guessed it.... "weak era" refrain again.
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
I agree - Federer especially. Murray hasn't really impressed me tbh but he's still a solid opponent at least most of the time.
Redgardless, how has he not been at least equivalent to many of the 0-2 slam winners Federer faced to win many slams in his heyday.
 
I agree - Federer especially. Murray hasn't really impressed me tbh but he's still a solid opponent at least most of the time.
Murray is always a prickly topic for you on this forum. :p The funny thing is I get the rough impression you actually like him all the same.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
The issue is not that anyone expects Fedal to still be his main challenge it's that no one else has stepped up in a big way to fill the void.

Regardless there have been many years where the #2 player was not an ATG - many. My only criticism is the younger generation being so relatively weak.
One of the main reasons I created this thread is because you have posters like @cc0509 saying how lucky Djokovic is that Fedal have declined which just seems ridiculous to me. Every single ATG has a main rival that eventually declines so why make out that Novak is the only one to benefit from it? :confused:
 

VamosBamos987

Hall of Fame
The rest of the players are so weak, they fall apart 20 minutes into the match. It doesn't have to be Fedal or even peak Fedal, but there is No competition whatsoever.

Nishikori or Raonic still haven't figured anything out yet, for example.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Redgardless, how has he not been at least equivalent to many of the 0-2 slam winners Federer faced to win many slams in his heyday.
Murray? Depends on the match. Did you have any specific ones in mind? He's been better than some, worse than others.

Murray is always a prickly topic for you on this forum. :p The funny thing is I get the rough impression you actually like him all the same.
I really like his personality and I love to watch him being aggressive, his backhand is my favourite to watch currently of the two handers (maybe tied with Kei). I just find this era overhyped and Murray is at the centre of that hype at times for me.

One of the main reasons I created this thread is because you have posters like @cc0509 saying how lucky Djokovic is that Fedal have declined which just seems ridiculous to me. Every single ATG has a main rival that eventually declines so why make out that Novak is the only one to benefit from it? :confused:
No doubt, I don't share those opinions.
 

Maestroesque

Professional
Seriously, I've lost count of the amount of times I hear "Djokovic is only winning so much because of Fedal's decline" but the question that always comes straight to my mind is "why do they expect peak Fedal to still be around anyway?'. Tbh I can understand more why some people believe Nadal should still be playing at a reasonably high level given he's only a year younger than Djokovic but Federer?! Think about it - the guy first became number 1 at the beginning of 2004 and was part of a different generation to Djokovic so it's wholly unrealistic to expect him to still be challenging the world's best player all these years later. He was bound to experience a natural decline so why on earth do some of you make out Novak should be grateful for it when it was to going to happen anyway? :confused:

What gets me is how you never hear anyone say "oh Graf only won so much due to Navratilova's decline" or "Lendl only won so much due to Connors' decline". Most reasonable people just attribute it to one player hitting their stride and the other slowing down as is only natural in any sport but for some reason Fedal fans still expect them to be playing in 2016 like they were a decade earlier which just seems crazy to me. For those of you that don't expect this but still believe Djokovic should be grateful for their decline I could just as easily say Federer wouldn't have won as many Wimbledons with peak Sampras playing at the same time or Nadal not winning as many French Opens with peak Borg standing in his way. We could do this with most players throughout history but it really seems futile and serves no purpose.

The other thing to take into account is that Djokovic already beat both of them when they were playing closer to their peaks so it's not like he hasn't proven he can defeat such strong competition(see 2011 for evidence). So what if he has a slightly easier path to winning majors than he had before - most ATG's have one at some stage and Novak is no different.
I don't know, I just get the overwhelming impression from many of the posters on here(aka Nole haters) recently that unless he's defeating the prime versions of them, his Slams are somehow not worthy but this is just ridiculous. Time waits for no man, other players come along and just because they're not as great as Federer and Nadal(who is?) does not mean Novak shouldn't be given credit for beating them. And like I've said so many times before: the record books don't care about your competition, only your numbers.
it's not being about grateful that they've declined, it's about no one stepping up to challenge Djokovic. I agree that Federer belongs to a different generation, and Nadal may be young(ish) but his body isn't and he's been damaging it over the years. Get over the fact that people are complaining over your guy and just enjoy the fact that he is winning.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
it's not being about grateful that they've declined, it's about no one stepping up to challenge Djokovic. I agree that Federer belongs to a different generation, and Nadal may be young(ish) but his body isn't and he's been damaging it over the years. Get over the fact that people are complaining over your guy and just enjoy the fact that he is.
I wish there was no complaining for me to get over in the first place. :(
 

