Djokovic: best player for the last two years!

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

So what is your point? This was a comparision of Djokovic and Roddick. Anyway on your last point, Nadal has done 10 times more damage to Federer's career than Federer to Nadal's, in fact Federer is almost irrevelant to Nadal's career. Federer cost Nadal probably 1 slam, while Nadal cost Federer about 8 or 9. Nadal's problem was always the field, Federer was never an issue or big worry.

"Unlucky, unlucky, oh yes," uncle Toni said. "If there wasn't Federer, perhaps Rafael would have been No. 1 for four years. But with Federer, that was impossible."

[zagor]

Originally Posted by 1477aces

Its okay guys, this was mostly just idle trolling.

You don't say.

Originally Posted by 1477aces

I still do feel that if the rain gods hadn't cursed him, roddick would have walked away with around 4-5 slams and fed would have only got around 10-13.

Blame it on the rain gods then, it still doesn't change anything.

Originally Posted by 1477aces

I'd say roddick would have beat novak on fast grass, and on other fast surfaces like cincinatti.

And peak for peak Novak would beat him on slow & medium HC and roflstomp him on clay.

Originally Posted by 1477aces

My point is that roddick would likely have kept brad gilbert had he beat federer in the 04 wimbledon final, so he would have kept hitting and being agressive.

I do agree with that, Roddick's biggest career mistake was firing Gilbert and reverting to his junior defensive style play, in that sense I agree he underachieved because he didn't keep up with the playing style which has brought him most success.

Originally Posted by 1477aces

Novak is a pusher

He's a baseline controller.

Originally Posted by 1477aces

...he tried to win early on without pushing, and then around early-mid 2010 when he was fading away, he realized that in today's game you need to push to win (only fed still defies this because he is one of the top 3 easily all time, I'd go with goat due to his consistency), so he made the switch, his results started to pick up, making his first wimbledon semifinal since 07, beating federer down matchpoint to the make the 2010 u.s open final, and then dominating 2011. You are right, I have to admit, that djokovic was a better player than roddick could have been, however, roddick got unlucky at times, whereas djokovic got lucky to be able to play a fed with mono possibly, and then getting to play a past-prime fed (do you really think that at the age of 29.5+ fed was prime). Djokovic has beat nadal in a slam final 3 times, however nadal too had begun his decline with injury just like bjorn borg, and this was off of clay. Roddick in 2010 played nadal very closely, and this was nadal's best year on tour, on faster surfaces. Ultimately, early on roddick was too temperamental, and it cost him. I will say this though, federer minus rain<nadal minus injuries, but nadal's injuries are at least partially due to his playing style and durability is a part of greatness, and as for the rain delays, federer only took what was given to him, whereas others did not.

FFS man, paragraphs, ever heard of them? Anyway, you also make your own luck, all that matters is the end result and Novak reached heights Roddick never did and never even potentially could have, that's not a knock on Roddick who was a terrific player but Novak is in a different league.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by Povl Carstensen

"Unlucky, unlucky, oh yes," uncle Toni said. "If there wasn't Federer, perhaps Rafael would have been No. 1 for four years. But with Federer, that was impossible."

Considering Nadal couldnt produce decent results on anything but clay in 2005, 2006, and most of 2007, if there was nobody else to take #1 without Federer, then that only proves how massively dire the competition in the Federer era was (something all but ****s know already anyway).

[Povl Carstensen]

Still Federer was nr 1 this year, 5-7 years of of his peak.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by Povl Carstensen

Still Federer was nr 1 this year, 5-7 years of of his peak.

Not #1 when it counted, at the end of the year, a long way from his former dominance, and a long way from the dominance Serena Williams who is exactly the same age enjoyed (rankings BS of the WTA aside). If you say that is because the womens field is currently weak, well that also shows you understand how much a weak field makes it easier to dominate, as was the case for Federer in 2004-2006 as well. The fact you are even talking about Nadal being #1 in 2005 and 2006 without Federer, when outside of clay he was a joke of a player at that point, says it all about the level of players in the Federer era and the quality of Federer's contemporaries really.

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Anyway on your last point, Nadal has done 10 times more damage to Federer's career than Federer to Nadal's.

