Djokovic Era

[shawnbm]

Just as we tend to group Connors-Borg-McEnroe in the mid Seventies to mid-Eighties, so I think the last decade could be called FEDALNOLE--the early part Roger, the middle Roger-Rafa-Nole and the last part Nole-Rafa. Roger and Rafa really glide over all of this from 2005 onward. Nole has made himself part of the epoch by his consistent high level of play since 2011 in which he has won six majors (tied with Nadal).

 

[Riotbeard]

Just as we tend to group Connors-Borg-McEnroe in the mid Seventies to mid-Eighties, so I think the last decade could be called FEDALNOLE--the early part Roger, the middle Roger-Rafa-Nole and the last part Nole-Rafa. Roger and Rafa really glide over all of this from 2005 onward. Nole has made himself part of the epoch by his consistent high level of play since 2011 in which he has won six majors (tied with Nadal).

This inclusion of Fed is plain delusional, he didn't even win as many major as Andy in the last four years. :cover

If you wanna say there is no era, than ok, or era of the big four then that at least makes some sense although Rafa and Nole have been in a different league in terms of accomplishment over the past four years compared to Fed and Andy.

Edit: Sorry Shawn didn't read your post closely enough. I was only talking about the last four years.

 

[shawnbm]

Yes, I see that--you see I did not include the last few years as being Roger's--they are Nole-Rafa.

 

[El Dude]

Alright, here's a chart using my Title Share system (see other thread for explanation). This is one way to look at dominance in different periods of time. Note that this only includes the 14 big tournaments, not ATP 500 and 250s. I'll figure that out some other time. But if you take a couple index cards and hold them up to the screen along the lines of different years, you can slide around and see different eras and how they look visually.

[/URL][/img]

 

[Riotbeard]

Yes, I see that--you see I did not include the last few years as being Roger's--they are Nole-Rafa.

Yup, I only left up the post because others have been making the argument about the last 4 years or one specific of the last 4.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Just as we tend to group Connors-Borg-McEnroe in the mid Seventies to mid-Eighties, so I think the last decade could be called FEDALNOLE--the early part Roger, the middle Roger-Rafa-Nole and the last part Nole-Rafa. Roger and Rafa really glide over all of this from 2005 onward. Nole has made himself part of the epoch by his consistent high level of play since 2011 in which he has won six majors (tied with Nadal).

This inclusion of Fed is plain delusional, he didn't even win as many major as Andy in the last four years. :cover

If you wanna say there is no era, than ok, or era of the big four then that at least makes some sense although Rafa and Nole have been in a different league in terms of accomplishment over the past four years compared to Fed and Andy.

Edit: Sorry Shawn didn't read your post closely enough. I was only talking about the last four years.

Depends on the sample size. Right now, we're looking at a relatively small sample (the past 4 years or so), but 15 years from today, it would make sense to have a larger sample consisting of 10 years (basically since Fed's emergence as an elite player), and call it the era of Federer/Nadal/Djokovic. That doesn't mean that all 3 of them dominated at the same time. I mean, if we're going to think "Oh, but Federer didn't win much in the final 4 years", then it's just as delusional to put Djokovic in that sample as it is to put Federer, since Novak didn't win much in the first four years. But, on average, over a ten year span, this has been the era of Fedalovic. But there are sub-eras within that era, starting with the Federer era all the way to whatever era it is we're debating in this thread.

 

[Fiero425]

How many FO's did Federer win in his era of 2004-2007? If we call something an era, isn't it supposed to mean that that particular player won pretty much everything on any surface? uzzled

It wouldn't be the first time we overlooked a major shortcoming! At least Federer played a few finals in Paris during that period; poor Pete never got close! He did as well as he could, actually beating a past champion or 3, but in his best attempts, he went out in a quarter or semi to an eventual winner like Yevgeny Kafelnikov in '96! I'm still willing to give a pass to Roger, even if he hadn't taken his lone FO title in '09 with the help of Soderling (-d- Nadal semi)! You can't make that big a deal about the lack of "1" major title the player was unable to add to a resume! It happens; even Rod Laver w/o a WCT Final Championship! :cry He'll get over it like everyone else who still think of him as being the best ever! Andre Agassi has a career SLAM; does anyone really care in the grand scheme of things? :nono :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Riotbeard]

Just as we tend to group Connors-Borg-McEnroe in the mid Seventies to mid-Eighties, so I think the last decade could be called FEDALNOLE--the early part Roger, the middle Roger-Rafa-Nole and the last part Nole-Rafa. Roger and Rafa really glide over all of this from 2005 onward. Nole has made himself part of the epoch by his consistent high level of play since 2011 in which he has won six majors (tied with Nadal).

This inclusion of Fed is plain delusional, he didn't even win as many major as Andy in the last four years. :cover

If you wanna say there is no era, than ok, or era of the big four then that at least makes some sense although Rafa and Nole have been in a different league in terms of accomplishment over the past four years compared to Fed and Andy.

Edit: Sorry Shawn didn't read your post closely enough. I was only talking about the last four years.

Depends on the sample size. Right now, we're looking at a relatively small sample (the past 4 years or so), but 15 years from today, it would make sense to have a larger sample consisting of 10 years (basically since Fed's emergence as an elite player), and call it the era of Federer/Nadal/Djokovic. That doesn't mean that all 3 of them dominated at the same time. I mean, if we're going to think "Oh, but Federer didn't win much in the final 4 years", then it's just as delusional to put Djokovic in that sample as it is to put Federer, since Novak didn't win much in the first four years. But, on average, over a ten year span, this has been the era of Fedalovic. But there are sub-eras within that era, starting with the Federer era all the way to whatever era it is we're debating in this thread.

