Is Djokovic an all-time great?

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

I'd say yes, because Djokovic is a part of the greatest rivalry in world history, Nadal-Djokovic.

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by 6-1 6-3 6-0

I'd say yes, because Djokovic is a part of the greatest rivalry in world history, Nadal-Djokovic.

ever heard of El Clasico?

[vllaznia]

Originally Posted by merlinpinpin

You, my friend, are now deep in self-pwnage territory thanks to this gem...

So, following that logic, when you take into account the level of competition, it's only a matter of opinion whether Rod Laver is a better player than, say, John X, a veteran from the local Ponca City, Arkansas, tennis club. It is not a fact. Hence, if Laver can't be proved to be a better player than a guy who never entered any competition and whose game basically sucks, he can't be said to be a tennis expert, can he? Hence, his opinion isn't worth squat. So this whole thread is irrelevant.

Also, your "level of competition" law says that my John X could be a better player than your Novak D, and John X, who never played a professional match in his life, sure isn't an all-time great. So how could Novak D, who you can't prove is a better player than him, be one?

Well done!

You are wasting your time my friend, 5555 is not gonna comprehend that.

[KevinB9986]

I think it would be interesting if they had different types of tournaments for different type of rackets. Have some all wood racket tournaments. Then have different tournaments with the modern rackets. Probably will never happen, but to me it would be interesting and make it easier to compare players of today with the players of the past.

[merlinpinpin]

Originally Posted by vllaznia

You are wasting your time my friend, 5555 is not gonna comprehend that.

Don't worry, I know that.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

Again, I mean mainly performance against the field. Djokovic won 3 titles on clay, 2 masters. He straight-setted Nadal in both. H2H with Fed would be competitive, no doubt, but I'm talking big picture. In my opinion, with both of them at their peak I see Djokovic having a slight edge.

Also, form differs from one match to another. It's not all black and white. While Federer was past his peak in 2011, in that match he was inspired and played his best match in a couple of years. One match isn't a massive sample size by any means. 2012 Djokovic was worse than 2011 Djokovic,and 2012 Federer was better than Fed of 2011, yet the result was reversed. Not saying Nole would win the majority of clay meetings by any means, but it would be close and against the field I think Djokovic would have the slight edge (since winning clay masters often means beating Nadal in the final, and Djokovic has a higher chance of doing that.)

As a Fedkovic fan I'd find them playing each other in their respective primes mouth-watering, I'll say that

how does djokovic have an advantage against the field on clay ? he has a grand total of 1 F at RG, suffered upset losses to melzer/kohlscreiber there.... federer since 2003 hasn't had such losses @ RG ...he has 1 W and 4 finals @ RG ...

djoker is also 1-3 vs ferrer on clay, federer hasn't lost to ferrer on clay or anywhere else for that matter ....

djoker has a matchup edge vs nadal on clay when compared to federer, that's it , but against the field in general ? I don't think so ... I think fed has the edge in that one ...

[5555]

Originally Posted by merlinpinpin

No way Laver was serious (or sober) when he made that list.

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

Originally Posted by merlinpinpin

You, my friend, are now deep in self-pwnage territory thanks to this gem...

So, following that logic, when you take into account the level of competition, it's only a matter of opinion whether Rod Laver is a better player than, say, John X, a veteran from the local Ponca City, Arkansas, tennis club. It is not a fact. Hence, if Laver can't be proved to be a better player than a guy who never entered any competition and whose game basically sucks, he can't be said to be a tennis expert, can he? Hence, his opinion isn't worth squat. So this whole thread is irrelevant.

Also, your "level of competition" law says that my John X could be a better player than your Novak D, and John X, who never played a professional match in his life, sure isn't an all-time great. So how could Novak D, who you can't prove is a better player than him, be one?

Well done!

Originally Posted by vllaznia

You are wasting your time my friend, 5555 is not gonna comprehend that.

You and merlinpinpin do not know what word "fact" means. Go back to school and educate yourself.

Originally Posted by jokinla

if you'd like I could send you a signed poster, unfortunately the gear I have I'm not getting rid of, unless you want an old pair of stretched out socks.

That's not proof. I could get socks from an pro as well as a poster signed by him, and then send it to you as "proof" I'm that player.