I guess one can ponder whether it is worse to have the record for most weeks at nr 1 and a negative h2h to a surface goat, or to be a surface goat but delegated to nr 2 for a record nr of weeks.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by Povl Carstensen

I guess one can ponder whether it is worse to have the record for most weeks at nr 1 and a negative h2h to a surface goat, or to be a surface goat but delegated to nr 2 for a record nr of weeks.

I guess one can ponder whether it is worse to lose an additional 8 or 9 slams to someone (Federer to Nadal) or lose about 1 slam because of somebody (Nadal to Federer). I would have figured Nadal doing far more damage to Federer than vice versa is something so obvious even the stupidest of ****s would accept, but never underesimate Planet TW ****ville.

Djokovic is the one who has done by far the most damage to Nadal's career, not Federer. Without Djokovic, Nadal would likely be very close to Federer's slam record today, and likely to break it within the next 2 years. After all he did what Federer almost never do to Nadal, deny him major titles. Djokovic also kept Nadal from further time at #1 when he was actually really a potential #1 caliber player, not a clay only player producing crappy slam results at all but RG, who would only have been #1 (maybe) due to the abysmal joke field that is Federer's age peers in the mid 2000s.

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Not #1 when it counted, at the end of the year, a long way from his former dominance

Oh did not realise the date mattered. And yes, a long way from his peak. Federer has proved his level over time. Loosing three GS matches of clay still has left him with 17. Don't know where you got the number 9 from, when they have only met 8 times at GS.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by Povl Carstensen

Oh did not realise the date mattered. And yes, a long way from his peak. Federer has proved his level over time. Loosing three GS matches of clay still has left him with 17. Don't know where you got the number 9 from, when they have only met 8 times at GS.

Since if Djokovic and Federer met in the 2010 U.S Open final, Federer was winning that one for sure. I know he lost to Djokovic in the semis, but that was a semifinal, when Federer knew he would have to play Nadal in the final, and he played a really bad match that day too, and wouldnt have played that poorly 2 days in a row hypothetically, or certainly in a slam final facing someone not named Nadal. Djokovic was not in any form that year really (was #7 in the race which is unheard of for him), was majorly low on confidence, was serving really weak, and even on one of his better tournaments/matches of the year wasnt in anywhere near even his 2007-2009 form, let alone 2011-2012, and not playing well enough to beat Federer or Nadal in a slam final. So that is the hypothetical 9th, but I say 8 or 9 since Djokovic probably beats Federer at this years Australian anyway, so more likely 8. Actually come to think of it Djokovic might well have beaten Federer at the 2008 French too, so make it 7 or 8 (with Djokovic almost certainly winning the 2012 Australian, and probably winning the 2008 French too), still a huge difference from 1 or 2.

[SuperDuy]

Definately he is. Nobody better.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

I guess one can ponder whether it is worse to lose an additional 8 or 9 slams to someone (Federer to Nadal) or lose about 1 slam because of somebody (Nadal to Federer). I would have figured Nadal doing far more damage to Federer than vice versa is something so obvious even the stupidest of ****s would accept, but never underesimate Planet TW ****ville.

Djokovic is the one who has done by far the most damage to Nadal's career, not Federer. Without Djokovic, Nadal would likely be very close to Federer's slam record today, and likely to break it within the next 2 years. After all he did what Federer almost never do to Nadal, deny him major titles. Djokovic also kept Nadal from further time at #1 when he was actually really a potential #1 caliber player, not a clay only player producing crappy slam results at all but RG, who would only have been #1 (maybe) due to the abysmal joke field that is Federer's age peers in the mid 2000s.

Yes but wouldn't you say Fed had an excellent shot at winning 2008 AO and 2011 AO titles if Novak hadn't beaten him there? So he almost damaged Fed's career as much as he did Nadal's, the difference is one slam basically and as crazy as it may sound at this point, I still would have given Fed a shot against Nadal in 2011 USO if not for Novak (not in 2010 obviously), maybe 20-30% chance at most but still a chance.

