Federer fans claim that Roger was so dominant in his prime that he stopped everyone else from succeeding, including other potentially great players like Hewitt, Roddick, and Safin. In this video we examine that claim.
Songs:
"Somewhere Now" by Leomind
"Wrong" by Dan Henig
"Leomind - Somewhere Now" is under a Creative Commons license (CC BY-SA 3.0) Music promoted by BreakingCopyright: bit.ly/bkc-somewhere
the djokovic era was so strong. people forget that djokovic was the guy who stopped others becoming all time greats. most notably andy murray(who almost always made finals vs novak in his era). I wonder why......
Djokovic era is the strongest era
Andy Murray must have had a nightmare when he heard about Novak Djokovic and Australian Open final.
I agree I think the same would have happened to Rog3r had Novak bornt 6 years earlier. But I think Andy Murray is an all time great w/ 3 GS.
@@fg92626Murray has fewer wins than Nadal on HC but more titles! Prime Murray was a beast. No wonder he was briefly considered part of the Big 4. Pity he couldn’t win more Majors.
Djokovic played more matches against top 5 and top 10 players (already most in ATP history) than Federer even though he has played almost 300 fewer matches and has been at no.1 longer (Higher seed means playing lower seeded players in genereal). Not to mention in Djokovic's prime years, the Elo ratings of top 10 players are consistently higher than that of Federer's, like a no.3 player in 2006 won't even make the top 10 in 2015. His opponents were way more consisten.
The weakest player to win a slam in Djokovic era was Cilic, who is probably on par with Safin on his day. Also, the Hewitt argument is bogus he lost in the first round many times. Andy Murray on the other hand is true. Djokovic prevented him form being on the same realm as Wilander, Becker, Edberg, McEnroe, Lendl, and Connors. Djoker Goat
Cilic's achievements are quite underrated imo, he is a grand slam champion and masters champion, he made the QF at each slam at least twice and SF at least once. Only Safin out of that group managed to achieve this.
Cilic on par with Safin LMAO
@@asdasdadasd6306Cilic definitely gets underrated for his ability I agree. He's made 3 GS Finals won 1 as you say he won a Masters has 20 ATP Titles overall and over 550 career match wins.
He is also the reason Murray is considered to be more then Roddick
@@chadvindly163 true, never said he wasn't. I just said that 2/3 of his slams he took against djokovic
Absolutely unreal how Djokovic managed to dominate the 2010s when you think about it : He had to be better than Nadal and Federer, the 2 goat at the time But He had to manage others great legends/monsters such as Del potro, Murray, wawrinka and keep the amazing outsiders such as Ferrer, tsonga, nishikori, cilic, berdych... those players would have been in the current top5 easily and be able to win one or several Grand Slams outside the djokovic era Fed was just playing with outsiders in his weak era Another lie by Fed fans bites the dust today, thank you very much dear Goatkovic
@@initialize21 🤣 now this is very silly my serbian bro Federer is GOAT of elegance then. In terms of titles, accomplishments, statistics, Djokovic is clearly the best
Yeah. Just look at 2015 season. Top5 was comprised of Djokovic, Murray, Federer, Wawrinka and Nadal. No other top5 comes close to this one and Djokovic dominated that season. And then just outside of top5 you had Berdych, Ferrer, Isner, Nishikori, Tsonga, CIlic, Raonic, Gasquet. The scene was so stacked at that time and Djokovic still put up the single best season in history of the tenis.
@@IvanRandomDude my god yeah, season 2015 alone is enough to end the already ended debate of goat. nishikori or tsonga had the best tennis of their life at that moment a 100% tsonga right now, would be top 3 at win masters in the current ATP Then you hear the fedal fans complaining, saying in 2015 roger is out of his prime, and it's nadal worst year ever but I think it's because the ATP level was particularly high that year, during the golden era
@@jmilne5751 yes nadal lost against murray in 2008 us open, 2010 aussie open
@@jmilne5751 so??.Federer los to del potro ina a final. Wawrinka and murray are very greats and talented players
At this point, Goatkovic is so good at analyzing the stats that the harder thing is choosing the background music. 😂😂😂
How do you rate the music in this one?
@@goatkovic YT seems to know I watched a lot of your video so they recommended "Wrong" by Dan Henig - which you used in this video - a few days ago. I highly rated your choices. However, I would like to see the return of some of the previous great ones like: - Video Magic (Daniel Solar Remix) - Music from Patrick Patrikios (example: Where We Wanna Go) Every time you release the video is like a present for us. Thank you for always dedicating time to present the Facts in the easiest way possible to understand. IDEMO Goatkovic! IDEMO Nole!
@@coulie27 the difference is that he already proved himself against the real strong era which includes Federer and Nadal and won most of his titles during that era. Any other arguments?
Hey man. Just wanted to tell you one tiny thing. Nadal is one year older than Djokovic. Nadal is not the same era as Federer. Federer was in his prime 2003 2015ish. After that only Djokovic injuries brought him some light. Nadal prime is a bit more recent. 2006 2019. Djokovic Prime 2011 2025 probably. Why tf are u talking like Nadal is somehow 10 years older than Djokovic😂
@@coulie27 you didn't get the part where Novak proved himself in the strongest era where he won most of that era big titles, reached the highest ever number of ATP points that coincides with when he reached the highest ever career peak in tennis by ELO rankings - that ultimately proves that he already established himself at the GOAT level above all back then, all the titles he has won since are just a consequence that comes naturally as a result of the level no one ever reached before by far. And the period when those players you mentioned that where able to beat Đoković, was around the break that Novak had to take to recover himself right after he literally peaked at the Greatest Of All Time level of tennis, requiring him an elbow surgery as well - talking about taking things out of a lot of context.
Just what the doctor ordered. Goatkovic video 💪
Yep. Was about to walk out the door and saw a notice for a new Goatkovic upload - figured what I was going to do could wait! LOL.
even immature djokovic had more succes from 2003-2008 then hewitt, safin and roddick from 2003-2008 and that when novak even dont plays on the tour between 2003-2004
A Djokovic fan shouldn't be bad mouthing Safin if he knows what's good for him.
to beat baby novak is not special, there is a reason why safin runaway from the tour 2009,,,your fedfans are really desperate someetimes...i mean even franco squilari has a 2-0 h2h vs federer, and why because the matches were before fedprimes......@@amsd1231
@@amsd1231safin is trash
To see how weak the field was just look at the average elo rating for Gs and Masters1000 during that era, its so low its unreal.
Man ELO says nothing - you know Becker had a higher peak ELO than Sampras? He must have been a better player then ....... pfffft
@@petemikedennis No. More consistent. Elo doesnt mean better player. More elo=more consistent and more wins over higher ranked opponents. The average elo of Rogers slams in 2003-2007 are like the lowest in his career. Last 5 slams Roger won have highest elo rating of his career.
@@VladaBB elo doesnt mean shit in tennis(mostly due to being physical sport and todays match can affect the match tomorrow = fatigue,tiredness,injury unlike in chess and also there are court types, so Nadal elo would say he is top2 but outside of clay he is out of top 5 and on grass it looks even worse for him so many first and second round losses)
Great video as always. thank you for this.
The only good argument is maybe Roddick since Federer beat him in 4 slam finals. But still, it's not in comparsion to how Djokovic prevented Murray from being like 7x slam champion and achieving the career grand slam which would put him in the top 10 players of all time.
