To Fed fans who talk about weak opponents for Djokovic
- Thread starter Lew II
- Start date
vex
Legend
No amount of crying inflation era will save u my friend. We exited the inflation era in 2008.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
By bots, dummies and willfully deluded such as yourself, that is. Somehow the most tennistically knowledgeable posters typically argue in the same general direction as I do, hmm.
I am of course aware of the resulting radicalisation and division by echo chambers, sadly enough. Realise y'all brought this about by cotinually postulating such statements as benefit your idol the most while staying within the chosen framework, conveniently tweaking the details as the situation requires to fit the new results in, wins or losses. All the more disappointing to see normally intelligent posters like yourself fall into the pit. Even Hitman is getting defensive, dark times are upon us.
vex
Legend
Please, most posters don’t even bother responding to you. You’re almost in Sabratha territory
Noleberic123
G.O.A.T.
No but he would have lost to Rafa at Wimby 2018. So he wouldn't have gotten to Anderson anyway. And to probably both Rafa and Medvedev last year at the USO. And to Federer at Wimby 2019. He would've still lost to Thiem at the FO probably. And he probably loses to Thiem this year as Thiem is a bad match up for him and Djokovic was a joke mentally back then.
The point is Djokovic from 2012-2014 would win 2-3 slams less than this current Djokovic did in this timespan.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
2018 WB - 2019 AO contained some strong title runs, sauf Cincinnati but Djovak deserved it for making six finals. Post-2019AO was all bleh, no matter if Fred won WB it would've still been wobbly tennis similar to 2018 AO.
TearTheRoofOff
G.O.A.T.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
TearTheRoofOff
G.O.A.T.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
Readers of this thread, you should bring some popcorn or some other kind of snack food like I did when checking out these last few pages. It works.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
Typical post lol when you don't have anything else to say supported with facts.
Calling a player who has won 5/7 slams and is world #1 for unremarkable is some armchair level posting.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Now that's an example of a strong era GOAT (ironical as it is as Marlowe and Johnson were regarded higher at the time, so Shakespeare lost in direct comparison but won in the course of history).
mike danny
Bionic Poster
You really shouldn't speak about this since Novak has never had a 6 year younger ATG to deal with.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
No guarantee Nadal beats him. You also have to take into account Novak was still coming back at Wimb 2018 which is why he struggled so much woth him.
He isn't losing to Thiem, come on. Wawrinka is better at dealing with Djokovic than Thiem is.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
I like how the word stalemate contains stale in it. The standoff is growing stale by the day indeed. Everyone has locked horns. I feel like following @NatF saying Pancho is the true GOAT, if mostly to snub the entire quarrelsome debatefield - though I do believe he has a place in goat discussions still, man was a rock in his day.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Djok has been untemarkable in his last 2 slam finals. Sleepwalking for 2 sets and not paying the price wouldn't have worked in 2011-2013.
TearTheRoofOff
G.O.A.T.
Perhaps history will be so kind to Fedr.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
Nobody was talking about slam finals specifically.....
TearTheRoofOff
G.O.A.T.
Your best efforts don't always correlate with your best results. Watching the tennis should elucidate this, but only for those willing to entertain the idea. Remember, I myself mean 'unremarkable' relative to precedent. Compared to what we've seen from all of the Big 3 in the past, I think the word is somewhat apt for Djokovic's recent performances, by and large. By the same token, Fed was unremarkable at AO 2018.
Some talk like there was a light switch moment and suddenly in 2008 competition got tougher hence why Fed’s stats all dropped.
If Fed brought his 2007 form to 2008 he probably wins 2+ slams, 2-3 masters, YEC.
2009 was better but IIRC he had injury issues at start and end of year so his best spell was clay - USO stretch.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
Playing unremarkable tennis for 3 and a half years winning 5 slams and being #1 doesn't sound very probable. That's what you said. I'd call Djokovic in 2017 unremarkable. That's a player far from his best both physically and game wise.
I think the past always seems to get overexaggerated. Much like what nostalgia does to one.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Federer had free reign from 2001-2004, with no dominant ATG in the way. We can even extend that from 2001-2006 on hardcourt and grass. It is on him that it took him until 2003 to make his move to take his place at the top. Any Federer fan complaining about Djokovic benefitting the most now is surely gaslighting considering the road he had to take to reach the top. Federer has won 3 Slams since 2017, when the level fell off a cliff, Nadal has won 5 and Djokovic has won 5. So they basically all benefitted but that doesn't even include that the level has not continuously stayed well below par for every Slam. Overall, Djokovic's road has clearly been the toughest if we are being totally honest.
Noleberic123
G.O.A.T.
Even though Novak was coming back he played really well. Nadal played one of his best matches at Wimby ever and would have crushed any version of Djokovic from 2012-2014. Especially 2012-2013.
But is Wawrinka a better player than Thiem? I'm not so sure. Wawrinka deals better with Djokovic slightly better but Thiem is better against Fedal.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Since Queens 2018, Djokovic has won 88% of his matches and 78% against the top 10. Unremarkable? Dude get out of town. Lol.
TearTheRoofOff
G.O.A.T.
I've told you a million times not to exaggerate.
Ahem...
I said but for a handful of standout performances or WTTE. That's going to cover some big matches/tournaments.
TearTheRoofOff
G.O.A.T.
