Why is the weak era generally associated with Federer's opponents?

T007

Professional
This might cause some controversy here, but I rate Tsitsipas, Zverev, Medvedev and Thiem as better players than Hewitt and Roddick. My honest opinion. They simply have more well rounded games, and are bigger and stronger.
Well rounded game but never made it past QFs of Wimbledon.

Roddick would have won 3 wimbledons if not for peak Fed.
 

T007

Professional
2019 certainly is stronger than any year Federer dominated.

2021- ? time will tell. We will have to wait and see how Medvedev/Tsitsipas/Zverev careers pan out before calling them weak.
2019 is stronger ...except thiem None of the NextGem were up to the mark with consistency.

All the 4 slams went to 33 year olds...and you call it stronger.

People who call 2004-7 as weak because they can't digest the fact that how dominant Federer was.

A player vulturing slams in last 3 years with Next Gen mugs in not weak but a player beating his competition in his prime is weaker.

Height of stupidity and absurdity is unparalleled with Djoko fanbase.

Competition started weakening from 2015 and it went downhill in 2018 and today it is Nonexistant.
 

vex

Hall of Fame
Hey TTW dummies:

THE LEVEL OF YOUR OPPONENTS HAS NO CORRELATION TO YOUR OWN LEVEL.

Just stop, Fed proved he could rival Djokovic and vice versa. Stop desperately nitpicking at nonsense to tear them down.
 

Aabye5

Hall of Fame
Hey TTW dummies:

THE LEVEL OF YOUR OPPONENTS HAS NO CORRELATION TO YOUR OWN LEVEL.

Just stop, Fed proved he could rival Djokovic and vice versa. Stop desperately nitpicking at nonsense to tear them down.
Sure, but their level can certainly influence how many Slams you can win. Just look at Borg v. McEnroe. Borg's level was very good, it's just that McEnroe's was too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vex

Sunny014

Legend
Another reason is that, once Nadal and Djokovic came of age starting in '10, Federer's slams dropped off a cliff.
Ohh yeah man, Nadal didn't come of age in 2005 with 11 titles, he came of age in 2010. Plus Fed at 29 in 2010 should not have dropped off a cliff, he should have won everything in his 30s as well since Novak and Nadal are not ATGs in their mid 20s, they themselves are mugs .???? Right ????

Do you even read your posts dude? They are so biased
 
Last edited:

Sunny014

Legend
I don't disagree with you in principle, but the same does apply to you lol
lol .....I try not to go overboard 99 times out of 100 and only as a retaliation at times I call Novak a vulture, that's because I see Noleisboat and some others resort to weak era talks which is baseless

Plus unlike these people who always undermine Fed I give the appropriate credit to Novak, if you've noted I never said that Fed would win over Novak always at the AO, I have Novak the edge there, these fellows on the other are ready to even call Novak a grass BOAT of the modern era or something like that.

So I still try to be fair more often than not.
 

Third Serve

G.O.A.T.
lol .....I try not to go overboard 99 times out of 100 and only as a retaliation at times I call Novak a vulture, that's because I see Noleisboat and some others resort to weak era talks which is baseless

Plus unlike these people who always undermine Fed I give the appropriate credit to Novak, if you've noted I never said that Fed would win over Novak always at the AO, I have Novak the edge there, these fellows on the other are ready to even call Novak a grass BOAT of the modern era or something like that.

So I still try to be fair more often than not.
NoleisBoat is just a garden variety troll trying to get a rise out of you and others. Same with Gore. It's not even a given that they actually believe some of the stuff they write. I'd recommend paying less attention to them unless you like a good laugh every now and then.
 

NoleIsBoat

Hall of Fame
2019 is stronger ...except thiem None of the NextGem were up to the mark with consistency.

All the 4 slams went to 33 year olds...and you call it stronger.

People who call 2004-7 as weak because they can't digest the fact that how dominant Federer was.

A player vulturing slams in last 3 years with Next Gen mugs in not weak but a player beating his competition in his prime is weaker.

Height of stupidity and absurdity is unparalleled with Djoko fanbase.