Without Federer Roddick may have 2 Wimbledon and US Open titles, but his baseline game is too inconsistent on slower surfaces and his backhand is too exploitable. I think the best case scenario for him is a 20-25 player of all time.
Of Roddicks 9 unsuccessful SF or better runs he lost to Federer 7 times . Hewitt and Safin came along earlier than Federer/Roddick but Federer beat Hewitt in 3 of his 6 SF or better runs and for Safin 2 out of 5. Federer beat Hewitt 5 of the 8 slams in 04/05.
@@commodorezero Uh, what about ALL those times they failed to reach SF? Certainly a sign of greatness when you can't even reach 10 GS SF, isn't it?
@@keithwatson7434 That's a standard you can apply to many great players. Roddick actually did reach 10 GS SFs btw and he was not a viable player on clay so he was really playing 3 a year. Safin made 7 despite the injuries. He took Federer down once too. I'm not that high on Hewitt stylistically compared to Roddick and Safin but he made 8 SFs not bad either. I honestly think Ferrero is a better third represenative of the "weak era" than Hewitt but like Safin injuries got him. He will become appreciated again as his apprentice keeps winning shit. There's also Coria who got messed up by mental health stuff. Nalbandian whose heart really wasn't in it etc.
@@commodorezero That's a standard you can apply to many great players? Like who? Becker has 18 SF, Edberg has 19, Murray has 21, Courier, despite how short his peak was and how lucky he was, still has 11. Even Wawrinka, who was never even close to being world number two in this era, has 9. I can even go to the third tier and find Berdych with 7 and Tsonga, Del Potro, and Cilic with 6, and that's with the presence of 4 great players. And who cares whether Safin were injured? I love Safin even, but that's sports. Whether you suck or you're injured, if you lose, it's a loss.
Yeah. Just look at 2015 season. Top5 was comprised of Djokovic, Murray, Federer, Wawrinka and Nadal. No other top5 comes close to this one and Djokovic dominated that season. And then just outside of top5 you had Berdych, Ferrer, Isner, Nishikori, Tsonga, CIlic, Raonic, Gasquet. The scene was so stacked at that time and Djokovic still put up the single best season in history of the tenis. Like, prime Murray and Wawrinka are easily destroying Alcaraz right now. That's how strong mid 2010s were.
Prime Murray and Wawrinka are destroying old man Nadal and Djokovic lol. The early to mid 2010s tennis was insanely competitive.
Lol 2015 old out of prime federer was 34+ old out of prime lol nadal injury prone lol and inconsistent new gen weak era lol
Another great video 🔥
That's true. People just can't accept it. Another great video! (Federer fans bombing).
There are two sides to every story.
A person whose nickname is Goatkovic simply can not make fair video because he will put up only the arguments that is in favour of his statement ignoring many others ))))
@@giorgidurgarian161 I thought he was just passionate, but he is really just a hater.
I loved the way Gill Gross put up, instead of weak era he put it up as normal era and Big 3 as Extraordinary Era. This is a respect for the players who played along with the Big 3 but couldn't reach their levels. Again a very good analysis with data ! Thanks !
good point.
Its only an extraordinary era when there are 3 players more or less equivalent to each other. If anyone of them dominates everything, it would have been called a weak era lmao
federer main opponents Roddick/hewitt/Safin from 2003-2007 in 5 season to compare, with djokovic main opponents Thiem/medvedev/zverev from 2018-2022 in 5 season. Roddick/hewitt/Safin vs Thiem/zverev/medvedev Grandslam titles= 2/2 Grandslam finals= 8/9 grandslam semi final=14 /14 grandslam 1/4 final= 23 /20 Grandslam 1/8 final= 32/32 GRAndslam 3 round= 38/38 grandslam 2 round= 46/40 GRandslam 1 round= 53 / 50 Grandslam matches Wins and LOST= 164 vs 51 ( 76,28%) / 155 vs 48 ( 76,35%) ATP Final titles = 0 /3 ATP Final finals= 1 /6 ATP FINAL semifinal= 5 /7 ATP Final matches wins and lost= 13 vs 11 / 27 vs 19 ( 58,70) Masters 1000 title= 7 /8 Masters 1000 finals= 11 /16 Masters semi finals= 21 /27 MASTERS 1/4 finals= 32 /39 Masters 1/8 finals= 47 /50 Master matches win win and lost= 174 vs 85 ( 67,18%) / 161 vs 76 ( 67,93%) Titles = 31 /37 FINALS = 55 /62 semi final= 91 / 93 1/4 final = 124 /124 1/8 Final= 166 / 169 Tournaments= 260 / 252 All matches from 2018-2022= 669 vs 246 (73,11) / 604 vs 237 ( 71,82%) and dont for the 6 months corona lockkdown...
Yeah you act like Djokovic in slams didnt play Nadal 4-5 times in the period you mention and 2 against Federer in slams...
@@VojkanTrifunovic because these are djokovic's number 2, 3 and 4 major opponents, nr 1 is even not counted
Safin and Hewitt stopped being even top 20 players after 2005 this is not a fair comparison. These players mostly made no GS finals but there was very little room for them to do so. This era has the players who most consistantly made the SF and QF without ever reaching the final. Henman, Nalbandian, Grosjean, Davdenko, Haas, Gasquet went a combined 1-26 in GS semis. Nalbandian and Davdenko would probably be better picks for the 2006-2007 period and combined won 3 masters. Coria went to 5 masters finals in 04-05 and 2 more in 03. Fernando Gonzalez, Ljubicic, Gasquet, Blake and Stephanek all went to multiple masters finals in this period they just didn't win any. Doing a straight up Roddick/Hewitt/Safin v Medvedev/Thiem/Zverev comp ignores all of this.
@@commodorezero then where was the big competition from federer?
@@travisbickle5279 06-07 was more of a transitional period away from Safin, Ferrero, Coria, Hewitt(and Agassi) to Nadal, Djokovic and Murray. There were a lot of good players but there weren't lots of spots in slam finals when you get past Federer Nadal and Roddick. Nalbandian was seen as Federers big rival at the time before Nadal and Djokovic because he was the elite player with the best H2H against him.
Goatkovic is the GOAT of tennis goat debates.
It's hardly a debate when he curates a cherry-picked facts and this video wasn't even a comparison to other eras. You also seem to love to forget how time is linear, so any comparisons between eras are only as strong as your ability to chose the variables and factors you're comparing.
Well articulated video. Great work bro.
Federer beating Sampras one time in his life and Agassi when he was 35 years old with bad back in 2005 USO was the biggest challenge, Safin-Hewitt-Roddick were not in the same league with Roger then, and could not challenge him properly.If Federer, Nadal and Djokovic were all 22 years old in 2002, there is no way Roger would have retired with 20 GS.All this aside, if Roger could beat No23vak in 2019 Wimbledon, his ENTIRE LEGACY would have looked much better.
Federer had 1398 aces prior to 2019 Wimbledon final still couldn't hit one more in the 5th 8:7 40:15 shows the force of nature he faced in the finals.