[Murrayfan31]

Just like the song. Ain't No Other Man. Djokovic is the king.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by zagor

Yes but wouldn't you say Fed had an excellent shot at winning 2008 AO and 2011 AO titles if Novak hadn't beaten him there? So he almost damaged Fed's career as much as he did Nadal's, the difference is one slam basically and as crazy as it may sound at this point, I still would have given Fed a shot against Nadal in 2011 USO if not for Novak (not in 2010 obviously), maybe 20-30% chance at most but still a chance.

That is true, other than a couple more hard court majors really doesnt add much to Federer at this point. He is already considered the overall hard court GOAT. Whereas Nadal kept Federer from being a top 5 clay courter of all time, an insurmoutnable forever slam record of 24 or more slams, and created a stigma about Federer's career. Yes though I see your point, Djokovic has probably cost both Federer and Nadal several majors.

I also agree Federer had a decent chance vs Nadal in the 2011 U.S Open final, 30-40% I would say, although Nadal would still be thrilled to face Federer in the final and not Novak. The ironic part about your 2010 obviously not is that most ****s on this forum believe Federer would have beaten Nadal even in 2010 (completely delusional and ridiculous I know but that is their reality apparently). It is nice to talk to a sane Federer fan for once.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

That is true, other than a couple more hard court majors really doesnt add much to Federer at this point. He is already considered the overall hard court GOAT. Whereas Nadal kept Federer from being a top 5 clay courter of all time, an insurmoutnable forever slam record of 24 or more slams, and created a stigma about Federer's career.

That's true but I wasn't comparing the damage Novak did to Fed's career to the damage Nadal did to (it isn't even close) it but rather comparing the damage Novak did to Fed's career to the damage he did to Nadal's.

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Yes though I see your point, Djokovic has probably cost both Federer and Nadal several majors.

Yes and the damage is comparable IMO.

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

I also agree Federer had a decent chance vs Nadal in the 2011 U.S Open final, 30-40% I would say...

Well let's say Fed would have had a 30% and presume Fed would have won 2008 AO (mono or not, Fed was still terrific when dealing with big hitters back then) and 2011 AO (Murray was a mental mess in the final) and presume Nadal would have won 2011 Wimbledon (Nadal served great in the final and Tsonga has a poor ROS) and 2012 AO (I don't think Murray would have had enough left in the tank had he won his marathon against Novak).

That leaves us with Novak taking 2 slams from each with 70% of taking 3 slams from Nadal and 30% of taking 3 slams from Fed which is why I say it's comparable (the damage).

In short Nadal may be standing on 13-14 slams now if not for Novak but the Fed's slam record he'd have to chase would be 19-20.

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

although Nadal would still be thrilled to face Federer in the final and not Novak.

Oh I have no doubt about that, even Toni admitted he thinks "they" would have won USO if Fed beat Novak.

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

The ironic part about your 2010 obviously not is that most ****s on this forum believe Federer would have beaten Nadal even in 2010 (completely delusional and ridiculous I know but that is their reality apparently).

Well my personal opinion is that while Nadal overall as a player is obviously different to guys like Safin or Krajicek his 2010 USO performance is similar to Safin's 2005 AO and Krajicek's 1996 Wimbledon in that while there are plenty of players in tennis history who are overall much better USO, AO and Wimbledon players respectively they all IMO reached the level in those specific tourneys comparable to anyone who ever played the game.

In short, it would take peak Fed firing on all cylinders to beat Nadal in the form he displayed that tourney and I feel it would take similar from other USO open greats as well (such as Sampras, Connors, Lendl etc.), that doesn't mean Nadal is overall comparable to them as a player at USO but IMO his 2010 USO level is comparable to their best levels at that tourney.

Now that doesn't mean for example Novak's win over Nadal in 2011 USO or Murray's win over Nadal in 2008 weren't wins over a peak Nadal - they were, one tourney doesn't constitute a peak (otherwise we could say Fed wasn't at his peak in all of his AO wins but 2007 which he won without dropping a set), 2010 USO performance was a one off, even if Nadal wins another USO in the future I doubt he'll ever match that level of play.

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

It is nice to talk to a sane Federer fan for once.

It's hard to define sane but thanks anyway.