Competition started weakening from 2015 and it went downhill in 2018 and today it is Nonexistant.
2019 is much stronger than years like 2004 and 2006, yes. Djokovic defeated prime Nadal and Federer for both slams :whistle:
 

NoleIsBoat

Hall of Fame
Nalbandian,Davydenko,Roddick,Safin were much better than the current next Gen mugs...provided the fact that they player Big 3 in peaks and beat them.
Thiem and Tsitsipas wins over big 3 in slams - 5
Roddick and Hewitt wins over big 3 in slams - 4
 

Sunny014

Legend
2019 is much stronger than years like 2004 and 2006, yes. Djokovic defeated prime Nadal and Federer for both slams :whistle:
2019 is only stronger because of Nadal vs Thiem that is clearly greater than Gaudio vs Coria.

But otherwise 04 was a stronger year with a stonger field.

The champions of 2004 Outside clay would beat the champions of 2019 outside if they face each other. Maybe Novak can beat 04 Rodgi at the AO or make it really close (50-50) but Wimbie and USO 04 Fed would take, he would crush the 2 finalists at the wimbledon 2019 and also the 2 fellows at the 2019USO :whistle:
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
Their bases aren't all that strong. Competent, yes, but not strong. At least not strong enough to cover up the holes in their games.

With Medvedev, his whole game is the problem: he doesn't have a consistent weapon so he gets pushed to the defensive (which he does handle well) way more often than not. Without a truly elite weapon, Med falls into the Murray category of not having a game that's remotely threatening for any top-tier ATG (and I'm not even talking just the Big 3 here), except Med just does most things even worse. He works with what he's got because he's easily the best tactician from the next gen and his shots aren't outright bad, but it's clear that he's working with some limitations. You can see this in his forehand.

Zverev's forehand is also a completely fine shot, but it's still too passive. There have been countless instances when he could have used it to shift the point in his favor but he instead uses it as a lame rally shot most of the time. It's the same problem Murray's forehand has, though I do think Murray's might have been even worse in that regard; that shot was a genuine weakness in his game rather than a "not-a-strength" as it is for Zverev. Zed's got a backhand and (first) serve though. It's a little bit puzzling how he hasn't done better with the strengths he has which suggests that I might need to place more blame on his mental strength.

Tsitsipas's forehand is actually a good shot, I like it. His problem is the backhand which is a bit loose and prone to shanking. Subjectively, it's kind of ugly for a one-hander imo. It doesn't do anything at all for him, an issue that could be resolved if he decided to slice it more: I rarely see him employ the slice. But the real weakness in his game is the return: it's an awful, awful shot for a top-tier player. Clay hides that weakness a bit (which is a big part of why that's his best surface) but it's a liability on hard courts and an instant KO on grass. I do think his fitness is also decidedly mediocre (and it showed in the RG 2021 final).

Thiem has the best "basics" of all of the next gen (but he's not one himself). Great forehand (and I mean an actual ATG forehand), pretty good backhand, and a decent serve. He's a technically sound player, which can't really be said for his younger peers. One hole in his game is the return which isn't that great, but with Thiem the problem is mental: most of the time, he goes completely AWOL in the big finals, and not just against the Big 3 either. We all know how the US Open 2020 final against Zverev went down, and I wouldn't call his ATP Finals 2019/2020 losses much better in that department. It's frustrating as someone who actually really enjoys watching Thiem because he has a great game but his mental strength is so lacking that all of those advantages disappear in Slam finals (or even Masters finals lmao).

Whether it's physical or mental, all of these players have noticeable weaknesses in their games, and their strengths aren't good enough to counteract them (due either to them not having such effective strengths like Medvedev or having such massive weaknesses that they'd need really good strengths to make up for them like Thiem). Now let's look at Roddick, the person everyone loves to poke fun at for having holes in his game.

Roddick has a pretty laughable backhand, I'll be honest. And his return wasn't great either (barring a few select matches like the Wimbledon 2004 final which featured pretty stellar returning from him). But he actually had elite strengths. His serve was top 5 or top 10 all time (lean the former) and his forehand (specifically the 2003-2004 shot) was an ATG groundstroke. Because both his serve and forehand were that good, his 1-2 punch was devastating. The criticisms levied at post-2004 Roddick are mostly justified because he decided to nerf his forehand into a rally shot rather than a weapon (even if his serve was still an incredible shot), but I won't hear any of that crap about 2003-2004 Roddick. I'd say he covered his weaknesses pretty nicely.
When I hear someone having a hole in their game, my instant thought is a part of their game wich the opponent can target and make them uncomfortable. I don't see that glaring hole in these guys. They do most things, from a modern day standpoint, very well. That's why I'm saying their base and core are strong. Take Berrettini as an example, he is about the same height as these guys even a tad shorter, but his holes in his game and athleticism is so apparent we don't even have to mention it. There are so many strings you can pull with him to lock him up. Already now we can evaluate how much this guy is gonna win. That BH of his will never get to a respectable level where it's a solid and unbreakable shot. His movement won't get that much better either. His ceiling isn't as high.