Why do I have this picture of Clint Eastwood killing all the bad guys one by one, when I am watching your videos? The Balkan assassin :)
Gavrilo Princip
The logic here is a strawman as if "Federer got in their way" means they'd have won everything if Federer isn't present which is nonsencial. Except Borg every single great player(Djokovic included) reaches a GS final in less than 50% of their tries much less wins the tournament. People say Federer blocked Roddick because in his 9 failed semi final or better runs he lost to Federer 7 times. Hewitt lost to Federer at GS 5 times in 2 years including 3 of his 6 failed semi final runs. Safin was more of an injury thing but he lost to Federer 2 of his 5 failed semi final runs. So yes Federer did get in their way. Then there's the clay people who were deprived of getting to clay finals and losing to Nadal.
Watch the video it will explain how dumb you are
YOU ARE GENIUS
Goatkovic is absolutely correct. When Connors entered in 70's he had to play many champions , young or old. Emerson with 12 titles , Laver with 11, Rosewall with 8 , Stan smith, Newcombe 7 and later Borg with 11 , Mcnroe with 7( donot remeber exact figures) . In 90s Lendl, Wilander, Becker ,Edberg Agassi, Sampras . The 90'swas the toughest as many champions were in circuit . Samparas played 10 wimbledon champions , 14 french open champions and many grass court and clay court players who often beat the champions . 2003-2007 was the weakest era. In 2010 -2020 the trainagular tough competition between Federer -Nadal - Jokovich where Jokovich led the other two in statistics. Now 2022 to ? week era again started . This goes on. Then who is the best ? Emerson, Laver , Connors, Borg, Sampras , Federer, Nadal, Jokovich ? If Jokovich wins Wimbledon and equalise Federer record or wins 9 wimbledon titles , then would be the best of all but he too is in a week era as there is no good grass court player at present.
Who is Jokovich?
I think he did prevent Roddick from winning a few slams though. I think he could’ve won Wimbledon 2003, 2004,2005, 2009, an Australian open 2007, US open 2006. Also Roddick Lost two fed 8 times at the grand slam level. He wasn’t the most consistent player but he was definitely more consistent than Hewitt and Safin, he had 10 consecutive years in the top 10.
I agree that Hewitt and Roddick were not really dangerous rivals to Fed, at least talent-wise. Roddick could generate great pace and pressure but was too 1-dimensional, while Hewitt really lacked some power in his groundstrokes and serve, basically. Nalbandian and Safin were actually much more dangerous players, who on a good day could beat anyone. Especially Safin at 2000USO or 2005AO was a monster on hardcourts. And it is amazing how well Nalbandian could compensate his sometimes visible lack of fitness purely with shotmaking, finesse and tactics.
Well done for an amazing video 👏👏👏
Another great video.👌
I remember Pat Cash said years ago (mid-late 00s I believe) that Federer was successful due to a weak era. He was one of the first people to cone up with this conclusion and got a lot of stick for saying this. The 2010s is evidence that he was right....
The fact that nobody could win anything during Federer's prime during 2004-2008 only clarifies the fact that during his prime he was jjust on another level ( only dumb people could say that it was because of players were weak). If you put prime davydenko and Nalbandian in today's era they could easilly win 3-4 slams each.
So fakin true lol wawrinka and ferrer was in rogers era and they never achieved anything there you cant even say the dumb too young excuse cause ferrer and wawrinka almost same age as federer and they never achieved anything from 2003-2010 then all of a sudden those 2 achieved their succes starting in 2011 when federer was 30 old out of prime, same thing as murray and djokovic, djokovic, murray, wawrinka, ferrer didnt really achieved anything in rogers era, they only started winning when federer was 30 old out of prime in 2011, djokovic was lucky enough to win 1 slam in 2008
@@giorgidurgarian161you’re an idiot
@@user-fy7cq5vr3f you're both dumb and liar and you know it. the last time your Federer won 3 slams in one year was in 2007 when he was 26 years. he didn't get old in 2008, he just got tough competition. so, cry more
@@giorgidurgarian161 Who is really dumb? Nalbandian only reached a Grand Slam final once, in 2002, and during the years 2004-2008, he did not even reach a Grand Slam final once, let alone win a title. Don't tell me that Federer was the one who prevented him every time from reaching the final so that you don't look stupid. Nalbandian and most players of his generation were talented but lazy and their competitive mentality was complete rubbish
Another amazing analysis 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Awesome analysis again ❤
I've been a Djokovic fan since forever but the weak era thing is total nonsense. Agassi, Nadal, Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Ferrero and Coria being a weak era is ridiculous. Especially if you add Kuerten, Henman, Haas, Moya, etc.
How many slams together for these players between 2001-2007 ? 4 or 5 😢😢😢😢😢 Nadal dethroned F3d in 2008 he and Agassi are the 2 all time greats on your list.
@@fg92626 Yes, Federer should have let them won more so the era was strong 🤦♂️
@@hernanbusso1609did you see the video? F3d rarely stopped them in GSs they were mostly beat by unseeded opponents.😢
@@fg92626 Not Hewitt and Roddick. Especially the latter, he would have won many slams without Federer. Wimbledon 2003, Wimbledon 2004, USO 2006, AO 2007 and Wimbledon 2009. Outside chance at USO 2007, AO 2009, Wimbledon 2005. He would have been a Becker or Edberg level player. Hewitt wins USO 2004, TMC 2004, Wimbledon 2005, maybe AO 2004 and USO 2005.
@@hernanbusso1609 Hewitt is a joke his impotent performance saw him eliminated in the 1st round of 2003 wimbledon as defending champion mever happened before 😂
The 2001-2007 was a weak era, but today we are in a certain weak era, the only players that can play real tenis are novak, alcaraz, medvedev and sinner. How can a top 10 like fritz play that badly vs a 50% novak. Today tenis level cannot be compare with the era 2011-2016
Djokovic has never met in final the 48th, 54th and 86th world ranked players to win a major. So eventually is it better to have no competition in your prime and face great players as you age? Or come up having to overcome a great player while fighting two other great players also in their prime? 🤔 *It's definitely easier to deal with a weaker competition in your earlier twenties than your earlier thirties.* Federer had been more lucky to compete against Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian, Blake and so on when he was still in his prime. The fact that Djokovic has dominated the Next Gen at 30+ is more impressive!
@@mickaellandry9726 Stop being a fanboy, I wouldn't say Berettini and Kyrgios are 'strong'.
It’s unreal how many haters have left the chat in this video after all those comments in the previous video 😂 greatest statistical KZhead channel in the world. Already looking forward to the next one 🇷🇸 ❤️ 💪
I wouldn't be so happy to close myself into an echochamber of pseudo-analyses.
@@Edu2503 Like pseudo-soyance?
update federer main opponents Roddick/hewitt/Safin from 1.1. 2003-2007 in 5 season to compare, with djokovic main opponents Thiem/medvedev/zverev from 2018-2022 in 5 season. Roddick/hewitt/Safin vs Thiem/zverev/medvedev Grandslam titles= 2 vs 2 Grandslam finals= 8vs 9 grandslam semi final=14 vs 14 grandslam 1/4 final= 23 vs 20 Grandslam 1/8 final= 32 vs 32 GRAndslam 3 round= 38 vs 38 grandslam 2 round= 46 vs 40 GRandslam 1 round= 53 vs 50 Grandslam matches Wins and LOST= 164 vs 51 ( 76,28%) vs 155 vs 48 ( 76,35%) ATP Final titles = 0 vs 3 ATP Final finals= 1 vs 6 ATP FINAL semifinal= 5 vs 7 ATP Final matches wins and lost= 13 - 11 vs 27 - 19 ( 58,70) Masters 1000 title= 7 vs 8 Masters 1000 finals= 11 vs 16 Masters semi finals= 21 vs 27 MASTERS 1/4 finals= 32 vs 39 Masters 1/8 finals= 47 vs 50 Master matches win win and lost= 174 - 85 ( 67,18%) vs 161 - 76 ( 67,93%) Titles = 31 vs 37 FINALS = 55 vs 62 semi final= 91 vs 93 1/4 final = 124 vs 124 1/8 Final= 166 vs 169 Tournaments= 260 vs 252 All matches from 2018-2022= 669 -246 (73,11) / 604 - 237 ( 71,82%) and dont forget the 6 months corona lockkdown...
