There no doubt Nole is the best ever in Australia now
- Thread starter 90's Clay
- Start date
If he gets one more and he should, i agree. Currently just equal to fed to me
Tropikal_Knights
Banned
well have to agree here......Lance is just too strong down under.......
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Countless? It is 3 times, 1 more than Fed (if you wish to include 5 set matches as being taken to the woodshed)!
Dark Magician
Professional
He sure is the best on plexicushion. He can be called arguably the best IMO.
djokovic2008
Hall of Fame
I'm sorry but that is the kind of sentence I'd expect from a twelve year old.
He has the same number of titles as Federer, but Federer - due in part mostly to his greater age and therefore longer career - has more consistency. Djokovic has four titles and his next best result is two quarterfinals. Federer's been in, what, like 10 straight semifinals? Along with a runner-up. I'm sure Djokovic will overtake Federer and Agassi by winning a fifth title, but at the moment, I don't think there's a clear choice between the three.
Amelie Mauresmo
Banned
Yes, Novak proved it by winning three Australian Open titles and having four overall he's definitely the king of Melbourne. No disputing this fact.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Sure, you can still make an argument for any of the 3.
However, Novak won 3 in a row which for me personally puts him at #1 regarding AO.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
So is Federer the best at Wimbledon and the US Open since he won almost all of his titles in succession?
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Definitely is, and only ****s would disagree, but everyone knows it. He has won 3 in a row which neither Federer or Agassi could do, although Agassi did win 3 in a row he played atleast, and he has beaten the crap out of Federer twice in a row there. Agassi would be my choice for 2nd, it is too bad he missed so many Australians or he would probably be first for now (I say for now as Djokovic will likely end up with about 6). Federer is third best in the Open Era.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Sure, Fed winning both 5 Wimbledons and 5 USOs in a row is one of the most impressive feats in his career for me, It's very hard to dominate a slam year after year.
I agree that's phenomenal.
On the other hand, people like NadalAgassi will make this argument for why Federer is not the best Australian Open player but then use the opposite argument to prove why Sampras, for example, is better than Federer at the U.S. Open. "Only ****s" indeed.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Federers 5 U.S Open wins I concede is amazing, especialy as these days the mens field mostly focuses on hard courts. His 5 Wimbledons also is but here I am more impressed with Borg the clay courter winning 5 in a row there vs a deeper grass field on true grass, and Sampras winning 7 of 8 there vs a much deeper grass field on true grass.
Nice try but I dont say Sampras is the best ever at the U.S Open. I have said IMO his pure level of play is the best ever on any medium to fast court, but that is different than saying he is the greatest. One could say Safins best tennis is the best ever on slow Australian hard courts (already proved it was better than Federers by beating Federers very best at the 2005 Aussie) but that doesnt mean he is close to the best ever there. I picked Connors as the Open Era best ever at the U.S Open since he won it on grass, clay, and hard courts, an incredible feat, and winning it once and reaching 3 straight finals in its only three years on clay, by far his worst surface, was a particularly amazing feat. However all time best ever at the U.S Open is probably Bill Tilden, with his 7 titles.
Last edited by a moderator:
kragster
Hall of Fame
Just curious, why do you value consecutive slams so much? If the total number of slams won is the same, you could make the case that winning slams over a longer stretch is also impressive as it shows longevity and an ability to compete against likely different competition. In theory, shouldn't it be just as impressive to win a slam across your preprime prime and post prime as it is to win it consecutively during your prime?
Personally I value the sum total of achievements more than I value whether it was done all in one bunch or spread across .
Pistol Pete
Semi-Pro
I wouldn't say he has taken FED to the woodshed. Tight straight sets.
But yes he is doing well in Australia. Still has a ways to go as being an all time best ever. He only has 2 more slams than courier now. Jim had 4.
But yes he is doing well in Australia. Still has a ways to go as being an all time best ever. He only has 2 more slams than courier now. Jim had 4.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Pretty much this. I'd say that Agassi has the worst case of the 3 as 2 of his Australians had pretty easy draws (but he beat Sampras at his best in the other 2), he has no additional finals and no consecutive streaks. He still won 3/3 editions he entered in 2000-2003.
Djokovic has 4 titles, 3 of which in a row. His next best results are quarterfinals which isn't that great. He also has the best wins - beat Murray 3 times at the AO, Federer twice (both in straight sets) and Nadal in that epic final, so technically he is 6-1 against the other members of the top 4 with his only loss coming in 2007 to peak Federer. I expect Djokovic to win at least 1 more Australian so he's gonna be the AO GOAT anyway with the most titles.