Medvedev is almost 6.5 or 6.6 ft and he is moving and defending like he is a smaller guy. And it isn't just that he covers the court so well, but he can actually shift from defense to offense at times, despite being a giraffe. His FH, although not the greatest shot, is still very solid and he can depend on that shot, still room for improvement. His BH already is great, and he can do alot of good things with it. On top of all this, he has a very tough serve. This is where the scary part comes in with these guys.

Zverev is very much similar to Medvedev when it comes to FH and BH (but his BH is probably even better), and has a serve wich he can clock 230 km/h. If he is on, he is literally unbreakable while having a baseline game of his own, much like Med but maybe not as solid as he is, but still a tough player from the baseline who can do most things well and defend from the back court.

Tsitsipas, sure his BH can be targeted, but I wouldn't call it a weakness. It's a good shot, with still room for improvement. This guy is also moving extremely well and able to defend, very athletically gifted, and has a very good serve aswell that serves its purpose. And his FH is already a top tier shot. His ceiling is sky high, and he can only improve, wich he is doing year by year.

The scary factor with these guys are that they are so tall and powerful and at the same time having powerful serves while being such competent movers and baseliners for their height where they can hold their own against anyone.
 
Last edited:

SonnyT

Hall of Fame
Let me see, since Wim '14, Federer and Nadal are 1-10 against Djokovic in Slams. The young guns already have 2 slams wins against Djokovic, both courtesy of Thiem at RG.

So if the youngsters are worthless mugs, then, to be fair all around, so are Federer and Nadal. (And remember, for most of the time since '14, Federer and Nadal were in top 3 and still outstanding players. If Djokovic didn't stop them, Federer would have 5 more majors in that period, and Nadal 3 more.)

And let's admit, it's mainly Djokovic who's stopping the young guns now at slams, not Nadal and most definitely not Federer. Since '19, Djokovic beat 4 young guns in slam finals, while Nadal got beat by 2 young guns in Slams.
 
Last edited:

vex

Hall of Fame
Sure, but their level can certainly influence how many Slams you can win. Just look at Borg v. McEnroe. Borg's level was very good, it's just that McEnroe's was too.
Without a doubt. Put any of the big 3 into an era alone and they annihilate the slam record
 

aldeayeah

Legend
I do wonder why Ultimate Tennis Statistics, a site webmastered by a M. Cekovic (location: Belgrade), would ever say that.
 

Tony48

Legend
Roddick was two sets from being number one at Wimbledon in 2004.
Yes because he recently just lost it. He was getting passed, not closing the gap. That's like saying the track stars were "right next" to Usain Bolt a second after the race starts.
 

RelentlessAttack

Hall of Fame
Ridiculous, plain and simple. If Djokovic didn't beat Federer in their last 6 Slam meetings, Federer would've 5 more slam titles, including 3 at Wimbledon. You're the only one who thinks Djokovic's 3 Wimbledon titles vs Federer are meaningless. For long stretches in '15-16, Djokovic was the only one who could beat Federer; Nadal couldn't!

Same with Nadal, who was definitely not retired when Djokovic beat him. In fact, Nadal was the heavy favorite to win the match and the tournament, entering the '21 RG SF.
What are you talking about? I’m talking about NextGen when Djokovic retires
 
Ridiculous, plain and simple. If Djokovic didn't beat Federer in their last 6 Slam meetings, Federer would've 5 more slam titles, including 3 at Wimbledon. You're the only one who thinks Djokovic's 3 Wimbledon titles vs Federer are meaningless. For long stretches in '15-16, Djokovic was the only one who could beat Federer; Nadal couldn't!

Same with Nadal, who was definitely not retired when Djokovic beat him. In fact, Nadal was the heavy favorite to win the match and the tournament, entering the '21 RG SF.
Fedal only played 1 match in 2015-2016. It was on an indoor HC in Ol' Rog's backyard that went the distance despite RAFA being at this worst while in his worst conditions.

Your poast is just further proof of how bad #NextGen is.
 