Maestroesque

Professional
I wish there was no complaining for me to get over in the first place. :(
there are always going to be people complaining just get over it, Eventually someone else is going to come up and people are going to start hating on him/her as well, it's petty but it's the way it is.
 

irishnadalfan1983

Hall of Fame
Seriously, I've lost count of the amount of times I hear "Djokovic is only winning so much because of Fedal's decline" but the question that always comes straight to my mind is "why do they expect peak Fedal to still be around anyway?'. Tbh I can understand more why some people believe Nadal should still be playing at a reasonably high level given he's only a year younger than Djokovic but Federer?! Think about it - the guy first became number 1 at the beginning of 2004 and was part of a different generation to Djokovic so it's wholly unrealistic to expect him to still be challenging the world's best player all these years later. He was bound to experience a natural decline so why on earth do some of you make out Novak should be grateful for it when it was to going to happen anyway? :confused:

What gets me is how you never hear anyone say "oh Graf only won so much due to Navratilova's decline" or "Lendl only won so much due to Connors' decline". Most reasonable people just attribute it to one player hitting their stride and the other slowing down as is only natural in any sport but for some reason Fedal fans still expect them to be playing in 2016 like they were a decade earlier which just seems crazy to me. For those of you that don't expect this but still believe Djokovic should be grateful for their decline I could just as easily say Federer wouldn't have won as many Wimbledons with peak Sampras playing at the same time or Nadal not winning as many French Opens with peak Borg standing in his way. We could do this with most players throughout history but it really seems futile and serves no purpose.

The other thing to take into account is that Djokovic already beat both of them when they were playing closer to their peaks so it's not like he hasn't proven he can defeat such strong competition(see 2011 for evidence). So what if he has a slightly easier path to winning majors than he had before - most ATG's have one at some stage and Novak is no different.
I don't know, I just get the overwhelming impression from many of the posters on here(aka Nole haters) recently that unless he's defeating the prime versions of them, his Slams are somehow not worthy but this is just ridiculous. Time waits for no man, other players come along and just because they're not as great as Federer and Nadal(who is?) does not mean Novak shouldn't be given credit for beating them. And like I've said so many times before: the record books don't care about your competition, only your numbers.

Maybe you shouldn't bothered creating this thread and focused on Nole and enjoyed the win :)

I think these Nole hater type threads have gone through the roof is because people feel he had a really soft French Open and maybe fortunate not too beat Nadal on the way.....Did it help him that he didn't have to play Nadal at the French Open? It sure did but Nadal sometimes has had 'soft' runs to a GS and Federer has aswell. It shouldn't distract or discredit the victory....

Maybe people feel Rafa and Fed earned their slams a bit tougher and Murray is just so weak in finals...A bit of competition would be nice for him and I'd say he might even enjoy it...Again this doesn't discredit the wins...

Also there is a lot of people that really just don't like him and will pick holes in his game...
 

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil

Talk Tennis Guru
What I find interesting is how differently people treat Nadal compared to the treatment Murray is receiving. They are both pretty much Djokovic's generation and both have had poor recent results against him (Nadal's are even worse than Murray's), but when Nadal loses he gets a free pass for being "washed up and declined" while when Murray loses he is the worst ever #2, pathetic and useless.
 

BVSlam

Professional
The real question is not why people think Fedal have to be in prime form for Djokovic's achievements to be accordingly respected by their fans. It is why a few people on this forum find it so important that a bunch of anonymous people have to say the desirable thing in order to justify and validate an opinion.

Why is it important to you that Fedal fans on this forum think highly of Djokovic? If you're convinced of Djokovic's legacy yourself, you don't need to convince a handful of anonymous members of a tennis forum of this, right? Does it matter if they think it's luck? Does it make you think Djokovic was lucky as well?

But if you're dead set on continuing this day in day out (goes for every hardcore fan of whatever big three member by the way), by all means. It's just never going to succeed. Especially not on the internet where the keyboard is everybody's mighty weapon. There are more important things in life than what a few forum members think of a tennis player.

As you said, the record books will say it all eventually and Djokovic will be remembered as a tennis legend. And heck even if he won't, so what? You do enjoy watching him play, right? Isn't that enough? Making topics like this will only attract more responses you don't want to hear anyway. Unless you actually do enjoy them and that's why these types of topics pop up left and right.
 