Federer also has 4 titles but most finals with 5 (tied with Edberg) and a streak of 10 years where he reached at least the SF which is insane. He's also the only player ever to win an AO without losing a set.
dudeski
Hall of Fame
Didn't Federer play only one time in his prime against Djokovic at AO? In 2007 and he won in straight sets. Yep.
90's Clay
Banned
Nole wasn't in his prime in 2007 though.. What was he 18 or 19? ROFLMAO
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
He was also the #15 seed. Djokovic only started to join the real upper echelon that summer. Anyway Djokovics prime is looking to be 2011-2015 or 2016 (with his peak years being 2011 and one or two years not yet known), so Federer was right in his prime and Djokovic a good 4 years from the start of his, and several months before even being a top 10 player for the first time at the time of that match. Even the 2008 Australian Open was Federer only barely past his **** designated prime, and Djokovic 3 years from the start of his, and Djokovic spanked him good (of course the mono excuse, yada yada).
dudeski
Hall of Fame
2008 mono Federer wasn't is his prime. Same with 2011.
RF20Lennon
Legend
NOPE its still Fed. The only player to have won on Rebound Ace and Plexicushion :twisted:
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Djokovic was in the top 10 for the first time on March 19th 2007. So since Djokovic and Federer played at the 2007 AO on January 21st your "several months" doesn't even turn out to be 2 LOL. The rankings didn't matter btw. Since the beginning of 2007 Djokovic was playing like a top 5 player, him getting to the top 5 was just a matter of time.
And Djokovic was definately at the start of his prime. He lost at the AO to Federer, lost in Dubai to Federer (even took a set), lost in the Indian Wells final to Nadal, then beat Nadal in Miami to take the title and since then reached the FO semis (lost to Nadal), Wimbledon semis (lost to Nadal) and he's been top 4 ever since. You don't achieve it when you're not in your prime.
And stop jumping to conclusions, Djokovic's prime will probably be 2007-2014 just like every other player in history has an 8-year prime period like Federer in 2003-2010, Nadal in 2005-2012, Sampras in 1993-2000 etc.
Last edited:
forzamilan90
Legend
Yep, Novak is made to rule these Australian Open courts. A worthy champion, and I'm sure he'll win here again to get the open era all to himself. Might even beat Emerson's record one day.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
No. Sampras lost the match when he lost the 4th set as he was never going to beat Agassi in 5. He even got breadsticked.
forzamilan90
Legend
All 3 of them (Andre, Fed, Nole) have their selling points for AO GOAT imo. For Andre, it's winning three of them in his late 20's and early 30's. For Fed, he has titles on both rebound ace and plexicushion. Nole has 3 in a row.
Probably I'd give the edge to Nole. Obviously if he wins another he'll be undisputed AO GOAT.
Probably I'd give the edge to Nole. Obviously if he wins another he'll be undisputed AO GOAT.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
So now Federers prime lasted until 2010. I have NEVER heard you or other Federer fans say this before. The future cannot be told yet, but I also would be surprised if Djokovic starts a major decline only 1 year from now. Does he look even close to slowing or breaking at this point? Meanwhile even if he did he and Murray especialy would still be in the top 3 or 4 and fighting for all the big titles until 2016 atleast, as there is nobody coming up that would get there until 2016 or 2017 atleast, people like Raonic and Tomic are too weak and so one has to look at generations younger than them who are still in juniors. Djokovic could decline technically and in speed and reflexes, and he would still probably be a better player than he was even in late 2007-2008 (let alone 2009/2010) based on mental toughness and fitness alone. That period his mental toughness and fitness was so far removed from what it is now, and that was really the only thing holding him back, and the huge difference in him as a player in general. Back then despite being top 3 he was largely known as a major headcase and a soft egg when it came to lasting in tough matches and tough conditions.
The main point though is until Indian Wells nobody thought of Djokovic as a top player. At the time of the 2007 Australian Open he was still a total nobody. One only has to compare that match to their matches in summer 2007 to see how much Djokovic had already improved by then, despite it bein g the same year.
Last edited by a moderator:
RF20Lennon
Legend
I honestly dont think he is. He is tied for titles with Andre and Fed.
Gonzo_style
Hall of Fame
I agree, with 3 consecutive titles and two victory against Federer Djokovic is best AO player.
Both players are better than Agassi...
