Is Djokovic an all-time great?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by 5555, Nov 25, 2012.

  1. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Agassi vs Djokovic on clay. Well at this point Agassi is probably more accomplished due to his FO title and 3 FO finals. However Djokovic should easily pass Agassi's career achievments on clay, and it would be a surprise if he doesnt. Djokovic already has 3 Masters titles and many other Masters finals on clay. Agassi won his one and only Masters title on clay at age 32. If Djokovic somehow wins the French this coming year it is him easily already, even with Agassi's 1 additional FO final.

    In terms of playing level Djokovic at his best is better on clay. Never seen Agassi play at a higher level on the surface than Djokovic during the 2011 clay season, or perhaps even the 2008, 2009 until RG, or 2012 clay seasons. Also nowhere near as consistent as Djokovic performed those years. Agassi would tell you clay was his worst and least favorite surface by far, while for Djokovic that would be grass.
     
  2. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,464
    For pure stroking ability Agassi and Djokovic are pretty close. I would think that Agassi at his best had slightly more penetrating groundies. However Djokovic is many levels above Agassi in mobility. I would think top Djokovic is better than peak Agassi on most surfaces, not that it's a huge difference. I would think peak Agassi would stand the best chance on the old fast uneven grass.
     
  3. cknobman

    cknobman Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    Messages:
    6,206
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia
    I think of it like this:

    Tier 1: Federer, Sampras, Laver
    Tier 2: Nadal, Borg
    Tier 3: Agassi, McEnroe, Lendl
    Tier 4: Djokovic
    (Please dont consider this a comprehensive listing)

    So marginally is 2 tiers below while slightly is 1 tier :)
     
  4. Apun94

    Apun94 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2011
    Messages:
    757
    I hope you are kidding me. Agassi played some his bets tennis in his 30s, not in his 20s. In the 20s he had so many things to figure and he was constantly going up and down the rankings. One great year, then a crap year. In his 30s he really started playing more consistently and actually made more consistent results.
     
  5. Apun94

    Apun94 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2011
    Messages:
    757
    Yes, but Nole has to deal with Fed and Rafa (clay GOAT). Furthermore, Agassi was extremely inconsistent at RG. Dont let his single RG title fool you. Out of the 10+ appearances at RG, these were his most accomplished performances. Nole has been making semis consistently here and always gets beatn by Rafa
     
  6. Apun94

    Apun94 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2011
    Messages:
    757
    Why not Djokovic? Have you seen his level in the last 2 years. Please tell me anyone of the past eras who could even hang with this guy.
    Results Djokovic is not all tim great YET, but even if he can get to 8+ slams, he is an all time great in my book simply because of the level of his game (almost no weakness, ridiculously solid off both wings) and the level of competition that he has to face (Fed, Nadal, Murray etc)
     
  7. Apun94

    Apun94 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2011
    Messages:
    757
    You may be absolutely right but the thing is that when prime Fed and "old" Agassi used to meat, it was mostly in the SF or F of the big tournys. If Agassi was no good, how did he even reach there, in the first place? Agassi played his best and most consistent tennis in his 30s.
     
  8. DropShotArtist

    DropShotArtist Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,233
    IMO Nadal's 2011 level was the best ever. Even better than 2008 overall, especially with regards to all surface domination. The record speaks for itself.
     
  9. DropShotArtist

    DropShotArtist Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,233
    Not sure how you can put Sampras above Nadal. Nadal has a career slam. Sampras is Tier 2.
     
  10. 6-1 6-3 6-0

    6-1 6-3 6-0 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2012
    Messages:
    4,657
    And Laver is above Federer.
     
  11. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,360
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    I never said Nadal was better in 2011 than 2010, only that he probably would have had similar results if not for Djokovic.
     
  12. DropShotArtist

    DropShotArtist Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,233
    No I would say Federer is above Laver. CYGS is a pretty arbitrary demarcation. Slam count is too, but less so.
     