[vllaznia]

Originally Posted by zagor

Well my personal opinion is that while Nadal overall as a player is obviously different to guys like Safin or Krajicek his 2010 USO performance is similar to Safin's 2005 AO and Krajicek's 1996 Wimbledon in that while there are plenty of players in tennis history who are overall much better USO, AO and Wimbledon players respectively they all IMO reached the level in those specific tourneys comparable to anyone who ever played the game.

In short, it would take peak Fed firing on all cylinders to beat Nadal in the form he displayed that tourney and I feel it would take similar from other USO open greats as well (such as Sampras, Connors, Lendl etc.), that doesn't mean Nadal is overall comparable to them as a player at USO but IMO his 2010 USO level is comparable to their best levels at that tourney.

Imo you are overrating Nadal on his usopen 2010 performance. He was playing very good but dont forget that he played Verdasco in the quarterfinals and Youzhny in the semifinals not really impossible opponents.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by vllaznia

Imo you are overrating Nadal on his usopen 2010 performance. He was playing very good but dont forget that he played Verdasco in the quarterfinals and Youzhny in the semifinals not really impossible opponents.

I'm not saying Nadal didn't have a weak draw (relatively speaking) and that his opposition may have made him look even better than he was to a degree but just focusing on Nadal's game in that tourney, his serving, transition from defense to offense, movement etc. it is my opinion that the level of play he reached in that tourney is comparable to peak level of play of much better overall USO players than him.

[1477aces]

Originally Posted by zagor

You don't say.



Blame it on the rain gods then, it still doesn't change anything.



And peak for peak Novak would beat him on slow & medium HC and roflstomp him on clay.




I do agree with that, Roddick's biggest career mistake was firing Gilbert and reverting to his junior defensive style play, in that sense I agree he underachieved because he didn't keep up with the playing style which has brought him most success.



He's a baseline controller.




FFS man, paragraphs, ever heard of them? Anyway, you also make your own luck, all that matters is the end result and Novak reached heights Roddick never did and never even potentially could have, that's not a knock on Roddick who was a terrific player but Novak is in a different league.

Novak is a pusher, just watch him play. He is in terrific physical condition and when he is one, he won't even miss shots on the run. That's why he is the best player of the last 2 years. However, this pushing style from novak would have got him nowhere in 03-04 because the courts were faster and they were way more big hitters who would have their good days when they would not be beaten by a pusher.

[1477aces]

Originally Posted by djokovic2008

Do you really believe that? if so you need to watch more tennis, Fed himself has called djoker a shotmaker and I can show you many a clip of djoker crunching winners from all over the court from both wings. If you think you can get to the pinnacle of pro tennis by pushing why don't you have a go!!

You have to be in great shape, and besides "pushing" by pro standards probably means hitting the ball harder than most of us can. Djokovic used to go for his shots and all, but around 2010 he converted to pushing and look at the success it has brought him.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by 1477aces

Novak is a pusher, just watch him play.

I have watched more Novak matches than I can remember and no he isn't a pusher (not even a pro equivalent of a one).

Originally Posted by 1477aces

He is in terrific physical condition and when he is one, he won't even miss shots on the run. That's why he is the best player of the last 2 years.

No, terrific physical conditions is merely one of the reasons for Novak's success.

Terrific ballstriking, one of the best ROS on tour (some would say ever), great at changing the direction of the ball, transition from defense to offense, fearless mentality on big points etc.

Aside from overhead, volleys and slice Novak's game is incredibly technically sound, it is amazingly hard to break him down or pin him down to one wing to open up the court.

Originally Posted by 1477aces

However, this pushing style from novak would have got him nowhere in 03-04 because the courts were faster and they were way more big hitters who would have their good days when they would not be beaten by a pusher.

Oh please, the courts may have been slightly faster in those days but the major slowdown of the game occurred in early 2000s (in 2002 the most) and Novak at his best is a nightmare for big hitters, he exposes their movement like no one else. He is somewhat vulnerable to all-court players and those who vary pace/spin a lot and have a great feel for the ball (junkballers, like Murray or Fed for example) but not to big hitters.

[jones101]

Wozniacki loses to world 103 Pervak in Brisbane.

The slide continues...