Career Achievements of top 3 players from 04-07 vs 20-present not named Federer, Djokovic or Nadal: Hewitt, Safin, Roddick vs Medvedev, Alcaraz, Zverev Grand Slam Titles: 5 - 2 Grand Slam Finals: 13 - 6 Masters Titles: 12 - 12 Masters Finals: 23 - 20 ATP Finals Titles: 2 - 3 Year-end no.1: 3 - 1 The fact that they are already quite close despite the latter 3 players aren't even halfway into their careers yet and that many tournaments were altered/cancelled due to Covid is pretty telling.
Conserve these excellent videos so if the butthurt Federer fans take them down you can upload them again 😎💪💪💪
Most of my videos are also available on Rumble: rumble.com/c/c-2314122
@@goatkovic👌 Great thinking. Regards from 🇲🇰 Идемо бре!
Yes Djokovic era is the tougher one he had to fight roger rafa andy & other tougher opponents
Can you make a video for pre-sampras, post-borg era comparing Lendle,Villander Becker,Edberg (may include MceEnro)
Man u r a genius
Well, it can be claimed that Federer stopped Hewitt in 2004 since he was the player who defeated him in all 3 non-clay Slams, but that's it. It wasn't Federer who stopped Hewitt from winning the 2005 Australian Open final and it wasn't Federer who prevented Hewitt from winning masters tournaments in 2004.
If Djokovic and Nadal weren't there Federer would have won 18 grand slam titles in a row and 41 in total.
I love how this presenter is able to just systematically destroy arguments with well organised FACTS! The facts does the debating, he does the presenting; brilliant!
Keep bringing the facts, man.
Nice try, I don’t understand why you are counting from 2001 to 2007, rise of Roger Federer begin in 2003, so you should be comparing their records to three player from 2003 to 2007. During the period from 2003 to 2007, Roger Federer's Grand Slam record against Marat Safin, Lleyton Hewitt, and Andy Roddick was as follows: 1. **Marat Safin**: - 2005 Australian Open (Semifinal): Federer lost to Safin. 2. **Lleyton Hewitt**: - 2004 US Open (Final): Federer won against Hewitt. - 2004 Wimbledon (Quarterfinal): Federer won against Hewitt. - 2005 US Open (Semifinal): Federer won against Hewitt. - 2006 US Open (Quarterfinal): Federer won against Hewitt. 3. **Andy Roddick**: - 2003 Wimbledon (Semifinal): Federer won against Roddick. - 2004 Wimbledon (Final): Federer won against Roddick. - 2005 Wimbledon (Final): Federer won against Roddick. - 2006 US Open (Final): Federer won against Roddick. - 2007 Australian Open (Semifinal): Federer won against Roddick. - 2007 US Open (Quarterfinal): Federer won against Roddick. This period was one of dominance for Federer, particularly in his matchups against Hewitt and Roddick. His only loss among these matches was against Safin in the 2005 Australian Open semifinal, which is often considered one of the greatest matches in the history of tennis.
Djokovic is the clear #1 and history will show that. Right now these people are still upset their favorite player of all time was dethroned almost as soon as he rose to the top.
Wow I can’t believe this. Facts don’t lie though!
Amazing video again. You can include wins against the other rivals that fed might have won in the final and it would still be insignificant. There is nothing statwise for Fed fans to hold on to
To expect a player to be beaten literally every time by the same player is ridiculous. Hewitt and Roddick lost many times to Federer. Not Safin, but yes the other too Also, you are counting a lot of years where they weren't relevant. Roddick in 2001 and 2002 was not relevant. So wasn't Hewitt in 2006 and 2007. What I find is hilarious if you put a comment written by me calling me a "Fed fan" 😂😂😂😂 You think you have the authority to police who is a fan of who lol
I think even worse Claydal fan😢
@@fg92626 Fedal fan for sure.
If his 'rivals' were not relevant for half of their prime, what does that say?
Eu gostaria de ver mais Djokovic no canal Goatkovic. Tem muito Federer aqui ultimamente
Please expose 2 overrated players nalabandian and davydenko, please, fed fans even say that these 2 are better than djodal
nadal from 2003-2007 vs nadal from 2018-2023 Grandslam titles= 3 / 6 Grandslam finals= 5 / 7 grandslam semi final= 5 / 11 grandslam 1/4 final= 7 / 15 Grandslam 1/8 final= 9 / 16 GRAndslam 3 round= 12 / 16 grandslam 2 round= 15 / 16 GRandslam 1 round= 15/ 17 GRANDSLAM won rate= 82.4% (56-12) / 89.8% (88-10) ATP Final titles = 0 /0 ATP Final finals= 0 / 0 ATP FINAL semifinal= 2 /1 ATP Final matches wins and lost= 4 vs 4 / 5 vs 5 Masters 1000 title= 9 /6 Masters 1000 finals= 12 /7 Masters semi finals= 14 /9 MASTERS 1/4 finals= 18 / 17 Masters 1/8 finals= 22 /18 Masters totally play = 30 / 20 Master matches win win and lost= 91 vs 21 ( 81.3%) / 61 vs 12 ( 83.6%) Titles = 23 / 17 FINALS = 30 / 19 semi final= 37 / 27 1/4 final = 54 / 37 1/8 Final= 63 / 42 Tournaments= 87 / 48 Overall =79.5% (256-66) vs 85.0% (193-34) EVEN Nadal from 2018-2023 was a much better player then from 2003-2007
Incoming Fedal Copium.
I don't see many Nadal fans defending this era. Many Nadal fans also regard this era as weak and consider young Nadal Federer's only really threat during these years. Nadal fans consider 2008 to 2013 to be the hardest era of all time.
Recently Alcaraz lost a match then declared injured and retires from the next tournament. Follows Nadal's pattern. Can you make a video on that?
Different players, different court speeds so many variables between generations. 04-07 Federer was scary good back then especially during these years. So much fun to watch.
It was a Fun.... but beating pathetic Phillipousis, Baghdatis, James Blake... Is beyond ridiculous.
Not only were they weak..but Safin rarely played 2003-2007 due to injury
Does Nadal learn from Safin maybe?😢
oh man the outro aiaiaiai 🦅✈
The biggest problem with how you showed age difference as a way to classify weak era is that it will show Djokovic as a weak era champ when in 10 years you'll find the age difference between Djokovic and the next 4+ GS champ (Carlos Alcaraz) is 16 years.