  13. single_handed_champion

    single_handed_champion Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2010
    Messages:
    1,104
    He is top 30 all-time already in a century and a half's worth of history, and top 15 in the Open Era. That is quite good IMO, considering it all hinged on 1 insane season nobody can quite explain. All the BS about eras, equipment etc. can be trashed instantly. We'll never know how champions from other eras would have adjusted their games, fitness regimens etc. with the same (dis)advantages, just as we'll never know how much better they would have been if they had access to his miraculous methods when they were playing.

    On the basis of pure numbers, he is a worthy top-15 all-time great.
     
  14. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Agassi's best tennis was definitely not at 34 and 35 though, not even close. Maybe aged 29 when he won 3 slams, or at a real stretch aged 29-32 when he won a total of 5 combined at a stretch and alot of Masters events too, along with ages 24-25 in 94/95 which was probably his true best tennis ever, and to some degree aged 20-22 in the early 90s when he made so many slam finals, won the YEC, and won Wimbledon 92.

    1994, 1995, 1999, 2001, 2002, 1991, 1990, and probably 1992, 2000, and 1996 (up and down year but 3 Masters titles and Olympic Gold) were all better years of tennis for Agassi than 2004 or 2005.

    Agassi and Federer played in only 2 finals of big tournaments- 2003 YEC and 2005 U.S Open. At the U.S Open Agassi was there since the draw fell apart, it took him 5 sets to beat a then low ranked Blake and Robby Ginepri though to make it. He didnt beat anyone of note. As for the 2003 YEC that whole event was a joke, that Matress Matt guy who ran it those couple years had the line judges throwing a bunch of bogus calls in many of the RR matches, especialy Agassi's close defeats of Nalbandian and Ferrero to even survive his group. Most times they met it was in the quarterfinals of events. 30s is a lose term, ones best tennis does not last a whole decade, but either way you are wrong, Agassi's very best tennis by far was 1994/1995 when he was 24 or 25, 1999/early 2000 when he was 29, and to a lesser degree 1990-1992 when he was 20 to 22. When it comes to tennis in his 30s his best by far was 2001-early 2003 when he was 30-32, and a continued drop off after that. It is also funny to note Federer at 20 still couldnt score any wins over Agassi at 32, had that been Federer at 32 vs any key opponent instead I can only imagine how the forum would be going on about it.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 27, 2012
  15. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    11,151
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    I told you why I thought he wasn't an all time great yet. That's exactly what I said. He's not an all time great yet. You're trying to disagree with me, but you're not doing a very good job of it. You're also overrating Djoker's 2011 form. Yeah I said it. There are at least a couple guys from past eras who could "hang" with him. Old Fed and prime Fed can do it. Prime for prime Sampras would have a big edge on grass, fast or slow, and IMO he'd have a slight edge over Djokovic at the USO. Borg could've done it on any surface etc...
     
  16. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,568
    Not at all! Records are not completely indicative of form, and even going by records -- Nadal's 2008 and 2010 are way better than his 2011...

    You must be among those who cannot discern the difference between qualitative and quantitative measurements. Nadal's backhand, ROS, passing shots, and lateral movement all suffered at times in 2011 and all were improved upon the following year.
     
  17. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    11,151
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    See here's the thing about competition. It's a relative thing. Would Fed have been relatively serious competition for Djokovic in 2011 if he got smoked every time they played? No he wouldn't have. Regardless if he has 16 or 17 slams, people would form the opinion that he was old and washed up. If a guy totally dominates his competition, he doesn't really have competition. That's the point of being dominant. That's why you can't take anything away from someone who dominates. Because nobody can truly quantify it one way or the other. One person will say Hewitt and Roddick (for example) sucked, and the next person will say Fed was too good.
     
  18. DropShotArtist

    DropShotArtist Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,233
    I disagree. Nadal's form qualitatively AND quantitatively in 2011 was way above 2010 or 2008 IMO. Nadal's FH and serve were much better in 2011.
     
  19. Clarky21

    Clarky21 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    12,686


    All of this is ridiculous. You must have been watching Nadal from another dimension or something to come up with any of this stuff.
     
  20. DropShotArtist

    DropShotArtist Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,233
    No I was watching Nadal in all 3 spatial dimensions as well as time.
     
