Enceladus
Legend
Stan is a poor matchup for Djoker and Murray, with Lendl behind him (before hip surgery), proved to be an unpleasant opponent.
Have people finally understood how gigantic the difference between an amazing player and a mediocre generation like this one is?
- Thread starter InsideOut900
- Start date
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Yes, and none of the 90's guys are as good as even them.
RelentlessAttack
Hall of Fame
You remember seeing peakovic gassing all over the court and giving up on rallies due to a few 30+ shot exchanges?
mike danny
Bionic Poster
He did that yesterday after only one, while in the 2012 AO F he only did after 5+ hours of play.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
The second set yesterday was not an easy set in any universe. So if this is your point it's a very bad point.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
It was still only 1 set.
NeutralFan
G.O.A.T.
Novak played 8 hours in two days with less than 20 hours of rest and after the match he said he could have gone for hours( Rome final 2021) stamina is the last thing Novak has regressed in.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
"27 year old Med lost in easy straights to 36 year old Djokovic."
Are you going to dig in and defend that statement?
RaulRamirez
Legend
Perhaps so, and 2009 Wim was a memorable final - obviously, much more strongly contested than this one.
Here's the thing: If your supposition and bias is that a 36-year-old can't possibly play as well as a 27-year-old (assuming players of similar stature, like Fed and Novak) - and you don't deviate from that, you'll never lose an argument.
But of course, there are no immutable laws at work here, and many of us have been down this path many times.
The summary of my position is that, yes, most players are better at 26-27 than they are at 36-37, but it's not always the case. What they may lose in sheer physicality, they can make up in other ways -- mentally, tactically and even emphasizing different parts of their game. And perhaps most importantly, older versions of Djokovic and to some extent Roger and Rafa could arrange their schedules to peak in slams. Being 10 years older than their former selves, they weren't necessarily the same beasts week in and week out, playing a fuller schedule. But they can bring it in slams.
So, did Med utterly fail? If you need him to win and Novak to lose, then he did.
I thought Med was absolutely brilliant in defeating Alcaraz in the semis. Either he couldn't bring the same effort in the finals (what Med, himself, described as playing an 11 out of 10) or Novak wouldn't allow him to because of how he executed yesterday.
I rarely focus on draws, but as it turned out - both on paper and with regard to upsets - the top half (Alcaraz, Medvedev) of the draw was much tougher than the bottom (Djokovic. Rune...became Shelton), which helped Novak. In 2021, Novak had the tougher upper half (Zverev, but he was playing very well) than Med (Tsitsipas...became FAA).
RelentlessAttack
Hall of Fame
Explain the second set to me yesterday
Enceladus
Legend
The other half of truth is that Djoker and also Fedal have been aided by advances in sports medicine and rehabilitation, which have kept the Big 3's bodies in competitive shape and allowed the Big 3 to utilize the wealth of experience they have accumulated over the years. I've been writing here for a long time that the Big 3 are stronger players in their 30s than their ATG predecessors were.
InsideOut900
Legend
Even eliminating some of the pre-fabricated opinions on age, it's really hard to equate Wimbledon 2009 Fed and USO 2023 Novak.
Firstly considering how Federer is the grass GOAT and his peak there is among the highest peaks for a player on any surface, him playing a good, though less than peak match in 2009 is easy to equate to a still great performance.
And the general dynamic of the match, with both serving very well and the baseline play emphisizing the attacking tennis supports this.
By comparison, Novak is a very good USO player, but always tendes to have his struggles there even when he plays well.
Generally speaking a well playing Fed on grass > a well playing Novak in NY, even removing any age barrier or other things.
But the true point against Med is how Roddick nearly beat Fed, while the russian gently rolled over in sets 1 and 3 and missed his biggest chance when the match was close.
Probably the crux of the argument is more down to the fact prime versions of these guys were still greatly challanged and I think you can agree with me here that those prime versions were damn fine on the court, so it goes against nature that someone is now old and yet less challanged. You would have to make an argument they retained their prime strengths and improved further on other attributes.
And there is literally plently of evidance, hundreads and thousands of tapes of matches from the past where the level from the baseline was just amazing. But watching years in a row of diminished intensity with the occasional eye-popping winners and fun points trains the eye into taking spectacular points over sustained consistency or normalizing the standard of play on the current tour.
Like Medvedev being an unfailible backboard or Thiem and Raz just outpeaking everyone when they can get their attacking game going. And then these guys play less than their A game and you realize they can be beaten at the strengths they are known for, sometimes when the big 3 version isn't quite in the zone.
I can readjust my eye to enjoy the tennis played by the current players, so it's not really a matter of not enjoying what's put in front right now, but it's still somewhat problematic when players who proved inferior by both objectives and subjective analysis get a lot of credit.