VamosBamos987

Hall of Fame
What I find interesting is how differently people treat Nadal compared to the treatment Murray is receiving. They are both pretty much Djokovic's generation and both have had poor recent results against him (Nadal's are even worse than Murray's), but when Nadal loses he gets a free pass for being "washed up and declined" while when Murray loses he is the worst ever #2, pathetic and useless.
Because Nadal has declined due to so much mileage. Injuries galore. And Murray is Murray. should be your 4th or 5th seed in an era of average difficulty but instead is #2
 

Russeljones

G.O.A.T.
Seriously, I've lost count of the amount of times I hear "Djokovic is only winning so much because of Fedal's decline" but the question that always comes straight to my mind is "why do they expect peak Fedal to still be around anyway?'. Tbh I can understand more why some people believe Nadal should still be playing at a reasonably high level given he's only a year younger than Djokovic but Federer?! Think about it - the guy first became number 1 at the beginning of 2004 and was part of a different generation to Djokovic so it's wholly unrealistic to expect him to still be challenging the world's best player all these years later. He was bound to experience a natural decline so why on earth do some of you make out Novak should be grateful for it when it was to going to happen anyway? :confused:

What gets me is how you never hear anyone say "oh Graf only won so much due to Navratilova's decline" or "Lendl only won so much due to Connors' decline". Most reasonable people just attribute it to one player hitting their stride and the other slowing down as is only natural in any sport but for some reason Fedal fans still expect them to be playing in 2016 like they were a decade earlier which just seems crazy to me. For those of you that don't expect this but still believe Djokovic should be grateful for their decline I could just as easily say Federer wouldn't have won as many Wimbledons with peak Sampras playing at the same time or Nadal not winning as many French Opens with peak Borg standing in his way. We could do this with most players throughout history but it really seems futile and serves no purpose.

The other thing to take into account is that Djokovic already beat both of them when they were playing closer to their peaks so it's not like he hasn't proven he can defeat such strong competition(see 2011 for evidence). So what if he has a slightly easier path to winning majors than he had before - most ATG's have one at some stage and Novak is no different.
I don't know, I just get the overwhelming impression from many of the posters on here(aka Nole haters) recently that unless he's defeating the prime versions of them, his Slams are somehow not worthy but this is just ridiculous. Time waits for no man, other players come along and just because they're not as great as Federer and Nadal(who is?) does not mean Novak shouldn't be given credit for beating them. And like I've said so many times before: the record books don't care about your competition, only your numbers.
Always fun to ***** holes in your thesis. See? At least you can have some fun with my choice of words at the start there.

You don't have to mull anything over. The facts are plain to see. Djokovic won 1 major during the overlap between Federer and Nadal's prime. 1 major. To ask why people say their decline contributed to his success is akin to asking why people attribute the Allied victory over Germany to USA's joining of the war, after Pearl Harbour.

You could have synthesized your half-assed essay of indignation at your idol's eternally withheld credit.

In homage to another sycophant of your ilk, I'd say: "Why so much disrespect for Djokovic? Unbelievable!:mad:"
 

VamosBamos987

Hall of Fame
Not only is today's weak era not enough, but he has to use gamesmanship to win matches. Flopping fish. Simply laughable

 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Always fun to ***** holes in your thesis. See? At least you can have some fun with my choice of words at the start there.

You don't have to mull anything over. The facts are plain to see. Djokovic won 1 major during the overlap between Federer and Nadal's prime. 1 major. To ask why people say their decline contributed to his success is akin to asking why people attribute the Allied victory over Germany to USA's joining of the war, after Pearl Harbour.

You could have synthesized your half-assed essay of indignation at your idol's eternally withheld credit.

In homage to another sycophant of your ilk, I'd say: "Why so much disrespect for Djokovic? Unbelievable!:mad:"
As usual I have no idea what you're talking about. Might as well be writing in a foreign language when you respond to my posts. :oops:
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Maybe you shouldn't bothered creating this thread and focused on Nole and enjoyed the win :)

I think these Nole hater type threads have gone through the roof is because people feel he had a really soft French Open and maybe fortunate not too beat Nadal on the way.....Did it help him that he didn't have to play Nadal at the French Open? It sure did but Nadal sometimes has had 'soft' runs to a GS and Federer has aswell. It shouldn't distract or discredit the victory....

Maybe people feel Rafa and Fed earned their slams a bit tougher and Murray is just so weak in finals...A bit of competition would be nice for him and I'd say he might even enjoy it...Again this doesn't discredit the wins...