What are you talking about? Djokovic all time rival Nadal is only 1 year older than him. They are practically the same age and generation. Murray and Stan Wawrinka are also in that generation. Even Federer is only 6 to 5 years older than these players which isn't that much. Federer however in his prime did not have a rival close to level of these guys until young appeared Nadal. Federer also did not have any real older all time great rivals because Agassi and Pete Sampras where 11 to 12 years older than Federer which its too large an age gap. Pete retired early in 2001 only playing Fed once and Agassi was already in his mid 30s playing a very young Federer.
The age gap is 1. Nadal. If not for Nadal, Djokovic could have 10 French Opens himself. (Altho no Nadal probably affects Djokovic motivation).
@@fuckso2342There are no ATG after Djokovic. That itself makes it a weak era according to this channel logic.
James Blake being number 4 seed in 2006 is absolutely ridiculous. Lol
federer fans potraying even david nalbandian as a tennis giant. Nalbandian is a normal player like dimitrov and not more
That shit had me dying, the worst player in the Djokovic era to win a slam was cilic who is probably on par with Safin. In Federer's era Gaudio won as a unseeded for fucks sake lol. And Murray would be on Par with Becker, Edberg, McEnroe if not for Goatkovic
Italian guy here, i kid you not i once read on an Italian tennis forum a local Fed taliban claiming that Baghdatis in this era would consistently be ranked in the top 5 😂😂😂
🎯
Nalbandian was absolutely not a normal player! His problem was that he wasn't always fully dedicated, especially fitness wise! That's the difference in players then versus now, all these players are fit, but not necessarily good players! Have you seen Dimitrov winning against in form Nadal, Roger or Djokovic? The way Nalbandian has? He'll no! You can watch the Paris Masters 2007 and Madrid and see what this guy was capable of! Normal players don't win back to back masters tournaments!
Nalbandian was insane. You clearly have never seen him. Perhaps the most talented player of the 21st century.
Please upload about this thing, federer fans say federer is goat because he is attacking players and hits more winners than Djokovic, please do it please...
@Goatkovic Nadam se da mislimo isto i ovoga puta (pišem sada, kada sam vidjeo žrijeb za Monte Carlo) Pretpostavljam da ste tačno znali ko će biti u žrijebu Novaka Djokovića *posebno* *ako* *govorimo* *o* *četvrtfinalu* i *polufinalu* Ja sam *ZNAO* a ne sumnjam i *Vi* P.S. Volio bih vidjeti Vaš kometar ispod mog, odnosno Vaše mišljenje. Hvala.
Овај пут нисам погађао, али намештено је као и обично. Нису му могли наместити теже.
@@goatkovic hvala na odgovoru Odavno se slažem sa vama i dodao da pratim sve itekako, ali Vi ste do detalja pobili sve tvrdnje ostalih. Unaprijed se radujem sledećim videima i istinama na koje ukazujete.
Wow, this is quite convincing
Bravo, svaka cast!
Official announcment: the banned GOAT broke his record today #381!
I know that the author is unlikely to be able to answer these questions, but I will ask. How does all this refute the fact that any tennis era is a competition where in order to be in the top you have to be stronger than others? the statement that someone won because the opponent was weaker, in any case, means that the winner is stronger, because this is a competition, they do not expect the opponent to be weak. How do you answer the question, how do statistics show how strong a league of players is, if the statistics can be the one that suits you between the weak players in the league? weak players can also share trophies among all participants. the same can be true for strong players. Do you think these two leagues will be equally strong? And here and there you need to be the strongest in order to take trophies. Do you have an intuition that a player from a weak league X with sufficient achievements will be stronger than a player from a strong league Y, but with less achievements? it is not possible to define a weak league, because players from league X and Y are a collection of unique players and conditions, select a specific player from league X and use it as a measure for league Y, a logical error because the statistics of a player from league X is just the result of the league conditions X. This is a violation of formal logic. In mathematics, it would literally look like 2 different equations, with different values of the variables, were trying to equate. So this can only be done by a person without understanding mathematics and logic. good luck to the author to continue to engage in obscurantism. Sorry for my bad English
Watch the next video.
@@goatkovic so here just simple propositional formula, maybe better than many words X - many players fed’s gen, Y - many of djoko. X and Y players are different, X not equal to Y, so competition is different. Using players stats from X as measure to Y players stats is logical fallacy, because that stats values done from different conditions (era X,Y) because X not equals Y, X competition not equal Y competition. Right comparison is comparing X players from X. Y from Y.
@@abdul7319 he won't engage because he knows he can only cherry-picked numerical data and pseudo-analyze it to come up with a skewed and heavily biased conclusion. Or rather, he starts with his conclusion and takes raw data out of context to fit his narrative.
@man bat that's not how primes work, buddy. Nole is also arguably not in his prime anymore and he still won AO this year.
That's like saying a top Harvard student is as strong as a top community college student, since they both have the same amount of competition around them.
Id say stopping at 2007 is not valid. After fed won french open in 2009 he started slowing down a bit due to injuries. ( back surgery, multiple knee surgery, mononucleosis )
Which players were in their primes when Federer was in his prime? and which players were in their primes when Djokovic was in his prime? Can you compare them? top 5 from each side. that would be funny
I did it here: kzhead.info/sun/YMipYq6fqKh-iZE/bejne.html
Djokovic is better than Federer. But Federer is better than Nadal.
nadal, medvedev , thiem and zverev are from 2018-2023 better then hewitt,safin, roddick and nadal from 2003-2007.....Djokovic opponents from 2018-2023 are stronger and consecutive then federer opponents from 2003-2007.
If they were strong they would not be lower ranked players
Good video! I think that people don't understand that an all-time-great is based on consistency. If a player hadn't been consistently in the final rounds of every tournament, then he/she was not an all-time-great.
You have pointed out that Hewitt lost 5 times to Federer in slams, and Roddick 6 times. Could not someone then say that if Federer had not stopped them on these occasions, they would then be considered All-Time Greats?
If.
@@goatkovic But the entire argument is saying that Federer stopped them from being ATGs. So isn't showing that they could have each won around 7 slams without him enough to support that?
@@brokeboy4559 Watch the next video. This has all been asked and answered a million times.
@@goatkovic Thanks for replying. I was asking because I was arguing with a Fed fan. He kept saying that Federer had to deal with Djokovic in his prime for longer than Djokovic had to deal with Federer in his prime. But I don't get how that is relevant at all or even makes sense, since Federer couldn't win much against prime Djokovic in slams anyway, so he still won most of his slams before Djokovic hit his prime. On the other hand Djokovic had to beat Federer several times, who granted may have been past his prime most of the time but didn't get drastically worse or anything, and was still an ATG far above most or all of the field.
@@brokeboy4559 "Prime" is the most exaggerated term. Players get better as they age, even if they're slightly physically diminished.
But really whats the point of this? So Roger sucks in your opinion? And Djokovic is the best? Everything Roger has achieved is basically nothing? Because of weak era?
Exactly what I already wrote under one of the previous videos. The point of these videos is 0. Everyone who can count knows Djokovic has the best stats and is the best player according to that. These videos will not make anyone stop being a fan of either. It's pointless and only creates unnecesary tension between fanbases.
@Miroslav Janecek Agreed! I'm a Federer fan! But I have no problem in praising Novaks achievements! Which are phenomenal! But that doesn't make me a Djokovic fan all of a sudden! But I'm not hating either!