How well did he play to win all of those matches? Probably informed by implicit statistics within a transient system.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Thiem has already achieved more than Wawrinka outside of Slams. Give 2019 RG Thiem Wawrinka's RG 2015 draw and give 2020 AO Thiem Wawrinka's 2016 USO draw and he'd have 2 Slams.
Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil
Talk Tennis Guru
Why be an idiot and say a Slam is a Slam when you can make such constructive criticism and say it's been all pathetic play rewarded in an inflation era. I don't know why we still watch this tennis thingy...
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Pretty darn good. Let's not pretend he played every match as bad he played in the 2019 Wimbledon final to win his titles. He was pretty near spectacular in 2018 Shanghai and 2019 AO, and very good in 2018 Wimbledon and 2018 USO. Even this past tournament, he served better than he probably has in his life going into final, averaging 105 mph on the 2nd serve. Unremarkable? Hell no.
Noleberic123
G.O.A.T.
Yeah I think Thiem is the better player but Wawrinka is the greater player for the moment. Remember, Wawrinka was nobody important at 26 so Thiem still has time.
Noleberic123
G.O.A.T.
Honestly, he would've crushed anyone but Thiem in the final. People forget how good he was leading up to the final. I think the match up issue is the reason he struggled in the final.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
He was amazing going into the final. The commentators were going bonkers over his level. He had an off day, said his energy level fell off a cliff, and many want to pretend he was terrible the whole tournament. He wasn't. He won depsite playing his worst match in the final. Thiem matches up well with him but the Djokovic from earlier in the tournament would have won that in 4 straightforward sets.
RelentlessAttack
Hall of Fame
I can be serious for a post or two.
My gripe is with all 3 of these guys walking around with ridiculously inflated resumes relative to historical peers. I often say that Roger was the first beneficiary of surface homogenization. People generally understand that Roger had it pretty easy at the beginning, and people generally understand that Nadal’s resume is clay inflated. Because big 3 and slam race mania has now consumed everything and there are no young stars to talk about, there is not the same recognition of the current weak comp, esp from 2017-present with the drop off of Murray and Stan. Federer left his prime in 2013 and Nadal in 2014 and they’ve still faced little resistance from anyone other than Djokovic.
As for the toughest road, Nadal has an argument as well, since he took down actual peak Federer and then shortly after had to deal with peak Djokovic, all while sharing all of the contemporaries of both. They are both more talented tennis-wise than he is so I see his road as the biggest overachiever against the odds. The difference is generally irrelevant anyways because they mostly shared an era.
The void of young talent that we’ve seen for the past decade is unprecedented in all of sport, and combined with steady changes in conditions over the past 17-18 years has led to a mockery being made of the record books. It is what it is, and is basically a consequence of mistakes made by the ATP. Baseball banned aluminum bats, hockey limited the size of goalie pads, the NFL limited defensive structures, etc. A league or association has to manage its product or risk killing off its entertainment value forever.
When you people come out with crap like “physical decline doesn’t matter, these guys just keep improving” while ignoring the presently disastrous state of the sport, its frankly embarrassing for you.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
It's mainly those where he has been unremarkable, not the whole tournaments.
TearTheRoofOff
G.O.A.T.
Meh, think what you will.
I think I really like the word 'unremarkable' now I think about it. It has a wonderfully negative tone to it, without actualy meaning anything proactively derogatory. A real Jimmy Rustler.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
As of now, Wawrinka was able to win 3 slams with the Big 3 still playing. Thiem will have to wait for them to permanently decline in order to win slams.
RelentlessAttack
Hall of Fame
It’s only typical because it’s the cold, hard truth.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
But in the last 2 slam finals specifically, he has been unremarkable.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Its the only sensible choice.
TearTheRoofOff
G.O.A.T.
Won despite playing his worst match in the final, with no energy, against the 26 year old best of the next, who apparently matches up well against him. I suppose there are two main conclusions you could make, and I'm not placing bets on which because the odds will be garbage.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
I think Federer fans take the cake with the embarrassment when they come up with stuff like Djokovic has benefitted the most because it's just silly. Also, who is the people that said physical decline doesn't matter? Surely you need to address them with your rebuttal because I never once said that. I said being younger does not necessarily mean automatic victory and it doesn't. Also, these guys have improved certain aspects of their game as if we should ignore that just because they've declined physically. "You people" just don't like it when someone blows up your claims that 2006 Federer would own every corner of the tour today or that 30+ is decrepit and you're too far from your best to be dominant. The rest is just a lot of redirection and spinning.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Well good for you. Lol. The word has no place in the sentence where you placed it, however.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Well then say that instead of saying he was unremarkable for 3 and half years when he won 5/7 Slams. Lol
TearTheRoofOff
G.O.A.T.
2006 Federer would probably own every corner of the tour today. As would 2011 Djokovic.
TearTheRoofOff
G.O.A.T.
Oh it absolutely does. Djoker has demonstrated far more magic in the past. Perhaps he spoiled me.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Yes he lost energy but are we going to ignore that his level went up in sets 4 and 5?
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
2006 AO Federer wouldn't even make the final. Lol.
Noleberic123
G.O.A.T.
Who knows. Djokovic likes to let lesser players win slams sometimes.
Djokovic has had 5 straight weak years. Sucks for him that he got injured/lost motivation in 2017 or whatever, he may have the slam record by now.
Noleberic123
G.O.A.T.
Federer at the AO in 06 was trash. But he would be the favourite at Wimledon and USO against current Djokovic.
Similar threads