Also there is a lot of people that really just don't like him and will pick holes in his game...
It's funny when people talk about Murray being weak in finals because at the time I can't help but think to myself "Why can't Novak get an "easy" opponent for once?". He only ever seems to get Federer, Nadal, Murray or a Wawrinka playing out of his skin! :oops:
 

irishnadalfan1983

Hall of Fame
It's funny when people talk about Murray being weak in finals because at the time I can't help but think to myself "Why can't Novak get an "easy" opponent for once?". He only ever seems to get Federer, Nadal, Murray or a Wawrinka playing out of his skin! :oops:
Calm down - I am on your side :) Kind of :)

I don't think he has always had easy opponents - Murray has rolled over a bit shall we say. As I said earlier Rafa and Fed have had soft runs too.
 
Because Nadal has declined due to so much mileage. Injuries galore. And Murray is Murray. should be your 4th or 5th seed in an era of average difficulty but instead is #2
Murray's average seeding/ranking in this era IS 4th or 5th though, not 2nd. His career high (which yes he is currently at) is #2. Murray is probably the best player to never reach #1 (Vilas is his only challenger for that), and is a better player than many guys who did reach #1- Kafelnikov, Rios, Ferrero, Rafter, Moya, probably overall Roddick, so I dont see how on earth him reaching #2 (where he is not regularly posted at) is a reflection of weakness. If anything it would seem to be just the opposite, given that it is his career his ranking and he hasnt even spent that much time there.

Plus as Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil mentioned Murray briefly reached #2 during 2009, one of the strongest and deepest years on record (and certainly a year Fedal fans like yourself would laud as super great no doubt).
 

junior74

G.O.A.T.
It's funny when people talk about Murray being weak in finals because at the time I can't help but think to myself "Why can't Novak get an "easy" opponent for once?". He only ever seems to get Federer, Nadal, Murray or a Wawrinka playing out of his skin! :oops:
RG final looked hard to you? One adjustement set and then three steamrollers. No really big points.
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
Always fun to ***** holes in your thesis. See? At least you can have some fun with my choice of words at the start there.

You don't have to mull anything over. The facts are plain to see. Djokovic won 1 major during the overlap between Federer and Nadal's prime. 1 major. To ask why people say their decline contributed to his success is akin to asking why people attribute the Allied victory over Germany to USA's joining of the war, after Pearl Harbour.

You could have synthesized your half-assed essay of indignation at your idol's eternally withheld credit.

In homage to another sycophant of your ilk, I'd say: "Why so much disrespect for Djokovic? Unbelievable!:mad:"
He was 23 when he won the 2nd major and started his great run. So that's why people question the decline as the major factor. Also, Nadal was 24/25 coming off his only 3 slam season and again made virtually every final, but lost all to Djokovic. That looked prime Nadal to me. Federer is years older so it's hard to say, but ND did beat him straights at AO in 2008, which of course people excuse with "mono." Reality is their primes never overlapped, so why are you so sure the decline is the main reason for Novak's success?
 

Russeljones

G.O.A.T.
He was 23 when he won the 2nd major and started his great run. So that's why people question the decline as the major factor. Also, Nadal was 24/25 coming off his only 3 slam season and again made virtually every final, but lost all to Djokovic. That looked prime Nadal to me. Federer is years older so it's hard to say, but ND did beat him straights at AO in 2008, which of course people excuse with "mono." Reality is their primes never overlapped, so why are you so sure the decline is the main reason for Novak's success?
Thank you for the assist. The fact that both were able to hand him his rear on a platter, post-prime.
 

VamosBamos987

Hall of Fame
Murray's average seeding/ranking in this era IS 4th or 5th though, not 2nd. His career high (which yes he is currently at) is #2. Murray is probably the best player to never reach #1 (Vilas is his only challenger for that), and is a better player than many guys who did reach #1- Kafelnikov, Rios, Ferrero, Rafter, Moya, probably overall Roddick, so I dont see how on earth him reaching #2 (where he is not regularly posted at) is a reflection of weakness. If anything it would seem to be just the opposite, given that it is his career his ranking and he hasnt even spent that much time there.