I agree. I misread Shawn's post. I was only talking about the last 4 years.

 

[Obsi]

that's something you and your inferiority complex have to deal with. 14 > 7.

Do Nadal fans have inferiority complex considering that Federer has won 17 slams?

 

[Fiero425]

that's something you and your inferiority complex have to deal with. 14 > 7.

Do Nadal fans have inferiority complex considering that Federer has won 17 Slams?

On the contrary, Nadal fans would have you anoint him THE GOAT even with his shortcomings because he "owns" Roger Federer h2h; mostly on clay, but still OWNS him! There's such an age disparity I would never succumb to such a blind number! If you look at Nadal's record closer, it's inferior in a lot of ways; esp. not being able to defend a title off the surface of clay! NOLE's only handicap is himself; taking Nadal to the limit, having more consecutive runs of wins against him than anyone else, and will soon overtake them both in head to head matches! :angel: :dodgy: :devil

 

[Front242]

You know I was thinking a while back that Novak would overtake Roger in the h2h but if Roger keeps playing like he did this year I'm not so sure he will anytime soon. In slam matches Novak has the obvious edge in fitness being younger and with the best of 5 format but Roger made a monkey out of him in Shanghai so if he keeps winning a few best of 3 for the next while it won't be as soon as you think.

 

[Fiero425]

You know I was thinking a while back that Novak would overtake Roger in the h2h but if Roger keeps playing like he did this year I'm not so sure he will anytime soon. In slam matches Novak has the obvious edge in fitness being younger and with the best of 5 format but Roger made a monkey out of him in Shanghai so if he keeps winning a few best of 3 for the next while it won't be as soon as you think.

Just keep deluding yourself! Roger can't keep this up much longer! This isn't the 70's, 80's, or even 90's where "senior citizens" could actually compete! It will get ugly for Federer soon enough if he persists in thinking he can do anything substantial in today's ranks! His best and maybe last best chance was at Wimbledon; I think he's done! I wouldn't mind him winning another major, but it would only prove what I've been saying about the current crop of "gutless" pros who can't "finish" with all this technology and training! :nono :cover

 

[Front242]

^ Who said anything about winning a major? Not me anyway although that's actually not out of the question either. What I said was the h2h won't likely be as easy for Novak to gain the upper hand as you may think as really despite what the diehard fans and bookies reckon in terms of odds, they're pretty evenly matched when it comes to best of 3 besides slow surfaces and even then Roger gave him a good battle on the dog slow Indian Wells court this year except for the crap 3rd set TB he played.

 

[Front242]

Btw Roger is currently world number 2. Not too shabby really so it's not exactly getting ugly yet.

 

[Federberg]

How many FOs did Federer win in his era of 2004-2007? If we call something an era, isn't it supposed to mean that that particular player won pretty much everything on any surface?uzzled

By that logic there's no such thing as an era in tennis. A little absurd. The guy wins practically everything for a span of years, but it's not his era :laydownlaughing Good grief.. the guy lost.. what? 15 matches in 3 years? That's never happened before...EVER. If you can't even concede that's an era then... there's really no such thing :cover

 

[brokenshoelace]

that's something you and your inferiority complex have to deal with. 14 > 7.

Do Nadal fans have inferiority complex considering that Federer has won 17 slams?

Some do, yes, but the H2H makes it easy to sleep just fine at night.

 

[Obsi]

that's something you and your inferiority complex have to deal with. 14 > 7.

Do Nadal fans have inferiority complex considering that Federer has won 17 slams?

Some do, yes, but the H2H makes it easy to sleep just fine at night.

Slams are far and away more important than H2H so I can't see how you can "easy sleep just fine at night".

 

[Kieran]

Do Nadal fans have inferiority complex considering that Federer has won 17 slams?

Some do, yes, but the H2H makes it easy to sleep just fine at night.

Slams are far and away more important than H2H so I can't see how you can "easy sleep just fine at night".

That being the case, since 2011 rafa has won 4 slams and Novak has won 3. Wanna edit your OP?

 

[brokenshoelace]

Do Nadal fans have inferiority complex considering that Federer has won 17 slams?

Some do, yes, but the H2H makes it easy to sleep just fine at night.

Slams are far and away more important than H2H so I can't see how you can "easy sleep just fine at night".

I can easily sleep fine at night because the player I root for is already an all time great with 14 slams, a record number of Masters 1000 events, a multi-time former world number 1, an Olympic gold medalist, a Davis Cup winner, has so far bested his rivals in direct meetings, etc...

That's quite a list of accomplishments. Just because one player has done better is no reason not to sleep well at night. Plus, I also sleep extra well knowing that my player still has the potential to overtake Federer.

And finally, I sleep well at night since tennis is no reason not to sleep well, unless it's the Australian Open and I'm up at unreasonable hours watching it.

 

[brokenshoelace]

that's something you and your inferiority complex have to deal with. 14 > 7.

Do Nadal fans have inferiority complex considering that Federer has won 17 slams?

Also, this might be complicated but let's break it down:

14-7 =7.

17-14=3.

One is a bit closer to catching the other. Also, one hasn't lived in the shadow of his rivals for the majority of his career so that inferiority complex is a bit easier to shake off.