US Open 2021

Do you really have doubts?

Do you really think that 21yo Djoko who could serously trouble 2007 Federer already then would beat Medvedev?

You guys are living in Teletubbies Fanworld!

Federer was by far the best of his generation no one his age or even his age +4 got close to him or troubled him. That's something neither Nadal or Djokovic can say.

The only reason 2 or 3 20yos (let's put Murray in) managed to trouble him was that they came from a generation who trained with synth strings. That's it. No other explanation.

No different than Pete and Agassi troubling peak Mc and Lendl in spite of not having a 1/5th  of Mc and Lendl experience. They had trained young with graphite racquets and knew how to exploit them. In fact the lack of change of technology for a while gave them extra longevity cause like Nadal and Djoko they got the new technology first and then gained in experience.

New technology allowed 17yo Wilander to outlast all the more mature and experience clay courter who unfortunately were still playing with wooden racquets. Technology is essential in a sport.

Now if you asked ne do you think Medv could beat Federer with the same tool Fed was playing with? My answer would clearly be no. And neither could Nadal beat Federer on clay with a 90inch racket with half guts.

It's a generation /technology thing! End of!

And to add to this, it is pretty clear that almost all players of Federer's generation disappeared quickly and did not even bother to stay on tour long. Blake, Nalby, Gonzo, Roddick, Safin, Hewitt etc..retired young they simply could not adapt to the new game. Had the technology, court conds and more so the training conds not changed, They would have made life for Nadal and Djoko a lot more difficult.

Federer as way past it was 2 championship points (on his own serve) on Djokovic recently.  Or did you forget that?

Daniel2 wrote:Federer as way past it was 2 championship points (on his own serve) on Djokovic recently.  Or did you forget that?

Is it my point or your point? You say he was best in 2007! Yet he was already toe to toe with 22 Nadal and 21 Djoko back then. So either they have all declined since or they have all improved since?

Choose your side!

I'm saying that the fact a well past it Fed - nowhere as good as he used to be - should have won against a peak Djok (your argument) should tell you why your logic is broken beyond all repair.


Listen, Fed of 2004-7 wasn't just good - he was the best there's ever been.  He'd have blown these muppets away this year and also won the calandar slam.  Nadal at his very best was the only thing that stopped him 3 times.

Daniel2 wrote:I'm saying that the fact a well past it Fed - nowhere as good as he used to be - should have won against a peak Djok (your argument) should tell you why your logic is broken beyond all repair.


Listen, Fed of 2004-7 wasn't just good - he was the best there's ever been.  He'd have blown these muppets away this year and also won the calandar slam.  Nadal at his very best was the only thing that stopped him 3 times.

It does not make sense and you know it. or are you just a  fan?
For a Federer fan, tennis stops in 2006! For a Nadal fan tennis stops in 2010.

Your brilliant logic made you think that Djokovic could bever get 20 slams! He nearly won 4 this year at 34! 10 years after your idea of "peaking". Can't you eat your cake once?

Tenez, just answer this then:

Who would win- Djokovic from 2011 or Medvedev today?
No tech change since 2011 as far as I'm aware.

Amri just answer this

Who was better Djoko 2011 or Nadal 2013?

Tenez wrote:Amri just answer this

Who was better Djoko 2011 or Nadal 2013?

Djoko 2011

Right. So tennis stopped in 2011 when Djoko was 24 and since everybody declined. The top players, the tour, commentators and fans declined! Only world temperatures went up. You are comical!

Tenez wrote:Right. So tennis stopped in 2011 when Djoko was 24 and since everybody declined. The top players, the tour, commentators and fans declined! Only world temperatures went up. You are comical!

I never said that. No player has a steady decline, there are always peaks and troughs. But it 'trended downwards' past 30 for the big 3 (esp Nadal who lost movement).

Are you aware that the Olympic marathon winner was 36 this summer? He also won it 4 years ago.... But was not very good at 24! Djoko outlast Tsipas this year at the FO. His legs are pretty good still.

Last week while watching a Djokovic match, and just before I fell asleep midway through, I came to a realisation.

Is it possible that Djokovic being so boring to watch is actually a strong case for him being the GOAT/BOAT?

His game is so efficient, that he manages to keep each rally in neutral mode, with no one attacking or defending.
The percentages are always in his favour because he's a serve bot, and has insane flexibility on RoS.

How you can watch the videos and see the serve stats of Fed 2004-7 + forehand winners and speed and movement -  and not see you're completely wrong is beyond me tenez... but it's not my concern.