D

Deleted member 771911

Guest
Federer is getting some unwarranted hate thrown at him lately but we are not in a bad state of era currently. Many good players, and you have 6.5 ft players serving bombs while moving and playing from the ground on world class level. See Medvedev and Zverev + others. More and more players at this height with nuclear serves are integrating to the to the top of the game. You have Opelka who is the same height as Karlovic, but moves and plays from the ground on a respectable level. This is unheard of. In 20 years we might have a top 10 who averages 6.5 ft+ tall players while they are moving and baselining like Nadal,Federer and Djokovic.

You may not like it, but it's just how it is.
Indeed. That is your p.o.v. Lol. Opelka as a sign of a strong era.

You may also not like how it really is, which is quite different from the way you have described it, imo, but that is just how it is, after all, imo.
 

SonnyT

Hall of Fame
Fedal only played 1 match in 2015-2016. It was on an indoor HC in Ol' Rog's backyard that went the distance despite RAFA being at this worst while in his worst conditions.

Your poast is just further proof of how bad #NextGen is.
Starting in 2015, Federer owns a 6-1 record against Nadal, with that loss coming in RG, that's why I start counting from that year.

I don't understand, what does poast mean?
 

Aabye5

Hall of Fame
2004 - The AO was interesting as was the Agassi-Federer match a the USO, and the year ends with a masterful performance from Federer at the USO. However, I'd argue that it wasn't the best of the Roddick-Federer matches at Wimbledon and let's not talk about RG. And the Olympics...

Meanwhile in 2019, two of the big 3 (Federer and Nadal) are trying to show they are relevant, and you see the emergence of Medvedev. The big 3 are ranked fittingly 1, 2 and 3, with the Slam count perched at 14-17-20, even as they lose a step or two. It starts with some fun -- Federer versus Serena -- before we get down to business. In the first major of the year a young pup grabs a win over Federer establishing himself as a threat before going down with hardly a whimper in the semis to Nadal (but note the dramatic forshadowing). Djokovic brushes aside Nadal in the AO like he's a gnat, also putting himself in front of Sampras -- the Slam race is now down to 3 (15-17-20). Young Thiem is taking names, with wins over Federer and Djokovic in the first half of the year. Then Nadal looks significantly weaked on clay and wins only one title, but he regains his composure to do what he usually does -- takes the cup at RG (15-18-20), with a win over Federer along the way. Your move, Mr. Federer. And although he's in the later part of his 30s, he not only knocks out Nadal in four decisive sets, he also proves he can still put a fight against his younger rivals on the grass. Djokovic adds one to his collection (16-18-20). Monsieur Med is quietly moving up the rankings by reaching at least semifinal on every surface, before beating Novak and going on to win his first Masters. And now, with the USO approaching, the Slam race and the race to #1 is on the line. The year before (2018), Novak had relegated his rivals to one Slam a piece. Could he do the same in 2019? No. Nadal snaps up the title with a win over Monsieur Med in the final (16-19-20) which soon after leads to the number 1 ranking.

Every Slam had so much at stake, but the Big 3 raised their levels as necessary. That is why it's better than 2004.
 
Starting in 2015, Federer owns a 6-1 record against Nadal, with that loss coming in RG, that's why I start counting from that year.

I don't understand, what does poast mean?
You didn’t say starting in 2015. You said in between 2015-2016. In 2015-2016 Fedal only played 1 match which Ol’ Rog barely won.

Poast = post.
 

Milanez82

Hall of Fame
2004 - The AO was interesting as was the Agassi-Federer match a the USO, and the year ends with a masterful performance from Federer at the USO. However, I'd argue that it wasn't the best of the Roddick-Federer matches at Wimbledon and let's not talk about RG. And the Olympics...