So, I ask you again: can you prove that you were a professional player?

I never said anything about the level of competition between the two eras.

Yes, you did here http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showp...1&postcount=85

Originally Posted by The-Champ

Those tennis experts regard Nadal and Borg and as the greatest ever on clay because of the number of titles they have on the surface.

Is it a fact?

Now, those same experts would regard Agassi as greater on clay than Djokovic

Is it a fact?

Nobody gives a crap about competition.

"Djokovic, 24, broke that record this year by going 43 games unbeaten, ending with a semi-final loss to Roger Federer in the French Open in May. But McEnroe believes tennis is harder today than it was 27 years ago. He told the BBC in May : "There is more competition, more athleticism, deeper fields and more depth in the sport. "So his record is even more impressivethan mine."" http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/14896786

Fact, only titles count.

It's a matter of opinion what counts. In 2006 many tennis experts said that Federer is greater player than Sampras even though Federer had 9 slams at that time.

- I brought up Federer just to show you how absurd your speculation is, that had it not been for Nadal, Nole would have won the FO by now. If Federer had been 25, you wouldn't know if Nole would have had 3 majors in 2011.

I did not say that Nole would have won the FO by now had it not been for Nadal.

So why did you bring up Medvedev and Nadal into this?

I explained why in my previous post.

Fact: Agassi has 1 FO and two finals.

It's a matter of opinion whether Agassi is greater clay courter than Djokovic.

Yes you did! you've been spewing the same nonesense everywhere, that only experts' opinion are relevant.

Can you explain why "only expert's opinions are relevant" means "expert's opinions are facts"?

Here's one expert opinion (Macenroe): "Nadal is a greater volleyer than Federer".

Can tell me which tennis expert is always right?

Why can't you do that yourself?

In my opening post I quoted 6 tennis experts.

Are their opinion facts?

No.

[merlinpinpin]

Originally Posted by 5555

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

I won't post it here, obviously, as I wouldn't want to ruin his reputation (more than he did on giving this list, I mean--and than you did by copying it here).

Originally Posted by 5555

Do you really need to repost things that prove my points? You would do better by arguing against them (of course, you'd be hard-pressed to do so, considering you were the one who set yourself up for this pwnage in the first place, but hey, you can still try by saying that it was a mistake, that you wrote that bs about perception of level of competition negating all facts while you had been abducted by aliens, that the NSKzilla army of clones stole your account, etc. It's bound to be entertaining, at least...)

[merlinpinpin]

Originally Posted by 5555

That's not proof. I could get socks from an pro as well as a poster signed by him, and then send it to you as "proof" I'm that player.

You could also get socks from a troll and a poster signed by him and send it to this forum to proove that...

No, wait. You don't need that!

[sansaephanh]

I think if they speed up the courts again and shorten the tennis season a little we can see the modern era really shine.

[Sabratha]

Djokovic is top 20 all time.

[jokinla]

Originally Posted by 5555

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







You and merlinpinpin do not know what "fact" is. Go back to school and educate yourself.



That's not proof. I could get socks from an pro as well as a poster signed by him, and then send it to you as "proof" I'm that player.

So, I ask you again: can you prove that you were a professional player?



Yes, you did here http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showp...1&postcount=85



Is it a fact?



Is it a fact?



"Djokovic, 24, broke that record this year by going 43 games unbeaten, ending with a semi-final loss to Roger Federer in the French Open in May. But McEnroe believes tennis is harder today than it was 27 years ago. He told the BBC in May : "There is more competition, more athleticism, deeper fields and more depth in the sport. "So his record is even more impressivethan mine."" http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/14896786



In 2006 when Federer had 9 slams, many tennis experts said that he is greater player than Sampras who won 14 slams. So, no, it is a matter of opinion what is the criteria.



I did not say that Nole would have won the FO by now had it not been for Nadal.



I already explained why in my previous post.



It's a matter of opinion whether Agassi is greater clay courter than Djokovic.



Can you explain why "only experts' opinions are relevant" means "experts' opinions are facts"?



Can tell me which tennis expert is always right?



Are you blind? Did you see my opening post?



No.

That says nothing about the level of competition between the two eras, but then again, the first sentence of this thread quotes Agassi, yet he didn't say it, the author of that article did, obviously reading comprehension isn't available to 55555555555555555555555555555555555555.