Sorry for the long and possibly disjointed comment, I kind of felt like spilling my entire thoughts-stream about this since I also made the OP on the same topic
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Two easy sets and one tough set (really half a set, Djokovic started with three straight love holds) still make for an easy match overall. Three easy sets would've been a rout.
NeutralFan
G.O.A.T.
You know more than Novak himself? He played 8 hours in two days in Rome and said he could go for the hours, but okay! As for the second set Go ask Murray , he has seen second set like scenario decades ago.
metsman
G.O.A.T.
Talk about missing the Amazon jungle for a bush.
metsman
G.O.A.T.
At the end of the day, Alcaraz this year has proven himself to be worse than a 36 year old Djokovic, who himself is probably about 3 tiers down from his prime. So Alcaraz is at best 3 tiers down from a prime ATG, and likely even worse since Djokovic needed to play a very poor match at Wimbledon that prevented him from sweeping Alcaraz this year. So either he has an unprecedented improvement, or that's the lens we have to view tennis through when Djokovic inevitable croaks.
Fundamentally, it's a natural human instinct to elevate the present, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but people will never wrap their heads around it. Tennis has the unfortunate distinction of being a third rate sport talent wise with still a large global presence which leads to pure idiocy across the board.
Fundamentally, it's a natural human instinct to elevate the present, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but people will never wrap their heads around it. Tennis has the unfortunate distinction of being a third rate sport talent wise with still a large global presence which leads to pure idiocy across the board.
RaulRamirez
Legend
It's a good post, and since I am not known for my brevity (as a writer, I'd love to be paid by the word here), it would be quite hypocritical for me to complain about length.Even eliminating some of the pre-fabricated opinions on age, it's really hard to equate Wimbledon 2009 Fed and USO 2023 Novak.
Firstly considering how Federer is the grass GOAT and his peak there is among the highest peaks for a player on any surface, him playing a good, though less than peak match in 2009 is easy to equate to a still great performance.
And the general dynamic of the match, with both serving very well and the baseline play emphisizing the attacking tennis supports this.
By comparison, Novak is a very good USO player, but always tendes to have his struggles there even when he plays well.
Generally speaking a well playing Fed on grass > a well playing Novak in NY, even removing any age barrier or other things.
But the true point against Med is how Roddick nearly beat Fed, while the russian gently rolled over in sets 1 and 3 and missed his biggest chance when the match was close.
Probably the crux of the argument is more down to the fact prime versions of these guys were still greatly challanged and I think you can agree with me here that those prime versions were damn fine on the court, so it goes against nature that someone is now old and yet less challanged. You would have to make an argument they retained their prime strengths and improved further on other attributes.
And there is literally plently of evidance, hundreads and thousands of tapes of matches from the past where the level from the baseline was just amazing. But watching years in a row of diminished intensity with the occasional eye-popping winners and fun points trains the eye into taking spectacular points over sustained consistency or normalizing the standard of play on the current tour.
Like Medvedev being an unfailible backboard or Thiem and Raz just outpeaking everyone when they can get their attacking game going. And then these guys play less than their A game and you realize they can be beaten at the strengths they are known for, sometimes when the big 3 version isn't quite in the zone.
I can readjust my eye to enjoy the tennis played by the current players, so it's not really a matter of not enjoying what's put in front right now, but it's still somewhat problematic when players who proved inferior by both objectives and subjective analysis get a lot of credit.
Sorry for the long and possibly disjointed comment, I kind of felt like spilling my entire thoughts-stream about this since I also made the OP on the same topic
I guess that we've both put our opinions out there abundantly, and I'm not sure we'll convince one another on areas of which we don't agree. You don't have to convince me of how great Fed was, particularly on grass. And while these things are hard to measure, I would agree ...mostly everyone would...that Fed was a better player at Wimby than Djokovic was/is at the USO. And when Roddick is serving lights-out, it seems that he could beat anybody on HC or grass, with the notable exception of Roger. Not 100%, but you get the point...mostly that I see your point here.
(One of the ironies of this thread is that, usually, various rivals of Big 3 players (we all know the names) are used to either prop up or tear down one Big 3 player or another. and now, it's almost being done in reverse, as not many truly care if Medvedev is judged to be better than Roddick or vice versa. It's all done by proxy. While imperfect, I really try not to do this for anyone, as I respect all these players. Of course, I'm not immune to comparing players, but I try to do it with objectivity and without derision.)
Anyway, there are things upon which we agree, but the point that I've made, almost ad nauseum, about Novak (especially) being about as good as he was 10 years ago (if only at the slams, as he knows how to peak for them) is one that I hold to because that's my honest opinion. There's no way, of course, to prove or disprove this. I do get tired of all the negativity, though. I'm not even that much of a Novak partisan (and have criticized him many times) but it gets tiresome to hear how it's impossible that someone can be just as good...or just as difficult to defeat at slams, just because we haven't seen it before. And of course, Fed had the best 4-6-year run in the OE, so only arguing about level and achievements in a player's prime is self-serving, or "Fed-serving". I tend, in all sports, to look at whole careers, unless there's a compelling reason not to.