Daniel2 wrote:How you can watch the videos and see the serve stats of Fed 2004-7 + forehand winners and speed and movement -  and not see you're completely wrong is beyond me tenez... but it's not my concern.

Come on Daniel, you have to admit that Medvedev (who is Giles Simon with a big serve) is far better than this:

I mean just look at the speed and power and consistency there?  Medvedev isn't even remotely close.  And you don't win 8 wimb (although right now even slower) or 13 french opens without being special.  REALLY special.

What's Medvedev going to do?  Because odds are when Djok retires it will just be the Average Bunch for the next 10 years or until someone special rocks up again.

It's funny really how it all works.

If Roddick was in his prime today he's win way more than 1 slam.  So would Del Potro.  And yet because of Fed and Nadal and a generally stronger era - they're nowhere on the list.

Murray would have won far more too.

Djok has basked in the empty vacuum of this pitiful low quality field.


In the future, can you imagine a kid asking his dad "hey, dad - how good was Dimitrov??"

Try not to laugh.

"Try not to laughl"
Difficult really!

This is such a robbery. This court was disgustingly slow.

Those 2 clips Amri posted explain and prove exactly what I was saying. It could not be clearer! Fed would have never lost to Nadal or Djoko had they kept the court conds and technology the same as Blake and Fed's time. 2 years on, TDs craving for Fedal finals slow the courts so that Fed can;t hit winners through Nadal who simply has to keep running. Plus string technology make it harder to time the ball clean and give it pace....unless you have an arm like Nadal.

Different era, different tennis. But the great thing is that Fed managed to improve thanks to new racquet and Nadal got spanked despite being 5 years younger!

I think Fed was just a lot better then...  courts helped but you can clearly see he's way better than he was after 2007 and beyond.

If I wanted to make a point about Federer being better than Djoko and Nadal, I'd use the matches he won after 2011 v Djoko and Nadal who then started to reach their peak.

v Djoko FO11

v Djoko USO11 even though he lost after having MP!

Nadal WTF Final 2011 and 12...

There those youngsters are playing at their best yet Federer manages to stay with them

But in any case none wpu;d have had any chance v Federer had Federer been born at the same time as Nadal and adopted the new technology.

Fed would have turned Djoko and Nadal into Ferrer like players!

Tenez wrote:

This is such a robbery. This court was disgustingly slow.

Firstly, this point was amazing play by both.

Secondly, in this rally it's Federer who hits the first defensive stroke: the forehand squash shot (which ended up being exceptional).
Which shot could Rafa have played better, or more offensively, in this rally?

It's funny that Tenez is using that rally as evidence that Nadal 'simply had to keep running'.

Every shot in that rally from Rafa, perhaps apart from the BH at 0:14, was hit with pace and close to a line.

And yet Tenez watches the efficient pushing from Medvedev and claims that he's set the bar on hard courts higher than ever.

you are so blind that you don't see that Federer would have won the point 4 times by his 4th or 5th shot aainst anybody else and more so had the courts been at a proper pace.

Verdasco was close to beat Nadal a round earlier in that same tournament by keeping hitting would-have been winners against anybody else and on normal court pace. This AO was ridicoulsly slow.

It is no coincidence it holds the records for the longest slam finals (2012). It did not matter how good Fed's shots could be, the ball was dragging dead at the baseline allowing Nadal to use his inflated muscles arms.

Tenez wrote:you are so blind that you don't see that Federer would have won the point 4 times by his 4th or 5th shot aainst anybody else and more so had the courts been at a proper pace.

Watch the video again. The first defence shot that shouldn't have been returned was actually by Fed 17 seconds.  On a faster court, Nadal would have won that point (not so sure about how the serve would have been though).

It was an exceptional rally.


True that on true fast courts, Fed would win 9 times of out 10 overall in a match, but in that one point you cannot possibly state Fed would have won the point when the first clear winner that the surface denied was FROM NADAL.

Daniel2 wrote:Watch the video again. The first defence shot that shouldn't have been returned was actually by Fed 17 seconds.  On a faster court, Nadal would have won that point (not so sure about how the serve would have been though).

Nope, typically on faster court, the point would have been finished in the first 2 or 3 shots from Fed as it was in fast USO (pre 2010) or Masters in Shanghai. Without the new string technology, the ball would have come back flatter and lower on the serve that would have given Federer an easier and pacier FH to his second shot. Nadal would have had more difficulty getting to that 2nd shot, if that, for Fed to hammer it on the third point. The bigger racquet allows him to do just that now even if the courts are still slow cause he has more power.

Watch that and be objective if you can!

You have no proof of that in this point.