Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 106 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,322 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
So yeah ever since like 2010 Nadal 'turds and Djoko 'turds have claimed Federer played in a 'weak era' full of mugs who bowed down to him and we are currently witnessing the greatest era of all time.

Well now that Nole and Nadal are far removed from their prime years [20-26], which was clear to see on Sunday, what competition have they got trying to dethrone them? Federer, after his prime years of '03-'07, had young guns Nadal, Murray and Djokovic as well as a few others like Del Potro and Soderling, trying to dethrone him during his declining years. Which genuine young competition do Nole and Nadal have that are trying to dethrone them from their pearch in their decline? Warinka? Na he's like 29 and way too old and besides the more he plays the more it looks like AO 14 was a fluke. Dimitrov? Na he's like 23 way too old to be seen as a young gun and a huge choker as well as being ranked no. 84 :haha: Gulbis? The guy is like 25 so again way too old as well as not having any sort of a game to threaten Nadal/Nole. Tomic? again, he's like what? Nearly 22 and his ranking is laughable at no. 71 . Same with Raonic who only has the serve on his side and is otherwise an extremely pathetic player.

So suppose we agree that Federer played in a weak era during his prime for a moment [although I think this is a ridiculous claim to make] he definitely had harder opposition to deal with during his decline and still held on well.

On the other hand, Nadal and Nole only had to play each other in the greatest era of all time in their primes [which keep in mind ONLY lasted for about 1.5 years MAX from AO 11 - USO 12], but in their decline literally have zero young talent vying for their blood and have the same hunger which Murray, Nadal, Djokovic and Del Potro, amongst others had during Fraud's rapid decline.

So using Dull and Nole tard logic there is a trade off. Using their logic Fraud played in a weaker era during his prime but definitely a very strong era for his decline, whereas it is the opposite for Dull and Nole. Guaranteed if Fraud was playing in this current era instead of Nadal or even Djokovic he'd have 20+ slams to his name.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,982 Posts
Ugh for the last time, Rafa has no rivals. He's above & beyond everyone, Novak and Roger included. 9-2 and 9-3 in slams, what else do you need? Plus, winning record vs 99% of the tour. Put Rafa in any era and he will win.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,542 Posts
Insecure Fed fan making this thread for the gazillionth time.

2008-2012 = Golden era of tennis, The big 4. Relative to the early 2000's, the competition in 2008-2012 was higher = stronger era. The quality of tennis produced in this span of time is unrivaled.

Let the popularity contest begin.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
962 Posts
To be honest, Djokovic probably would have won over 10 GS by now had he played in the 2004-2007 era the way he has plauyed over the last couple of years
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,477 Posts
I say for 2,3 years the era is pretty average. Djoker, Nadal can easily reach finals with average tennis without putting too much effort in it.

Federer past his prime, Murray/Stan too inconsistent, Del Potro injured and Berdych,Ferrer, Tsonga simply don't are champions material. And where are the hungry, talented youngsters Federer had to deal with it? cannot be found in this era.

I say the likes of Safin, Nalbandian, Hewitt, Roddick and maybe Davydenko would have won more Slams in current era than in Fed's era.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,838 Posts
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,042 Posts
To be honest, Djokovic probably would have won over 10 GS by now had he played in the 2004-2007 era the way he has plauyed over the last couple of years
:haha:

RG:
0 titles. No chance against prime Dull.

Wimbledon:
0 titles. Could not even beat Olderer 2012.

USO and AO:
Feds game always troubled Djokovic. At the USO he choked finals left and right (Murphy 2012). Maybe 3-5 hc-titles.

So please tell me how he would have won 10 titles between 2004-2007...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,798 Posts
To be honest, Djokovic probably would have won over 10 GS by now had he played in the 2004-2007 era the way he has plauyed over the last couple of years
To be honest Fed would have won every slam from 1960 to 1990 the way he played, and with the rackets he used.


Comparing eras is lame :zzz:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,640 Posts
Ugh for the last time, Rafa has no rivals. He's above & beyond everyone, Novak and Roger included. 9-2 and 9-3 in slams, what else do you need? Plus, winning record vs 99% of the tour. Put Rafa in any era and he will win.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App
Thats a bit over the top.

That Rafa beat two GOAT like players in his lifetime and still achieved 14 slams is what makes him impressive !
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,640 Posts
To be honest Fed would have won every slam from 1960 to 1990 the way he played, and with the rackets he used.


Comparing eras is lame :zzz:
Not if Rafa and Nole were playing those 30 years as well - as has been evidenced recently.

All three would be a lot more closer in slam counts
with Nole stat getting more of a lift.
Federer will lose the most.
And Rafa will stay abt the same
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,275 Posts
In b4 tards claiming that this is the strongest era.

With clay juggernaut Murphy complaining that 'he has no legs' in the 2nd set of his SF.

Ferrer, who gives up after one set a piece.

Highest ranked player U-21 is 54th and 22-year old 'talent' Tomic is partying instead of playing.

Washed up clowns like Ginepri getting WCs to Slams.

I could go on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,169 Posts
Great point by OP, Federer has faced big champions all through 3 mini era's of his career - Sampras, Agassi, Kafelnikov, Goran, Krajicek - then Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Ferrero, Kuerten - followed by Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro, Wawrinka

so that facts are there, rate them highly or not, these are all GS champs that Federer played through

now look at Nadal, Nole, Murray. They've only competed against themselves this whole time with Federer hanging around and it's not like the younger generation of Raonic, Nishikori, Dimitrov and Gulbis have shown themselves to be any threat to them winning slams.. And I highly doubt they ever will

Federer in his prime seen 3 brilliant young champs come along at once - Rafa, Nole and Murray. Tell me have those 3 been threatened by new supreme young champs coming along when they hit 25 years old? No.



To be honest, Djokovic probably would have won over 10 GS by now had he played in the 2004-2007 era the way he has plauyed over the last couple of years
With his record for flopping in GS finals? Think again
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,275 Posts
To be honest, Djokovic probably would have won over 10 GS by now had he played in the 2004-2007 era the way he has plauyed over the last couple of years
Assuming Federer and Nadal wouldn't exist, probably yes
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,516 Posts
You can't compare eras. Only achievements. End of.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
You can't compare eras. Only achievements. End of.
Can't just look at achievements. Need to look at competition. Federer won 12 of his 17 Slams in a 5 year period, when there was no competition (Rafa was very young). Then 2 of the other 5 slams were won when Nadal was injured. Federer didn't win his first slam until a couple of weeks before his 22nd birthday.
 
1 - 20 of 106 Posts
Top