Meanwhile in 2019, two of the big 3 (Federer and Nadal) are trying to show they are relevant, and you see the emergence of Medvedev. The big 3 are ranked fittingly 1, 2 and 3, with the Slam count perched at 14-17-20, even as they lose a step or two. It starts with some fun -- Federer versus Serena -- before we get down to business. In the first major of the year a young pup grabs a win over Federer establishing himself as a threat before going down with hardly a whimper in the semis to Nadal (but note the dramatic forshadowing). Djokovic brushes aside Nadal in the AO like he's a gnat, also putting himself in front of Sampras -- the Slam race is now down to 3 (15-17-20). Young Thiem is taking names, with wins over Federer and Djokovic in the first half of the year. Then Nadal looks significantly weaked on clay and wins only one title, but he regains his composure to do what he usually does -- takes the cup at RG (15-18-20), with a win over Federer along the way. Your move, Mr. Federer. And although he's in the later part of his 30s, he not only knocks out Nadal in four decisive sets, he also proves he can still put a fight against his younger rivals on the grass. Djokovic adds one to his collection (16-18-20). Monsieur Med is quietly moving up the rankings by reaching at least semifinal on every surface, before beating Novak and going on to win his first Masters. And now, with the USO approaching, the Slam race and the race to #1 is on the line. The year before (2018), Novak had relegated his rivals to one Slam a piece. Could he do the same in 2019? No. Nadal snaps up the title with a win over Monsieur Med in the final (16-19-20) which soon after leads to the number 1 ranking.

Every Slam had so much at stake, but the Big 3 raised their levels as necessary. That is why it's better than 2004.
Now that's a proper rebuttal.
 

Aabye5

Hall of Fame
Winner's level:
AO 04>=19
WB 04>19
USO 04>19
YEC 04>19

Second best player's level:
AO 04>19
WB 04>19
USO 04>19
YEC 04>=19

Proper rebuttal, my arse.
Are you kidding? Hewitt was no way near as good as Medvedev in that final, even if '04 Fed was way better than '19 Nadal. That's a joke.

And if you want to compare Roddick to Federer, be my guest, but personally I think you are rightfully drawing the wrath of Fedfans.

Only the one and only Safin from 2004 could compare with this competition. I also notice that you forgot to mention the lousy '04 RG.
 

paxxx17

New User
Because low-ranked players were consistently reaching higher stages of grand slams. If Federer wasn't around to win slams, they could've been won by literally anyone (e.g. Philippoussis)

Current era is not weak by any means; Medvedev, Tsitsipas, Thiem, Zverev have won great titles (except GS) and more or less consistently reach higher stages of GS tournaments. People say they're weak just because they haven't been winning grand slams, but that's fallacious logic. They haven't won slams because they had to consistently play against two of the three GOAT players still playing at a crazy high level.
I would even argue that current next gen is at least as good as Delpo and Wawrinka were in the last decade
 

zvelf

Hall of Fame
Nalbandian,Davydenko,Roddick,Safin were much better than the current next Gen mugs...provided the fact that they player Big 3 in peaks and beat them.
Roddick and Safin were better than Medvedev, Tsitsipas, and Zverev, at least up to this point in their careers, but not so Nalbandian and Davydenko. Heck, Zverev and Medvedev aren't even half way through their careers but have already won more tournaments, 15 and 12, respectively, than Nalbandian won in his entire career, 11. Both Zverev and Medvedev already have 4 Masters titles, which are more than Nalbandian and Davydenko won in their entire careers.
 

NoleIsBoat

Hall of Fame
Winner's level:
AO 04>=19
WB 04>19
USO 04>19
YEC 04>19

Second best player's level:
AO 04>19
WB 04>19
USO 04>19
YEC 04>=19

Proper rebuttal, my arse.
Winner’s level:

AO 19 > 04
RG 19 > 04
W 04 > 19
USO 04 > 19
YEC 04 > 19

Runner up:

AO 19 > 04
RG 19 > 04
W 19 > 04
USO 19 > 04
YEC 19 > 04
 

T007

Professional
Roddick and Safin were better than Medvedev, Tsitsipas, and Zverev, at least up to this point in their careers, but not so Nalbandian and Davydenko. Heck, Zverev and Medvedev aren't even half way through their careers but have already won more tournaments, 15 and 12, respectively, than Nalbandian won in his entire career, 11. Both Zverev and Medvedev already have 4 Masters titles, which are more than Nalbandian and Davydenko won in their entire careers.
[/QUOTE]
Thats because Big 3 aren't playing masters regularly in last 2 years.
That wasn't the case when Nalbandian and Davydenko played.
 

Sunny014

Legend
Because low-ranked players were consistently reaching higher stages of grand slams. If Federer wasn't around to win slams, they could've been won by literally anyone (e.g. Philippoussis)

Current era is not weak by any means; Medvedev, Tsitsipas, Thiem, Zverev have won great titles (except GS) and more or less consistently reach higher stages of GS tournaments. People say they're weak just because they haven't been winning grand slams, but that's fallacious logic. They haven't won slams because they had to consistently play against two of the three GOAT players still playing at a crazy high level.
I would even argue that current next gen is at least as good as Delpo and Wawrinka were in the last decade
That is what makes is a strong era.