  21. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    11,151
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    Why? Because he lost to Djokovic 6 times in a row. Is that your new favourite number now? :)
     
  22. Clarky21

    Clarky21 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    12,686


    6 times? Try 7 times in a row. :lol:


    And no,that's not it. He just didn't play well last year and looked positively miserable to be playing tennis(and said as much with his "100 years" comment,and his comment about losing passion for tennis). Unless you think a Nadal playing well struggles with 30 year old 135th ranked Paulo Lorenzi on clay in Rome,nearly losing that match. Or unless you think Nadal playing well nearly loses to Isner on clay at RG,and has to claw his way back from 5-1 down against Pablo Andujar at RG. There are more examples where those came from as well.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2012
  23. Sabratha

    Sabratha G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    12,492
    Location:
    Australia
    Hewitt confirmed in 2005 that Federer was "just too good". At the time Hewitt was #2 in the world and had been scoring wins over many of the top ten and twenty, and had reached the final of the Australian Open that year, losing a four set final to Marat Safin after he made a great start to the match, winning the first set easily.

    Hewitt basically said he was playing his best tennis but that it just wasn't enough to stop Federer. Federer truly was a beast.
     
  24. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Hewitt and Roddick still in their primes were both overtaken in the rankings less than halfway into the year by an 18 year old Nadal who back then was serving about 70 mph, and who was 3 years away from his first hard court slam semifinal. Roddick is 1-5 vs a really old Agassi, cant play worth a darn on clay or indoors (his indoor record is far worse than Nadal, lol), and Hewitt lasted only another year and half as a top 10 player once the Federer era began, and at his peak and in his time on top in a nothing field from late 2001-early 2003 could only muster 2 regular Masters, and still had a bunch of early slam defeats. To me that would suggest they are just not that good.
     
  25. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    He is a five timmer, so he is about 30-35 all timer.
     
  26. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    11,151
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    Good points. However, I could talk in a broader sense. For example, does Nadal really have competition at RG, or is he just that good? Obviously he's beaten Federer there 5 times, and Djokovic 4 times, but there's rarely any doubt that he's actually going to beat them even though he's beating great players. There are two sides to every argument like this.

    I could also do this for Sampras's whole era pretty much. A lot of people like to talk up his competition in comparison to Federer's but was it really that much better, or was it better because Sampras was less consistent than Federer? Sampras's only half decent competition was Agassi, and even then he was up and down like a yo-yo. Courier won 4 slams before Sampras peaked, but Sampras pretty much owned him after that. Goran only won 1 slam, Rafter and Kafelnikov only 2, and Becker, and especially Edberg were past their primes. Again, 2 sides.

    I've already said this to somebody else, but I'll say it again. Explain to me how Roddick can have a winning H2H against Djokovic (and a losing one against the old Agassi in Fed's prime years no less), and a Hewitt that has too many operations to count can take sets off him at the Olympics, and the AO. After all, this is the logic we all use when it comes to determining whether prime Agassi can actually beat prime Fed, or prime Fed can basically dominate prime Djokovic is it not?
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2012
  27. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,571
    that list of greats Laver came up with is a laugh. Djokovic has a way to go before he can outrank agassi or Connors and others too.

    People jumping the gun here
     
  28. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,571
    Nadal in 2011 was lacklustre on clay, probably the worst he has been since 2005. Probably down to confidence. On grass he was better than 2010 but worse than 2008 or 2007. On hardcourt though, he was consistantly better than any other year and proved it by reaching the finals of IW,Miami and USO and giving Djokovic a much harder time than he usually did. He was more comfortable on the surface and adapted to it more.

    The thing is some Nadal fans can't accept that while he is vastly superior on clay and yes he was not playing well when he lost to Djokovic, on hardcourt Djokovic is the superior player and no matter how well Nadal plays, if Djokovic plays his best, it's advantage to Novak.

    I will say one thing though, in 2011 on every surface nadal lost his nerve. Just like Federer did vs Nadal in 2008. However it's in part down to nadal and djokovic that their nerve went.
     
  29. Clarky21

    Clarky21 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    12,686

    No they're not.
     