Both players are better than Agassi...
kishnabe
Talk Tennis Guru
Djokovic was part of the pack in IW and Miami 2007. Australia was not too far away....that could mean he could play as capable as his summer 2007.
2007 encounter was legit against the last 2 weeks of Peak Federer. Federer destroyed Novak...and would have done the same to today's Novak.
Federer20042006
Banned
If Federer had beaten Safin in the 2005 SF, he'd have won 4 in a row.
Let's see Djokovic against in-form Safin. Wait, we've seen that before...and it wasn't pretty from Djokovic's end.
Just saying.
I'll agree that accomplishment-wise, Djokovic is probably going to be the greatest ever at the Australian Open. Who knows how it would've played out if they stayed on rebound ace, though.
Let's see Djokovic against in-form Safin. Wait, we've seen that before...and it wasn't pretty from Djokovic's end.
Just saying.
I'll agree that accomplishment-wise, Djokovic is probably going to be the greatest ever at the Australian Open. Who knows how it would've played out if they stayed on rebound ace, though.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Prime Federer couldnt even destroy young Novak, in their first ever meeting that Novak was a top 3 player, at the 2007 U.S Open on a much faster hard court; and in fact Djokovic should have won the first 2 sets, blowing tons of set points. Yet you think prime Federer would destroy a much much better Djokovic on a much slower hard court, LOL!
Past his prime Fed, beat God mode Djoker on clay, much slower than any hard court.
kragster
Hall of Fame
True , which is why you can't say either way what would happen conclusively. If you combine existing H2H with overall credentials, of course in general you would favor prime fed over prime Nole on any surface outside of slow hard courts.But at the AO , I think it would be really close. Depending on whether Nole wins an FO or not, I'd say clay could be quite close too. Grass , prime fed would be a huge favorite and fast HC I'd give fed a 60-40 lead.
And Federer proceeded to practically own Djokovic at the US Open making him look like a total clown until Djokovic stepped his game up and Federer's game dropped abit. Either way, there's no doubt you could not favor Djokovic against Federer on a HC with both at their best; at best you could make the argument it is an even match-up.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Djokovic was in no God mode that day, and that also means nothing. First off clay has nothing to do with slow hard courts, otherwise Nadal would dominate slow hard courts which he doesnt. They are totally different surfaces.
Second off that is only one match. ****s dispute that 3 time Roland Garros winner is a better clay courter than 1 time Roland Garros winner Federer despite that crippled semi retired Kuerten crushed prime Federer at the 2004 French, so they more than anything already set the standard 1 match alone proves nothing conclusively (despite their inconsistencies trying to use 1 match examples favoring Federer while any that go against him).
Third off both prime and pre prime Djokovic has generally dominated post prime Federer on clay or any slower court. Federer has what, only one win over Djokovic in about 7 matches on slow courts (slower hard courts and clay) since 2009 now. Even in 2008-2010 Djokovic was winning most of their slow court meetings.
Lastly by your logic if post prime Federer had beaten prime Nadal at the 2011 French, which he actually had chances to do, and it was probably their most competitive match there, it would prove prime Federer is obviously better than prime Nadal at the French and on clay, which of course we all know and was proven numerous times over is far from the case.
Last edited by a moderator:
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Not all HCs are the same. Overall on hard courts Federer is better of course since he is way better on faster hard courts, and they are still close (although IMO Djokovic better) on slower hard courts. There is a World of difference for outstanding defensive players who are also offensively capable facing Federer on a slower hard court vs a faster one though. Just look at Nadals record vs Federer on slow hard courts (he is up something like 4-1) vs faster ones (something like 1-5), and Nadal is nowhere near as good a hard courter on any speed as Novak.
NatF
Bionic Poster
He's the best plexicushion player ever obviously, but I'm not sure I can rate his 3 in a row over Federer's longevity when considering the rebound ace era. 10 semi finals in a row, an extra final appearence and the same number of titles is an impressive record. Agassi also would have won more if he played at the AO more as well. I feel like part of the reason some are eager to anoint Nole as the AO GOAT is because they expect him to rack up a few more titles there. Which no doubt he will.
I'd say with respect to Agassi and Federer, Djokovic is only on their level. He will surpass them by leaps and bounds though IMO.
I'd say with respect to Agassi and Federer, Djokovic is only on their level. He will surpass them by leaps and bounds though IMO.
RF20Lennon
Legend
Federer with wouldve won Aussie 2009, 2010, 2011 for sure. I dunno about the rest
Similar threads