Nobody said that Roger Federer sucks. Federer is actually the 2nd best player in the modern era, right after Djokovic. It's unfair to accuse Federer for the existence of the weaker era, since it would've happened with or without him. He used it to his benefit exactly as expected from an ATG from the first degree. The level of dominance Federer had wouldn't be possible to produce from other ATG - Prime Sampras and prime Djokovic are the only ones who could come close to this level of dominance. The fact that Federer won so much in this era doesn't take much from Federer's resume. 2 things put him behind Djokovic in the modern era GOAT conversation - the fact that Federer won little in a stronger era and the fact that despite facing a way higher level of competition, Djokovic is statistically superior to Federer.
Fed fans need to understand that being the 2nd or 3rd greatest player of all time doesn't mean he suck. Djokovic has beaten him in all important records (Grand Slams, Masters, weeks at no.1, year-end no.1s, most top 5 wins, most top 10 wins, etc). He was surpassed, the same way he surpassed Sampras. So be gracious and accept the reality. If you are a true fan, you will love him whether he is the GOAT or the 10th greatest of all time, right?
@man bat People who became fans because of their idol's success need to accept reality when their idol is no longer the greatest. If someday Alcaraz or someone else beat Djokovic's records, I would ask them to do the same.
i think a common argument people would make is that federer was still well competitive until 2019 making slam semis and finals taking novak djokovic to five sets. It is very hard to argue that a 39 years old federer is greater than prime federer, considering he is still competitive in 2019 makes me wonder how strong the field actually is right now and how good the next gens actually are, or if prime federer came to the scene right now would he create a scene against maybe djokovic or nadal?
Djokovic fans can never reason with that. The man they hate the most and say wouldnt win more than 6 slams if he started same era as Novak was Novak's main rival most of the 2010's on hard and grass. The fact is Novak needed 2-3 wins with saving match points and that US OPEN final where he won 2 more points in total while saving(Roger wasting mostly) break points like madman while Roger being mid 30s with bad back and Novak being in his prime. Nadal hasnt won a set against Novak on hard in 10 years, Wawrinka apart from those epic 3-4 matches has barely won sets against Novak. Murray career ended somehow in 2016. Also they cant explain how 3 guys in their 30s(one late, 2 early-mid) dominated a decade in the most evolving sport ever(racquets,balls , technique, fitness,nutrition). I love how they point now to Alcaraz being greater than Safin,Roddick etc, but Alcaraz was born in 2002, what happened to players from Novak's era(1986-1988) and all those guys born in the 90s?That explains how bad competition was the last 8 years
@@SaskobestWhat you said doesn't make sense, and in fact is wrong. Djokovic won more points, won his sets easier in both USO duels where the ones who reached match-point first lost. Just watch '15 dubious weak era records', it's nearly impossible for any era to be weaker than 2001-2007.
Fascinating statistics. However Federer did personally eliminate Roddick from four slam finals of which three took place in the 2001-2007 period. (2004 Wimbledon, 2005 Wimbledon, and 2006 US Open). Giving these three finals to Roddick would give him a total of four slams, enough to meet your definition of all time great. Ofc Roddick isn’t big three level so it doesn’t really change the fact that 2001-2007 was weaker than 2011-2019.
Uh in that sense, Murray would've had 8 GS and be greater than Agassi without Djokovic.
4:55 me when Fedtards call him the goat after Novak won #23
I still remember Hewitt beating Sampras in the US Open 2001 finals in straight sets and Marat Safin beating Sampras in straight sets in the US Open 2000 finals in straight sets as well. Was Sampras so weak back then?
Actually as I remember Hewitt peaked mostly between 2000-2002 and Roddick peaked between 2003-2005. They were good for 3-5 years tops. Safin peakd probably between 2000-2004 and was the guy with the biggest potential, but he didn't really lived for the sports. Not enough training and too much partying, I guess.
That's the thing, you can name a few instances but the whole story? He wasn't great.
A former nr. one and two time Grand Slam winner? I think the slowing down of the courts mostly hurt his results because of a lack of power. He really needed the courts to be fast to use the speed he was getting as a counterpuncher. I never was much of a fan of his playstyle, but back in the day in the early 2000's he was certainly a phenomenon.
@@michelvoortman4725He was a sight to behold, great talent.
Sampras Era was the strongest ever and for Pete to win 14 in that time just goes to show you how great he really was, GS win are just numbers. You have to look at who was your competition.
Yes 👍 Djokovic is the GREATEST....and still can win minimum 8 grand slams...more so totally 30grandslams....
Federer is Federer but only one GOAT JOKER
Fed was great cos he didnt let others win and thats why his era is no weak but they wont apply the same logic to Novak. These Ded fans are the most delusional
Federer also showed his SUPERIORITY against champion players from the previous ERA like Sampras and Agassi ! he was GOOD ENOUGH . . .
He played Sampras once and was 0-3 against Agassi before Andre turned 33.
@@goatkovic nevertheless Andre and Sampras were INFERIOR players to Federer ! at least in his PRIME ! . . .
@@carlosenriquerecuerdaruiz9472 That tells us nothing
Roddick is pretty under-rated
Most players get underrated outside of the elite players. I agree on Roddick though he had a great career but most fans who talk about tennis nowadays have no perspective. A top 100 player is a great player in his own right but youtube experts discredit the average tour level players nowadays I'm sure most don't even watch tennis they probably just watch Slam finals and have daily GOAT debates.. I think Djokovic is the greatest but I won't discredit anyone and any era... Djokovic Federer and Nadal are all Tennis legends it's that simple.
Where tf is agassi. Federer had a beautiful rivalry with agassi. Including slam finals
Before you all accept these statements as hard facts, 2004 was the only year when an all-time great other than Federer did not win a Slam. In other words, Sampras and Agassi were winning slams until 2003. And Nadal and Agassi after 2005. Your most compelling argument was in a previous video citing the one-time slam champs like Gaston Gaudio. There were 5 of those during 2001-2007, which is not that excessive really.
Don’t lie! Agassi never won after 2005. Sampras and Agassi won 3 out of 12 GS until 2003.
@@fg92626 He didn't Nadal did. Just to illustrate that an all-time great was also winning slams.
@@Mr7Poz Nadal won 3 in the weak 2021-2007 era while he won 10 in the strong 2011-2017 era. that is an impressive 333% increase. Federer won 12 in the weak era while he won only 3 in the strong era that is a 75% slump in his performance.
@@fg92626 Federer peaked before yes. Nadal peaked later. Nadal won most slams on clay. The king of clay. Djokovic GOAT records are undeniable. The best player that ever lived, I would say so. But if you don't credit Federer for raising the bar, I can't help but detect complex issues.
"all the lower rank players were strong..." O_O oh Goatkovic, I do admire your analysis, but I seriously do not think that you should waste the time analyzing such low-IQ arguments. Instead, there are more interesting topics like "who should be #1 if Djokovic did not exist?"
I have watched tennis since 1985, without all this analysis , i can tell that Fed was the WEAKEST era of all time. Borg, Sampras, Djoko all Era have better competition than Roddick, Safin and Hewitt ( these 3 wont even make in top 50 all time players in my book)
Weak era began from 2018 and ended when alcaraz arrived. Djokovic took advantage of weak era to surpass Federer in most slams.
If that's the case I'm not sure what we call 2001-2007.