  30. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Just so you know I am strongly on one side in this Djokovic vs Agassi peak to peak thread or prime vs prime thread. My comparision of them:

    Better career and greater player all time now: Agassi
    Better career and greater player all time in a few years: almost for sure Djokovic
    More naturally talented player who had the greater potential: Agassi
    Longer and more consistent prime: Djokovic
    Who would win if they met peak to peak or even prime to prime: Toss up, Djokovic on clay probably, Agassi on grass, and all other surfaces quite close.

    However to answer your questions:

    -Djokovic for some odd reason seemed to hate playing Roddick. If you watch their matches the only one Roddick really just outplayed Djokovic was the Dubai one where he served everyone off the court that event, including Nadal as well. The other matches Djokovic blew with a shockingly high # of unforced errors, he had many more winners in all of the other losses even including all Roddick's service winners, and you wouldnt think Roddick could ever outrally or outsteady Djokovic. Just doesnt like something about Roddick's game but I cant pinpoint what it is. Roddick for no apparent reason though was apparently a bad matchup for Djokovic, while conversely Agassi was a nightmare matchup for Roddick. Roddick would almost rather even play Federer than an old Agassi, lol! If this shows anything maybe it shows who really is the GOAT returner though, since while Roddick didnt serve Djokovic off the court totally except for Dubai, Agassi does handle Roddick's serve like it is nothing more than Djokovic or even Federer, which is a key to the dominance.

    Lastly Roddick never played 2011 and beyond Djokovic, and I wouldnt like any version (not even 03/04) of Roddick's chances vs the Djokovic hat he has gotten over the hump of living up to his early 2008 set expecatations and gotten over those mental and fitness issues which were enormous for years even as a perennial top 3 player. People say Djokovic cant keep up his 2011 dominance which is true, but even the Djokovic of this year and of future years is a much tougher out for any less than very top tier champion than the previous one was. We will never know for sure since we never see the best Roddick (or any Roddick) vs the 2011 and beyond Djokvoic, but that is the Djokovic which will probably be referred to as peak and even prime Djokovic.

    -Old Hewitt is pretty much owned by Djokovic. Apart from the 1 Australian Open set which means very little in the big picture, all of Hewitt's other sets were on grass. Since I never rated Djokovic that highly on grass even after his Wimbledon title, and definitely feel prime Hewitt > prime Djokovic on that one surface, I am not at all surprised even an old Hewitt wins sets from Djokovic on grass. I also feel Agassi is clearly a better grass courter than Djokovic (and a better one than Hewitt for that matter, so for sure a better one than Djokovic). I will most likely feel that way (of course his playing level on grass could further improve in which case I would reconsider) even if Djokovic wins a 2nd Wimbledon, which while a deserved achievement would probably be due to alot weaker grass competition than Agassi or even Hewitt faced. On hard courts when they play it is pretty easy sailing for Djokovic, losing only that 1 set but he was never in any trouble in that match. Still on the whole Hewitt is no more competitive vs Djokovic, than a mid 30s Agassi was with prime Federer.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 27, 2012
  31. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    For once I agree with everything you said. Nadal also sadly lost his 2010 U.S Open serve which he badly needed vs Djokovic, especialy on a hard court.
     
  32. 5555

    5555 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,751
    Location:
    London
    The issue is Djokovic versus Agassi, so your question is irrelevant.

    Can you find tennis experts who said that Agassi probably would have beaten a 26 year old Nadal at FO?

    Your opinion is irrelevant because you are not a tennis expert.

    1. You are not a tennis expert, so your statement is irrelevant
    2. Agassi said that level of competition now is the highest ever
    http://www.tennisworldusa.org/Agass...-Djokovic-are-the-best-ever-articolo5863.html

    Opinion.

    I did not claim that he would not have won, and therefore I did not put burden of proof on myself.

    Have you got proof that Laver was not honest or sober when he made that list?
     
  33. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,568

    Careful Clarky; don't hurt them with too much logic and observation... LOL
     
  34. Cup8489

    Cup8489 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    9,268
    Location:
    Silvis, IL
    Coming from a guy who never uses logic and observational elements in any argument he ever makes = rich.
     
