Wilander "You have to say that the era Federer dominated was the worst of all time"

[mike danny]

Sure, I guess...

Lots of people would say that Djoko was at his best in his late 20s, and there wouldn't be much wrong with it.

Sure, but he was good even before that which is the point. It's still unclear whether he was better in his late 20's than his mid 20's.

 

[Biotic]

Agassi going deeper at that USO than Nalby and Hewitt was also a product of Fed meeting those guys in the quarters and semis, while Agassi was on the opposite side away from Roger.

What if well rested Amun-RAgassi takes peak Fred to 5 (again) in a hypothetical 2005 QF/SF?

 

[mike danny]

What if well rested Amun-RAgassi takes peak Fred to 5 (again) in a hypothetical 2005 QF/SF?

We'll never know.

I did say that peak for peak Agassi would take a USO from Federer anyway.

 

[Biotic]

The only valid criticism against Djokovic is that he actually allowed Stan and Murray to win multiple slams under his own watch, something which Fedal would never have done, other than that he has faced the toughest circumstances that anyone can face and came out victorious.

Just a reminder that Nadal lost to Murray at Slams as many times as Djoko did.

 

[skaj]

The statement is from 2013, before the current era.

 

[Biotic]

True.
But I had the 2 finals in mind that Novak lost and Andy won to lift the titles, if Rafa was in the final he would have surely pigeoned Murray.
Rafa did lose to Stan at AO once in the final.

Nothing sure about it. This is where "better to lose early than in the final" brigade steps in. If 2013 Wimbledon Nadal was in the final... that doesn't make much sense, we all know he was too busy losing to Darcis in R1.

 

[RS]

What's stronger 2000-2006 or 2014-2021?

 

[Biotic]

What's stronger 2000-2006 or 2014-2021?

You tell us. You're the one with the spreadsheet.

 

[mike danny]

The young guys post 2017 are no doubt weak, but you are undermining the fact that even Djokovic and Nadal are 30+. They are not 22-25 as Peak Roger was to feast on this.

And the fact that they're still winning every slam says it all.

What would you consider luckier? Having these rivals in your early-mid 20s when you can win all slams or at early-mid 30s when you have a disadvantage of being 10 years older?

The latter. We're talking about guys who won lots of majors in their 20's anyway and are getting a free cake in their 30's too when they're clearly not as good anymore.

I would say Djokovic has never been lucky,

He has, like pretty much every ATG.

he had to break throught Fedal (2 GOATs) in late 2000s, then he had faced the strongest era 11-15

2014 and 2015 don't belong with the strong era years. They weren't tougher years than 2004-2007. And even in the strong era itself, he lost 2 major finals to Andy Murray.

then is battling guys 10+ years younger from 2019, does that look lucky to you?

Considering how bad the guys a decade younger are, yes, it is lucky.

None of that can be equated to having weak rivals in your peak period when you can reach finals of every damn slam.

Except 2004-2007 Fed would have won many slams anyway, so it's better to have tougher competition at your peak than past it.

he has faced the toughest circumstances that anyone can face and came out victorious.

No, he hasn't. He's won most of his majors after turning 28 so if anything he's had the perfect circumstances.

 

[NatF]

Agassi reached the final of the US open in 2005 while Nalbandian lost in straight sets, Roddick lost in the 1st round. Why ? At that time 35 year old was like 39 now, yet he is reaching farther than Fed's main rivals... ?

Regarding Djokodal dominating 10+, even Fed did dominate guys 10 years younger like Dimitrov/Raonic and others from that early 90s age group, whats so surprising if Novak'Rafa have their own dominant run since all 3 are GOATs so they are expected to dominate upto 10-11 years? Djokovic is in supreme fitness even at 34-35, he can tire out guys like Tsitsipas/Medvedev who are much younger to him, credit to him.

Every player can have bad periods of play or bad results. All the Big 3 have had years where their play was in the doldrums as well. No one can win every match and live up to their seeding every time. At that stage in Agassi's career he'd only played about as many matches as 2012 Fed, he was also on a reduced schedule and playing infront of his home crowd. Laughable that you're hung up on him making it further than a couple of Fed's rivals in an event as some sort of silver bullet. An actual 39 year old in Jimmy Connors made the SF of the USO in 1991, guess that makes Sampras, Becker etc...frauds of losing in early rounds. Or if we go back further Rosewall made the Wimbledon final in 1974 (he even beat Newcombe on the way), this sort of stuff isn't uncommon, Connors (again) at 32 made the Wimbledon final in 1984 as well...if 35 in 2005 is like 39 does that mean Connors was doing the equivalent making the SF/F of slams in his 50's?

So credit to Djokovic for outlasting Pas and Med but no credit to Fed for beating his peers. Got it.

Sure, I guess...

Lots of people would say that Djoko was at his best in his late 20s, and there wouldn't be much wrong with it.

IMO Djokovic's best tennis was in 2011. I guess in Djokovic's case mid to late 20's is more appropriate, as a duo though considering 2011 and Nadal I think early to mid is more accurate for them together. But I take your point.