Federer's era of dividends.

Neel4141

"One, Federer's win rate in the first five years of his career was just a little over 60%, at least ten percentage points lower than Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray. Moreover, he didn't win any Grand Slam titles. Whether it's due to a lower starting point or strong opponents, it clearly indicates that he didn't benefit from the era when he started.

Two, in 2003, he luckily won his first Grand Slam, and at that time, he wasn't the strongest player. It can't be said that he benefited from the era.

Three, his domination in 2004 was challenging, breaking his mental barriers to defeat his nemesis (Hewitt, Nalbandian), and competing against tough opponents to win championships. Did he benefit from the era then?

Four, in 2005, Nadal emerged, and from that time until 2010, it was the era of the two giants (12 Grand Slam titles for Federer and 9 for Nadal, 16 Master's titles and 18 year-end championships for Federer). Did he benefit from the era during this time?

Five, from the age of 30 onwards, from 2011 to 2016, he faced the strongest opposition in history, and it's certain that he didn't benefit from the era. However, in 2017 and 2018, he benefited from a transitional period and won three Grand Slam titles.

Friend, what do you think?"

Iti9

Tsonga, Berdych, and others have thwarted Federer at Wimbledon in '11 and the US Open in '12! It's not that Djokovic is so formidable; some players born in '85 are also capable of defeating him.

Indra55

In 2019, Federer gave Djokovic a chance, but it seems Federer wasn't very effective.

Kabir903

Djokovic has won four Grand Slam titles without injury, both inside and outside the court.

Yamini003

Wimbledon seems to be paving the way for baseline players.

Ritu13

Nadal's continuous Grand Slam wins indicate that his opponents are not strong enough.