  35. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,568

    Accept? I've stated the same thing as far as prime vs prime (both players playing well with their 'normal' or median strengths and weaknesses).

    However, as far as peak level on a hard-court; I have not seen Nole match Nadal's 2010 USO performance. 2010 USO Nadal beats the best I've seen of Nole on a hard court, even on the relatively slow plexicushion of the Aussie Open. However, i will admit that 2010 USO has thus far proven to be a one-off for Nadal. But, since it did happen; it is not a hypothetical (we all saw it with our own eyes)...

    The best match that I've seen between Nole and Nadal, both playing extremely well (close to their best), on a neutral surface (2nd best for each) was the 2008 Queen's final. One of the best matches ever IMO, and essentially sums up where I think their levels meet and compete against one another. Even though it was a straight sets win for Nadal, it was an extremely close match.
     
  36. cknobman

    cknobman Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    Messages:
    6,206
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia
    No in my opinion Sampras is Tier 1.

    Sampras stays above Nadal for his years @ #1 and slam count.
     
  37. The-Champ

    The-Champ Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2007
    Messages:
    6,541
    Location:
    Sweden
    You brought up Nadal in a question about Agassi/Djokovic. I brought up Federer. YOu started it.


    Can you find tennis experts who claims Agassi would not have beaten a 26 year old Nadal?


    Appeal to authority, logical fallacy denying the fact that even the so-called tennis experts have personal bias. Infallible tennis experts like mcenroe claims that Nadal is a better volleyer than Federer, which is wrong.

    My personal opinion as I have stated earlier is that Djokovic is ALREADY an all-time great. That however is irrelevant because I am no tennis expert. Who do you consider a tennis expert in this forum? No one here plays professional tennis or coached a pro, so why the f*ck did you start this thread?
     
  38. jokinla

    jokinla Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,705
    Define expert? I played D1, Satellites in the early 90's, no I didn't make it on the main tour, but I taught and played at a very high level.
     
  39. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,571
    He hasn't done jack compared to Lendl, Connors and others. Maybe he will, but he hasn't yet. I am subscribing to a linear idea of time here, maybe you are not :lol:

    Well I don't disagree with everything you say, there usually is something in there I can see the logic in :lol:

    I disagree that Nadal's level at the US Open was better than any HC level Djokovic has played, though don't get me wrong, it was far off if at all. But 2 things - 1, Djokovic at his best wouldn't let Nadal play as well as that for the whole match. In the US Open final Djokovic played some great tennis but he was playing not to lose rather than win. After winning the 2nd set he was pretty much spent and didn't have the mental strength to fight Nadal off and was just trying to hang on to his serve which he failed at (he was also rebuilding his serve which didn't help - in contrast Nadal was serving at his best) I think a better Djokovic would have fought his way back in, not saying he would have won, but he didn't really manage to ask a big question of Nadal, he never found a way to make him doubt he was going to win.

    lus even if the level was higher, I think that's not a normal level for Nadal on hardcourt. His normal best vs Djokovic's normal best usually would mean a win for Djokovic on HC. Nadal's supernatural best might be better, but then who knows if Djokovic has that extra once in a career best somewhere down the line.

    To be honest I don't think there really is a nuetral surface for them and if there is I don't think it's grass since it's Nadal's 2nd best maybe, but Djokovic's worst surface. Te most neutral could be a certain type of hardcourt (maybe Miami or AO) or Madrid where the clay doesn't favour Nadal as much as usual. That 2009 semi was so close between them. Also Nadal wasn't his best and neither was Djokovic at his best yet. I think at Queens Nadal was in some of his very best form and Djokovic wasn't the player he is now. So I'd say Madrid 2009 which Nadal won in a 3rd set tiebreak saving match points after 4 hours play.
     
  40. Apun94

    Apun94 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2011
    Messages:
    757
    TBH, I really do think that you have forgotten how good Nole was in 2011. You have forgotten that he had that crazy unbeaten streak in which he destroyed Fed 3 times, defeated Nadal on clay twice without losing a set(!) and played his best during pressure situations. It's funny how everyone on this forum remembers and sometimes exaggerates Fed's prime but quickly disregard how good Nole was in 2011 and how well he has played in 2012 also.
    NO ONE from the past era could have stayed with Nole 2.0 Maybe Sampras if conditions favour him but thats only because of his serve. No one else. PERIOD.
     