Plus as Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil mentioned Murray briefly reached #2 during 2009, one of the strongest and deepest years on record (and certainly a year Fedal fans like yourself would laud as super great no doubt).
Doesn't mean anything. Ferrer briefly was #3 at one point. It means how long you are able to sustain that level.
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
Thank you for the assist. The fact that both were able to hand him his rear on a platter, post-prime.
and he's beaten both when he was too young to be his in prime, and they were in theirs. As usual you came with a point of your own, but failed to address the ones I made, completely ignoring Novak's 7 wins in a row over Nadal.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
RG final looked hard to you? One adjustement set and then three steamrollers. No really big points.
But at the end of the day Murray is the #2 player in the world so even if he's not at his very best he's obviously gonna still be a reasonably tough opponent. It would just be nice if Novak could get a Ferrer/Berdych type player for once in a major final but sadly he isn't that lucky and always has to go through the very best to earn his trophies.
 

VamosBamos987

Hall of Fame
But at the end of the day Murray is the #2 player in the world so even if he's not at his very best he's obviously gonna still be a reasonably tough opponent. It would just be nice if Novak could get a Ferrer/Berdych type player for once in a major final but sadly he isn't that lucky and always has to go through the very best to earn his trophies.
Murray is a poor mans Hewitt. Lmao. Give Federer or Nadal that and he smokes him in straights. Average Nadal blew Murray out of the waters in the 2014 SF of the FO
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Thank you for the assist. The fact that both were able to hand him his rear on a platter, post-prime.
That's to be expected with such great players as Federer and Nadal. Unless you didn't expect either of them to post a single win over Djokovic since 2011? :oops:
 

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil

Talk Tennis Guru
It's a myth that Djokovic has had it easy at Slams. He had to go through at least one of Federer and Nadal in 9 of his Slams, in 2 he didn't have either of them he had to go through both Stan and Murray. This RG was the least difficult one, as he "only" had Murray to deal with.
 

Jonas78

Legend
Seriously, I've lost count of the amount of times I hear "Djokovic is only winning so much because of Fedal's decline" but the question that always comes straight to my mind is "why do they expect peak Fedal to still be around anyway?'. Tbh I can understand more why some people believe Nadal should still be playing at a reasonably high level given he's only a year younger than Djokovic but Federer?! Think about it - the guy first became number 1 at the beginning of 2004 and was part of a different generation to Djokovic so it's wholly unrealistic to expect him to still be challenging the world's best player all these years later. He was bound to experience a natural decline so why on earth do some of you make out Novak should be grateful for it when it was to going to happen anyway? :confused:

What gets me is how you never hear anyone say "oh Graf only won so much due to Navratilova's decline" or "Lendl only won so much due to Connors' decline". Most reasonable people just attribute it to one player hitting their stride and the other slowing down as is only natural in any sport but for some reason Fedal fans still expect them to be playing in 2016 like they were a decade earlier which just seems crazy to me. For those of you that don't expect this but still believe Djokovic should be grateful for their decline I could just as easily say Federer wouldn't have won as many Wimbledons with peak Sampras playing at the same time or Nadal not winning as many French Opens with peak Borg standing in his way. We could do this with most players throughout history but it really seems futile and serves no purpose.

The other thing to take into account is that Djokovic already beat both of them when they were playing closer to their peaks so it's not like he hasn't proven he can defeat such strong competition(see 2011 for evidence). So what if he has a slightly easier path to winning majors than he had before - most ATG's have one at some stage and Novak is no different.
I don't know, I just get the overwhelming impression from many of the posters on here(aka Nole haters) recently that unless he's defeating the prime versions of them, his Slams are somehow not worthy but this is just ridiculous. Time waits for no man, other players come along and just because they're not as great as Federer and Nadal(who is?) does not mean Novak shouldn't be given credit for beating them. And like I've said so many times before: the record books don't care about your competition, only your numbers.
I don't;). But I would expect someone born after 87, if not to challenge Djokovic, but at least to challenge top 5. Players born in the 5 year stretch 88-93 should be peaking now, the best ones being Nishi and Raonic.
 

Tenisfan3

Professional
Djokovic's level of play is what is under scrutiny. Results wise Djokovic 2015 was comparable to Fed 2006 but level wise they are light years apart. Djokovic benefitted from chokes by Anderson at Wimbledon and Federer at USO. His overall level of play at the slams was hardly great. He hit 0 winners in a set vs Wawrinka at the AO last year..lol. That's the gripe people have and to be fair, even as a No1e lover it is a legitimate gripe.