[Gonzo_style]

Originally Posted by Clarky21

Yep,he's beating up on old man Fed, washed up Nadal, and head case Murray. Great stuff indeed.

Clarky, this is pathetic.

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by abmk

how does djokovic have an advantage against the field on clay ? he has a grand total of 1 F at RG, suffered upset losses to melzer/kohlscreiber there.... federer since 2003 hasn't had such losses @ RG ...he has 1 W and 4 finals @ RG ...

djoker is also 1-3 vs ferrer on clay, federer hasn't lost to ferrer on clay or anywhere else for that matter ....

djoker has a matchup edge vs nadal on clay when compared to federer, that's it , but against the field in general ? I don't think so ... I think fed has the edge in that one ...

Oh, overall I completely agree, Federer is a far better claycourter and will most likely end up with better credentials on clay.

However, at Djokovic's peak, I think his performance against the field on clay would be better than Fed at his peak, if they were both playing at their peaks at the same time. Remember that how they match up with Nadal is a huge, HUGE part of it, because if they wanna win titles on clay they'll have to go through Nadal so that's a massive piece of the pie.

[5555]

Originally Posted by merlinpinpin

I won't post it here, obviously, as I wouldn't want to ruin his reputation (more than he did on giving this list, I mean--and than you did by copying it here).

You failed to provide proof that Laver was not honest or sober when he made that list, so you lost yet another argument.

Do you really need to repost things that prove my points? You would do better by arguing against them (of course, you'd be hard-pressed to do so, considering you were the one who set yourself up for this pwnage in the first place, but hey, you can still try by saying that it was a mistake, that you wrote that bs about perception of level of competition negating all facts while you had been abducted by aliens, that the NSKzilla army of clones stole your account, etc. It's bound to be entertaining, at least...)

1. Pwnage? You lost virtually all arguments against me

2. I repost things that prove your points? A fact is something you can prove. Can you prove that when level of competition is taken into account Connors is greater player than Djokovic?

Originally Posted by jokinla

.............

You said that you were a professional player. Can you prove it?

That says nothing about the level of competition between the two eras

You said that Borg, McEnroe and Lendl were tougher to beat than Djokovic's rivals, so your comment is about the level of competition between the two eras.

but then again, the first sentence of this thread quotes Agassi, yet he didn't say it, the author of that article did, obviously reading comprehension isn't available to 55555555555555555555555555555555555555.

That's just one instance. I quoted sources many times since I became user on TW, I you found just one instance when I got it wrong. So, no, that's not enough to prove that my reading comprehension is poor.

[Clarky21]

Originally Posted by Gonzo_style

Clarky, this is pathetic.

No it's the truth.

[batz]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

ever heard of El Clasico?

Or Rangers v Celtic?

[jokinla]

Originally Posted by 5555

You failed to provide proof that Laver was not honest or sober when he made that list, so you lost yet another argument.



1. Pwnage? You lost virtually all arguments against me

2. I repost things that prove your points? A fact is something you can prove. Can you prove that when level of competition is taken into account Connors is greater player than Djokovic?



You said that you were a professional player. Can you prove it?



You said that Borg, McEnroe and Lendl were tougher to beat than Djokovic's rivals, so your comment is about the level of competition between the two eras.



That's just one instance. I quoted sources many times since I became user on TW, I you found just one instance when I got it wrong. So, no, that's not enough to prove that my reading comprehension is poor.

I said those three are all time greats, nowhere does it say they were tougher to beat. Less trolling, more reading, you can do it.

[5555]

Originally Posted by jokinla

............

You said that you were a professional player. Can you prove it?

I said those three are all time greats, nowhere does it say they were tougher to beat. Less trolling, more reading, you can do it.

My queston:

Originally Posted by 5555

Can you prove that when level of competition is taken into account Connors is greater player than Djokovic?

Your answer:

Originally Posted by jokinla

Yeah I can prove it, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl are all time greats that he had to contend with

Why did you say "Yeah I can prove it"?

[cknobman]

Originally Posted by Sabratha

Djokovic is top 20 all time.

After 2011 and 2012 I would also think that he has moved himself into top 20 (maybe only 25) all time.