Following mostly team sports outside of tennis (and I admit that the dynamic is a bit different), I've simply never heard all the arguments about only/primarily counting what someone achieves in their prime and discounting what they achieve outside of their prime. It's quite reasonable to suggest that the average 26 year-old is better in most sports than the average 36-year-old, but it gets ludicrous when people are slaves to this idea...and mostly in service to a particular player or against another player. And yes, arguing this -- and totally discounting another player's achievements or belittling their achievements (by belittling their opponents) is like playing cards with a stacked deck. Sure, you can win the argument (hand) but if the other side knows that you've cheated (by being intellectually dishonest), is it worth it?
(This is partly a carryover from the private group chat -- the constant negativity and demeaning of players' achievements (let alone the vitriol on these boards) has me a bit on edge.)
Last edited:
metsman
G.O.A.T.
so your argument is that Djokovic is just as good as 10 years ago because to claim otherwise would be too mean to poor wittle Danill Medvedev and Carloz Alcaraz?
RelentlessAttack
Hall of Fame
Lmao. If you want to believe that this is peak strong era Djokovic you are free to delude yourself
The Guru
Legend
He also lost in easy straights to Fed as a 27 year old. And Med has a win and multiple efforts pushing Old Djokodal. You're just cherrypicking as usual. Roddick beat Fed 0 times from 04-09 (what you would define his prime as). Let's not kid ourselves here.
The Guru
Legend
The fact that this is your response to such a sincere post that is well-reasoned (whether you agree with the premises or not) really says it all.
RaulRamirez
Legend
Although, sadly, I've gotten used to this from some, thank you.
Dominic & Andrey
Legend
This. Apparently some can't just agree to disagree.
NeutralFan
G.O.A.T.
Who said his peak is at 36? I said about his stamina and it's visible there in his matches. He played 8 freaking hours in Rome in semi + final and looked fresher than Nadal and claimed he could have played for another few hours. When was the last time Djokovic was gassed ? his BH has regressed , his movement is a step slower ( albeit still way faster than any other 36 year old) his BH regressed but his stamina didn't. His movement is elite even at 36 and that's why he's still too difficult to beat .
TheFifthSet
Legend
I don’t see how this reply follows from what I said/asked, considering I acknowledged:
Last edited:
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Why should they? Where does tolerating bad opinions lead us?
Dominic & Andrey
Legend
So you are going to disrespect whoever happens to disagree with you on anything?
Mike Sams
G.O.A.T.
Alcaraz hasn't proven himself on hardcourts in the majors yet. He would need to beat Djokovic at AO to make his case as being a legit great.
Even despite Alcaraz's USO 2022 win, he beat Casper Ruud in the final which isn't legendary stuff.
Djokovic didn't play the tournament. Just like Nadal's AO2022 win. They didn't go through Djoker to win it.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Only on topics where I am confident of what's right and what's wrong, which isn't that often.
The whole thing is bizarre in my opinion. I am a baseball fan, and a guy named Acuna Jr is having a historic year for the Braves. The thing is the guy is 25 years old. What Novak is doing is destroying people many years his junior. It would literally be like Acuna Jr having this kind of season at 37 or something. Thats not possible, its not. And that is in a sport where older guys can play well. But no 37 year old dude can hit 40 hrs and steal 70 bases in a year. So part of me is like Novak is just incredible. But the other part of me is like yea there is a problem here.
Dominic & Andrey
Legend
Alright but you literally can't have a more polite post than RaulRamirez's one, even if he may be wrong he still deserves equally polite answers,how can there be any debate otherwise?
Fast bowlers in cricket are the type of cricketers whose physical peaks and longevity fall in the Tennis player ballpark. Yet look up Jimmy Anderson (or Glenn McGrath from previous decades for that matter). Jimmy Anderson was the best he ever was in his mid to late thirties slowing down only now at 42.
ffw2
Hall of Fame
Who are you to be lecturing anyone here?
You think people are just going to forget some of the garbage you've posted?
Every single user who posts in GPPD is a troll — the trollery just takes different forms. Drop the ego trip. Yawn.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Not as easy as Med lost at this USO. And it wasn't mid 30's Fed.
Well, maybe because old Djokodal are not as good as prime Fed which gave Med a crucial opening that he wouldn't have got otherwise. And I certainly don't consider AO 2022 a positive for Med which leaves only the one solitary effort at USO 2019 pushing old Djokodal.
How?