Unpredictable, people from low ranks also able to challenge top ranked players, the era is strongest !

90s was like that, even Fed winning his slams had like that.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Because low-ranked players were consistently reaching higher stages of grand slams. If Federer wasn't around to win slams, they could've been won by literally anyone (e.g. Philippoussis)

Current era is not weak by any means; Medvedev, Tsitsipas, Thiem, Zverev have won great titles (except GS) and more or less consistently reach higher stages of GS tournaments. People say they're weak just because they haven't been winning grand slams, but that's fallacious logic. They haven't won slams because they had to consistently play against two of the three GOAT players still playing at a crazy high level.
I would even argue that current next gen is at least as good as Delpo and Wawrinka were in the last decade
LOL what?

If Federer wasn't there, established players would have won the slams.
 

Sunny014

Legend
Boris Becker himself was asked about 2010s decade vs decades before it.

Boris said that same players making the top ranks and semis means era is either superstrong or superweak, there are 2 ways of seeing it and one cannot say that new faces coming to semis/finals is a bad thing or a good thing.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
2004 - The AO was interesting as was the Agassi-Federer match a the USO, and the year ends with a masterful performance from Federer at the USO. However, I'd argue that it wasn't the best of the Roddick-Federer matches at Wimbledon and let's not talk about RG. And the Olympics...

Meanwhile in 2019, two of the big 3 (Federer and Nadal) are trying to show they are relevant, and you see the emergence of Medvedev. The big 3 are ranked fittingly 1, 2 and 3, with the Slam count perched at 14-17-20, even as they lose a step or two. It starts with some fun -- Federer versus Serena -- before we get down to business. In the first major of the year a young pup grabs a win over Federer establishing himself as a threat before going down with hardly a whimper in the semis to Nadal (but note the dramatic forshadowing). Djokovic brushes aside Nadal in the AO like he's a gnat, also putting himself in front of Sampras -- the Slam race is now down to 3 (15-17-20). Young Thiem is taking names, with wins over Federer and Djokovic in the first half of the year. Then Nadal looks significantly weaked on clay and wins only one title, but he regains his composure to do what he usually does -- takes the cup at RG (15-18-20), with a win over Federer along the way. Your move, Mr. Federer. And although he's in the later part of his 30s, he not only knocks out Nadal in four decisive sets, he also proves he can still put a fight against his younger rivals on the grass. Djokovic adds one to his collection (16-18-20). Monsieur Med is quietly moving up the rankings by reaching at least semifinal on every surface, before beating Novak and going on to win his first Masters. And now, with the USO approaching, the Slam race and the race to #1 is on the line. The year before (2018), Novak had relegated his rivals to one Slam a piece. Could he do the same in 2019? No. Nadal snaps up the title with a win over Monsieur Med in the final (16-19-20) which soon after leads to the number 1 ranking.

Every Slam had so much at stake, but the Big 3 raised their levels as necessary. That is why it's better than 2004.
Fair enough, but 2019 had no peak Federer. It's extremely doubtful that Djokovic and Nadal would have won as much as they did with 2004 Federer in their path. So 2019 looks stronger because there was no ATG at the peak of his abilities.

AO in 2004 was great, better than 2019.

Wimb was also great with Hewitt and Roddick being the only ones to take sets off Fed that entire grasscourt season so it was not weak. Better level from the finalists, IMO, than in 2019, which was geezer land, but still a good Wimb definitely.

USO was great with the Federer-Agassi match and then Fed raising his level. Fed also had a more difficult draw than Nadal in 2019.

FO was bad, yeah, but the other slams were all great.

Don't think it's clear cut that 2019 is better. And Tsitsipas beating Federer is as irrelevant as it gets.

Guys were giving 2004 Fed tougher matches than they were giving old Djokodal.
 
Last edited:
Being #1 at some point doesn't make someone a great player at a different time, especially not in the early 00's.

In reality 2003-2007 is a weak era and 2021 is a weak year. Whenever a single great player has no genuine threats, the tour is weak.
Though not all instances of that are equal. 2004-2007 Fed having few threats isn't quite the same as 30+yo Djoker having few threats.
 
Top