2:24 lol this is an example of cherry picking data at its finest. Why are you including 2001 to 2003? Roger didn't get past the 4th round until 2003 wimbledon (W). If your argument is that Federer won so many slams in weak era, why don't you use the 2004 - 2007 where he actually won his grand slams? 2004-2007 is the better indicator since he won 11 of his 12 slams in that period. Using 2004 - 2007 time period it becomes: Hewitt: 15 losses, 5 to Federer = 33%. Federer beat Hewitt when he was at the top of his game in 2004 AO, Wimbledon, 2004 US open (Grand slam final), 2005 Wimbledon (semifinal) and 2005 USO (semifinal). From 2006 and 2007 he started losing to Rafa and dropped out of top 10 from 2006. Roddick: 16 losses, 6 to Federer = 37.5%. Roger beating Roddick in grand slam finals in 2004 wimbledon, 2005 wimbledon, 2006 US open and 2007 Australian open semifinal. Safin: 14 losses, 2 to federer = 14.3%. Those numbers against Hewitt and Roddick are quite high as you can see
33% , 37% and 14% are not "high" number . Goatkovic is right , they lost mostly to other players not Federer. So it was a weak as fu.ck era
Hewitt and Safin were in their primes in 2001, Roddick had his best year in 2003. This shows that even before Roger's dominance, these guys could not dominate and lost to lower seeded players very often.
Andy Murray, from 2008-16, has lost 32 Grand slam matches, an astonishing 59% (19 out of 32) came against the big three. Now that's a player who was "prevented" from becoming an all time great.
lol, stupid arguments and none of you understood the point i was making that he is cherrypicking data. Also had another look, of the 11 titles Federer won from 04-07 he beat either Hewitt or Roddick in 7/11 of them! So in 63.6% of them he defeated at least one of them to get his grand slams. lol RIP to dumb arguments.
@@dankim9261 7/11 in a 3 year period is NOT a high number. For comparison, Djokovic had to defeat Federer, Nadal or Murray in EACH of his first 13 grand slam wins and 16 of 22 in total over a 15 year period.
Didn't know about those eras but one thing was always clear to me: Fed din't have strong rivals like Nadal and Novak. I man, Safin, Hewit, Davidenko, Rodick... Who else? Santoro, Roberto/Robredo... On the other hand: Nadal, Nole, Murray, Stan, Delpo... They were all top players and way better than Feds rivals. Not saying Fed was bad, he was one of the best ever played, but 20slams was more luck.
so thats why roddick beat novak in h2h ? novak 2008 slam champ and got destroyed by roddick in 2009 ao lol roddick destroyed both nadal and roddick in 2008 dubai atp lol davydenko beats nadal in h2h dadvydenko easily destroyed nadal in 2008 masters mia 2008 masters paris 2009 masters shanghai 2010 doha qatar 2011 doha qatar when nadal was in his prime lol tgats why you djokovic casual fans make no sense lol
@@ronmason_0896h2h doesnt mean everything😂😂
@@ronmason_0896 So you have 3 accounts to say nonsense.
Whilst I agree with this guy that Djokovic is the best player ever, I stopped watching this video when he said 'they think these three were amazing players'. This video editor probably didn't watch tennis in the 00's. In fact I am 100% convinced he did not. I did. I remember Safin being completely finished by the end of 2005, and was a non factor aside from a DC title in 07 and a Wimbledon Semifinal run. Oh, by the way, in 2008, when Safin was ranked outside the top 50 and Djokovic was ranked 3, Safin managed to beat Djokovic in the 2nd round at Wimbledon, in straight sets. Djokovic the year previous managed to make the semifinals at Wimbledon, and had just made the Queens final (losing to the eventual Wimbledon winner - Nadal). Safin's career wasn't ended by Federer, he was plagued by injury and had a very love/hate relationship with tennis. Missed pretty much all of 2003, and was done after another horrific injury in 2005. So really, Safin only had 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2004 and parts of 2005 in his actual physical prime, 2004 also being his comeback year. Federer managed to beat Safin at the AO 2004 because Safin was dead tired in the final. Think of this, Nadal in 2008 and 2010 lost to a past prime Roddick (nadal's 2008 and 2010 seasons were brilliant). Safin coming off a year layoff beat a prime Roddick who was number 1 in the world in 5 sets, then had to go through Agassi in 5 sets, and also played a bunch of tough 4 setters previously. If Safin was healthy, or cared enough about winning to take peds like everyone else does now, he would have been refreshed and would have certainly won. When they were both healthy the year later Safin beat Federer. Safin wasn't even at his best at the AO SF in 2005 when he beat Federer (although we never saw his best due to injuries in the wrong parts of his career) Safin is on a completely different level to Roddick and Hewitt. The fact is Safin at times loathed tennis and refused to fight in some matches. The man smoked off the court and partied into the night before his slam final match against Johansson. The fact is he gave no fks about losing that match either. Imagine being the number 1 player at 20, being able to crush Sampras at the US, as well as crushing Djokovic at W, and beating the unstoppable force in Federer in 2005 AO, all whilst going through life having fun, probably getting buzzed off your face in nightclubs, smoking & drinking, all for a youtuber to call you out for not being great - all whilst providing evidence of what you did after mid 2005-2007 when you are just defeated by injuries. Makes no sense.
By it's own right, he was extremely talented. However, injuries, smoking, doesn't give a fuck,... These things don't make him a better player.
@@AlanRR121 I like Goatkovic and we agree on loads of things, but lumping a guy who has beaten 4 out the 5 best players ever imo (Djokovic, Federer, Sampras, Agassi, he never played Nadal in the slams) in grand slam play, sometimes making it look effortless, in their primes or in years they were winning slams, is wrong. It is not something Hewitt or Roddick could ever dream of doing. I never said Safin was better than the other 1-5 slam champions because he smoked. Put Safin at his best against Wawrinka at his best, JDMP at his best, Kuerten at his best, Courier at his best, Edberg at his best, Roddick at his best, Hewitt at his best, and Safin would deliver a comprehensive beatdown of all of those players. If Federer was close to his best at the AO SF, and lost to Safin who wasn't at his best he was quite sloppy at times, then I don't see a world in which any of those guys beats Safin. It's really only until you start talking about Federer, Djokovic, Nadal on clay, Borg on clay, Sampras on grass and US Open, where you think Safin wouldn't be a Favourite if we played best v best. I'm literally having to name the best players ever to think of guys who would be favourite to be Safin in a peak v peak match and even then I personally think Safin would be 50/50 on hardcourts against them, maybe slightly better as I really don't see how Federer and Nadal at their best are beating Safin at his best on hard.
@@bigwengz914 Thats the thing, ‘at his best’, if you’re at your best for less than 10% of your career, you’re not really a big threat for the majority of the times to the opponents.
@@AlanRR121 Safin didn't need to be at this best to beat Federer at AO 2005, nor did he have to be at his best to beat Hewitt at AO 2005 (literally donked off the first set 6-1 and was 4-2 down in the third). Literally didn't even start playing tennis until the second set at AO 2004. Pretty much tanked the 4th set against Agassi in the SF's. There's many accounts of Safin not playing his best and winning against higher level opposition. The 'At his best' is relevant because I can name you hundreds of players that 'at their best' are never beating Federer, Sampras, Djokovic and Agassi in the majors, or hell even Kuerten at the FO (like Safin did). We aren't talking about how frequent Safin was a threat. We are talking about him being an average opponent.