Which is to be expected since prime Fed never played as poorly as 2021 Djokovic to give Roddick an opening.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Don't forget by far the worst crop of players of all time born in 1989-2002 that had a far bigger say than Big 3 maintaining their bodies in their 30's.
The idea that a 37 year old can be the best player in the game in baseball is basically unheard of. I am talking about a position player not a pitcher. There are 37 year olds who have very good years. But they are not MVPs.
Comparable sports roughly. I'm not sure about which is the most demanding role there but fast bowling absolutely kills human bodies in the long run. Yet as unusual as it gets, Anderson did indeed have his best years in his mid 30s despite lost bowling speed.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
I've yet to see somebody consistently play better at 36 than 27.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Overall, it wasn't a difficult straight sets match, 2nd set notwithstanding.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
But I think we've seen Djokovic have his best years in his 20's, not mid 30's.
If a bowler is to be compared to a pitcher as I have said there have been great late 30s pitchers. Thats totally different than a late 30s position player, batter. Novak is playing guys 15 years younger than him and destroying them. Thats just weird no matter what people say. He isnt just beating them in tough matches. Hes blowing them off the court.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Alcaraz has already impressed with his Wimb win. That was all I asked from him.
I'm glad he didn't have to wait until Novak was like 38 to make his mark.
Not a good comparison then. Fast bowlers have the shelf life of the average Tennis pro. Despite the odds, Jimmy did indeed have his greatest years in ripe old age. Almost unheard of, but it happens sometimes in sport.
TheFifthSet
Legend
I don’t think this is a totally fair comparison IMO, for a few reasons:
1. They lengthened the bases in ‘23, which has made stealing much easier than at any point in baseball history. Stealing success rates are higher than they’ve ever been.
2. Most people (myself included) will tell you Novak has definitely lost a step since his 20’s, so I’m not sure why stolen bases were even invoked. You need both instincts and a blazing first step to steal tons of bases (though mind you it’s not strictly a young man’s endeavour: Rickey Henderson stole 66(!) bases at age 40).
3. Tennis is a top-heavy sport unlike most others. You can banish the Top 5 best baseball players from the sport at any given time, and the strength of the field barely budges. You can’t really do that in tennis. Things are more volatile and less likely to “even out”, as it were. Just the nature of following a sport where the strength of the field hinges on the era in question having a couple of generational outliers break through. All of which is to say: “muh 2023 field bad, and it matterz”
Last edited:
WTA fan detected.
I'll be ruing the rest of the year the fact that Daniil put everything he had in that one match and denied another Djokovic vs Raz match.
InsideOut900
Legend
My philosophy is simple. If these guys never existed, worse guys would take their place. No matter how bad someone is, their presence there contributes to the tour being better.
So at an individual level no one deserves criticism for being limited or not performing as expected.
The problems arise when people either create expectations on a player or start comparing.
I am a hardcore Novak fan, so I have no reason to downplay Medvedev or Alcaraz, but I simply cannot stand when they get way more credit than I believe they deserve. It's subjective here, but I tend to react when I feel people tend to go off the boil.
I took quite a bit of satisfaction in Carlos's downfall to Novak in RG and Med in USO (well, not the cramping part), because the hype was becoming insufferable.
Yeah, either the hype or the negativity is what kills me.
Novak's match threads breed toxicity, it's unbearable.
Then there is the hype how Carlos is gonna be next 2nd coming on earth.
Then all the endless comparisons and debates done in the moat disingenuous way.
There really is little balance and extremist and fanatism taken to a new high.
I think I will skip the tennis related explanation on this as I have said my piece probably way to many times.
Or perhaps, to keep somewhat concise, the physical decline affects certain things, your legs get slower and less explosive, resulting in less sharp movement, your core explosiveness declines, resulting in a less explosive torso rotation, so a lesser ability to generate weight of shot and also to redirect pace.
These things gradually decline as a player ages and starting from around age 25-26 for those who were fully commitent to their physical game from the get go, especially someone like Djoko, Nadal or Fed.
So there are certain things an older player simply does worse because of...age. And this is inevitable for any player. And they can compensate by improving the technical part, but some things become hard to improve because are tied directly to physical game.
So you go on improving auxiliaries, tactics and maximize your mental game.
But then Novak was so so good in his prime, a 10 years decline is gonna be felt, because it's a drop-off from Mount Everest, still has plently of height to fall from and why he is still so good at his age
mike danny
Bionic Poster
It was the match that showed us that Raz is not yet in his prime because to me Raz in full flight doesn't lose to Med.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
It's nice that Raul remains gentlemanly - I appreciate- but it's not like metsmate insulted his person, only dismissed the post. And frankly every possible argument has been rehashed and regurgitated many times by now, to the point that it's no wonder we're just tired of djokophilic arguments... or that they are tired of the opposite except only one set is correct.