Federer in 2010 had:

Peak Nadal
Prime/Peak Djokovic
Peak Del Potro
Prime Pre back surgery Murray
Etc

Djokovic has

35 year old broke back Fed who has played 10 matches (?)this year and who is losing sets to Fritz on grass
declinedal who plays about 2 matches a year
Berdych
Nishikori
Mugray
 

The Fedfather

Hall of Fame
What I find interesting is how differently people treat Nadal compared to the treatment Murray is receiving. They are both pretty much Djokovic's generation and both have had poor recent results against him (Nadal's are even worse than Murray's), but when Nadal loses he gets a free pass for being "washed up and declined" while when Murray loses he is the worst ever #2, pathetic and useless.
Nadal became a GS champion as a teenager and achieved the CGS at the age of 24. Remind me, what has Murray achieved at the same age? It's not like he or Novak were berated for not winning as much as Rafa back in the days. They were getting a free pass then. Now it's Rafa's turn to get a free pass.

I don't think Murray is the worst #2 BTW. It's just too many times in recent years Andy hasn't delivered on what was expected from him, and that understandably makes a lot of people frustrated and angry.
 

Jonas78

Legend
It's a myth that Djokovic has had it easy at Slams. He had to go through at least one of Federer and Nadal in 9 of his Slams, in 2 he didn't have either of them he had to go through both Stan and Murray. This RG was the least difficult one, as he "only" had Murray to deal with.
Djokovic hasnt had it easy, he has faced Federer and a strong 84-87 generation most of his career. But it will be more and more obvious hos overly crappy generation 88/89-92 (in fact 88-95 if you look away from Thiem) is in the years to come. This generation should be peaking now, but the two best is Nishi, who was better 2 years ago, and Raonic, who is always injured. Not quite comparable with 84-87 Djoko, Nadal, Del Potro, wawa and Murray, or 80-83 Federer, Hewitt, Safin and Roddick. But Djokovic fans should be glad. His chances of destroying all records will be better the more crappy the younger guys are;). With his fitness he will probably outlive his own generation, and with no younger guys to challenge it looks good!
 
Last edited:

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
I have an idea, how about we all just get joy from watching our favorite players and not care so much what internet warriors think? ;)
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Nadal became a GS champion as a teenager and achieved the CGS at the age of 24. Remind me, what has Murray achieved at the same age? It's not like he or Novak were berated for not winning as much as Rafa back in the days. They were getting a free pass then. Now it's Rafa's turn to get a free pass.

I don't think Murray is the worst #2 BTW. It's just too many times in recent years Andy hasn't delivered on what was expected from him, and that understandably makes people frustrated and angry.
Even more so when it's Djokovic he loses to. ;)
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
Yes the issue I have with some Federer fans is their not pointing out Djokovic has a weak field currently, which I concur is somewhat true. It is their pretending at the same time (note I said some, not all) that Federer reigned over some type of golden age of tennis or something. :D
I don't think anyone considers Federer's era to be any kind of golden era. The strongest era I would say would be between 78-95. But it was a good quality era with good depth and if certain guys had stayed healthy and focused (one of them is in my avatar) it would have been one of the strongest ever. Imagine the clay court competition if Coria and Ferrero hadn't succumbed to injuries. But at the end of the day I think what keeps the Federer era from being one of the best ever is essentially Safin. If he had maximized his potential and provided Federer a worthy ATG challenge (particularly on hard, Nadal had clay down and the grass court competition was solid with Roddick, Hewitt, eventually Nadal and also second tier guys like Antic) then it would have been a true golden era I think.

And Djokovic's 11-13 era is quality too, not much depth so similar kind of opponents over and over but great strength at the top of the game. It's just that he's having 2-3 relatively lean years after that with no end in sight as opposed to Federer having maybe 1 and then immediately being challenged by younger ATG rivals which is what a lot of people have gripes about.
 

dh003i

Legend
I don't think so much about Federer and Nadal's decline, but the crop of players after Djokovic's generation are by all accounts extremely disappointing with no player of any significance.

But yes, aging and decline is natural and you can second-guess anyone's achievements by saying that they would have done worse alongside other ATGs.

Djokovic has 12 Majors and counting. Maybe he'll get another couple, maybe he'll even make a run at challenging the record. No matter where he ends up, it's impressive.
 

Praetorian

Professional
TBH, anything Federer does now is just gravy for me. He could be ranked in the 20s, 30s, 40s, and speaking for myself, he'll still be the only player I'd pay to watch over the others live. Once he's gone, there will be no one like him, because simply, today's game isn't suited for it anymore. With that said, I for one, does not expect Federer to challenge Djokovic. When he does, it's just more gravy.
 
Top