In my book it’s from 2001-2009. In 2010 Nadal was awesome, in 2011 Novak was The best ever!!!
Wouldn’t this mean it was a strong era since lower ranked players were beating the higher ranked players? What is this pro-Djokovic propaganda nonsense. It’s okay the Djokovic played Berrettini and Tsitsipas in finals but not okay that Federer played weaker players?
Hewitt, Safin, Roddick were far from being the worse title contenders in this era. Watch his next 2 videos, it will address your question.
First
From 2003-2007 this is where roger achieved most of his slams as this was the period of time where casual djokovic haters like you claiming his competition was weak so you shouldnt be including 2001-2002 cause federer didnt achieved any grand slam in that period of time, you obviously did that on purpose to make federers statistic looks bad, you should focus just from 2003-2007 because thats where roger achieved most of his slams and thats the period of time where djokovic casual haters like you claiming federer is beating weak opponents and now you will get exposed of cherry picking again to all of this facts that i will show lol So from 2003-2007 there is a total of 20 grand slam and in most of those matches here are the key top opponents of federer that he faced and beat in most of those grand slam titles that he achieved from 2003-2007 federer face and beat roddick 6x in grand slam tournament federer face and beat hewitt 5x in grand slam tournament federer face and beat safin 2x in grand slam tournament Federer face and beat nadal 2x in grand slam tournament Federer face and beat agassi 3x in grand slam tournament Federer's opponent in each of grand slam tournament that he won from 2003 to 2007 2003 wimbledon semi finals, federer defeated andy roddick who became the number 1 player that year roddick also who won the us slam in that same year 2003 2004 us open finals federer defeated lleyton hewitt who was a 2 grand slam champion 2004 us open quarter finals federer defeated 8x grand slam champion legend agassi who just won ao finals in 2003 2004 australian open finals federer defeated marat safin who was a 2x grand slam champion 2004 australian open semi finals federer defeated juan carlos ferrero who was a 1x grand slam champion 2004 wimbledon quarter finals federer defeated lleyton hewitt who was a 2x grand slam champion 2004 wimbledon finals federer defeated andy roddick who was a grand slam champion and the number 1 player in 2003 and went to wimbledon finals 3x and us finals 2x and has 32 career titles 2005 wimbledon semi finals federer again defeated lleyton hewitt who was a 2x grand slam champion 2005 wimbledon finals federer again defeated andy roddick who was a grand slam champion and the number 1 player in 2003 and went to wimbledon finals 3x and us finals 2x and has 32 career titles 2005 us open semi finals federer again defeated lleyton hewitt who was a 2x grand slam champion 2005 us open finals federer defeated 8x grand slam champion legend andre agassi 2006 us open finals federer again defeated andy roddick who was a grand slam champion and the number 1 player in 2003 and went to wimbledon finals 3x and us finals 2x and has 32 career titles 2006 wimbledon finals federer defeated nadal who was already a 2x grand slam champion that year 2007 us open quarter finals federer again defeated andy roddick who was a grand slam champion and the number 1 player in 2003 and went to wimbledon finals 3x and us finals 2x and has 32 career titles 2007 us open finals federer defeated novak djokovic who won 2 masters title in 2007 and also reach 2007 wimbledon semi finals and 2007 french open semi finals but lost to nadal and also djokovic who won the ao grand slam title the next year 2007 wimbledon quarter finals federer defeated juan carlos ferrero who was a 1x grand slam champion 2007 wimbledon finals federer defeated nadal who was already a 2x grand slam champion that time So its clearly and its a fact that in those 20 grand slams from 2003-2007 where roger won most of his slams 90+% of the time federer was beating big names after big names its a fact that he was beating grand slam champion after grand slam champion opponent like roddick,ferrero and multiple grand slam champion like hewitt, safin and legend like agassi and future one of the goats nadal and djokovic from 2003-2007 where he got most of his slams The only weak opponent that federer fought was marcos baghdatis in 2006 ao finals and fernando gonzalez in 2007 ao finals and gonzalez is not weak he just destroyed nadal in 3 straight sets in quarter final of 2007 ao and nadal was already a 2x grand slam champion that time
Lol absolute irrefutable facts ! Nice bro , im not sure what are these djokovic fans smoking lol they are brainwashed by this guy its a shame, its clearly federer was beating top opponents from 2003-2007 even roddick alone better then new gen era, i wonder why this guy goatkovic dont mention djokovic most slam titles win was achieved against weak gen era lol
Lol facts ! Hahahaha so true ! specially when you mentioned about he incuded 2001 and 2002 riger never won anything in those years as we was not in his prime yet this idiot goatkovic included those years to make federer statistics bad 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 this dude was hilarious obviously a cherry picker of stats lol
facts lol so true , now he should mention djokovic most slam titles achievement against weak gen era
lololol this is si true lol ! wait for incoming djokovic casual fans with their hilarious desperate excuses lol this is irrefutable facts bro no one can argue with this facts 👍
You forgot philipousis
Novak won only 1 slam back in 2008 when federer and nadal was still younger and still on top of their game even in 2011-2014 when federer was 30+ old out of prime novak won only 6 slams and from 2015-2023 this is where djokovic won his 16 slams against new gen weak era 100÷23×16 = 69.56 70% of his slam titles and his longest number 1 record was achieved against new gen weak era, facts not opinion, this is just a proof that novak was the real weak era champ Weakest era djokovic ! For the fact that djokovic only won 1 slam like he did in 2008 from 2006-2010 back when federer and nadal was still on top of their game! And in 2011-2014 djokovic only won like 6 slams even when federer was 30+ that time and from 2015-2023 this is where djokovic stat padded his slam titles for the fact that almost 70% of his slam titles that he achieved was from 2015-2023 against weak gen era where his toughest opponents was old out of prime grandpa federer 34-40 plus years old and injury prone nadal ! This is an irrefutable facts that djokovic has the real weakest era ! Facts not opinion and not invented story ! Just the truth !
Cope harder 😂😂
Stop, stop.. he has already retired
After a painful bagel on grass from Huby Hurkacz😢😢😢
Hewitt, Roddick and Safin is nowhere near Wawrinka, Murray and DelPotro
The only thing that is left right now for butthurt Federer fans is Roger's so-called gracefulness when he played tennis, that's it 🤣.
"Federer at his peak is really about 2003 to 2007. His biggest rivals were Roddick, Hewitt, and Safin...." A bit off topic from the video, but this argument conveniently leaves out an important fact. From 2003-2007 Federer played Roddick 13 times, Hewitt 12 times, and Safin 6 times. There was a player Federer played more than any of them--indeed, more than anyone else--during that stretch: one Rafael Nadal, and he had a losing record against him (6-8).
bro your stats makes no sense
Record wise, Djokovic is the best. Who would I pay the money to watch live; Federer on all surfaces Nadal on clay court Djokovic is great at grinding it out, but it gets boring after awhile. But that’s what makes him so great, was his consistency. So all three are great. But it’s sad that People forget how good Davis Nalbandian was also. he defeated all three players in one tournament before. If I was to choose who I can play like, it would be Federer because he makes tennis exciting to watch.
who would you pay the money to fight for your life in the tiebrakers?