  41. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,568
    Finally something we agree on...
     
  42. DropShotArtist

    DropShotArtist Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,233
    From what I recall old man Fed beat Nole 2.0 (in a slam no less!) when he was going for a huge record, i.e. highly motivated to win. Imagine what prime Fed would have done to Nole 2.0. Straight setter no doubt.
     
  43. 5555

    5555 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,751
    Location:
    London
    I brought up Nadal to make the point that it's wrong to say Agassi is better clay courter than Djokovic because Andre won FO and made 2 finals while Novak never won FO and reached just one final there. Level of competition is very important factor. Agassi in 1999 won FO against Medvedev in the final. Djokovic in 2012 failed to win FO as he lost against Nadal in the final. For tennis experts it's between Nadal and Borg who is the greatest clay courter of all time, Medvedev is not in that discussion.

    Now, tell me why did you brought up Federer in debate "Djokovic versus Agassi on clay"?

    I did not say that Agassi would not have beaten a 26 year old Nadal.

    I did not commit logical fallacy because I did not claim that (in this case) expert's statements are facts.

    I started the thread in hope that posters will quote opinions of other tennis experts.

    Tennis expert is a person who is very knowledgeable about tennis.

    1. Can you prove it?

    2. Even if you are a tennis expert, your statement is not a fact. It's a matter of opinion whether level of competition in 1970s and 1980s is higher than now. You think it is, but Agassi disagrees.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2012
  44. Apun94

    Apun94 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2011
    Messages:
    757
    Umm... ****, that was only ONE match. What about The other 4 matches in which Nole lost only 3 sets???? You biased ****s only remember the FO match...
     
  45. Clarky21

    Clarky21 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    12,686


    No bias coming from you is there. None at all. :lol:
     
  46. anantak2k

    anantak2k Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 1, 2007
    Messages:
    587
    Location:
    Miami, FL
    Nole 2.0 almost lost to 30 year old Fed in 2 slams!
    Honestly, I do not see him beating prime Fed as amazing as he was in 2011.

    People call players in Fed's era weak but I feel that they are currently much weaker. Where are the players like Nalbandian or Haas (I mean Hass at what 35 or 36 is still in the top 25 isn't he?) or Coria who never won slams but were at least threats to top players at slams? Not to mention Roddick, Ferrero, Safin and Hewitt.

    The best outside the top four from this group are probably Berdych and Tsonga (I would throw Ferrer in there but even Ferrer is from the Fed generation). Then we have trash like Tipsy and Almagro in the top 10 (almagro is one of my absolute favorites btw).

    The new and upcoming players look even worse. I think if Djoko can stay healthy he can still continue winning slams well into his 30s from the looks of it. At which point he will definitely be considered one of the greatest no doubt.
     
  47. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,360
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Federer wasn't playing very well by his standards for alot of 2011 though. I think peak Federer would have the edge over peak Djokovic on most surfaces. It would be close though, Djokovic defends very very well.
     
  48. DropShotArtist

    DropShotArtist Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,233
    Slams are where the players try the most. EVen idiot Nards can't deny that. So let's see against Nole 2.0 Fed loses at AO, beats him at FO and had him beat at USO, despite losing. I'd say prime Fed would have quashed Nole 2.0 easily in all 3 matches (maybe AO would have gone to 4 only if it was only the new slower surface).
     
  49. Mike Sams

    Mike Sams Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2011
    Messages:
    5,270
    Every player meets their boogeyman sooner or later. If not for Nadal, Federer might have 23 majors right now for all we know. If not for Djokovic, Nadal might be tied with Sampras right now. Heck if not for Federer, Murray might be at 4 Slams right now. See how this works? :lol:
     
  50. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,360
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    I was just saying Nadal's form in 2011 was still very high. The competition apart from Djokovic wasn't exactly stellar either.
     

Share This Page