There's a reason for that.
I guess you missed all the SV that Djokovic did in the final though.
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
I guess you missed all the SV that Djokovic did in the final though.
RaulRamirez
Legend
How is that a good rebuttal? Can't there be an outlier, a first? Especially someone who is so driven to succeed and break records, and someone who is so fanatical about his diet, stretching, etc. I acknowledge that this can't be proven or disproven and there are no foolproof metrics as there may be for sports such as swimming or track.
Obviously in tennis there are ways to compensate for any physical decline that you can't do so easily (far as I know) in, say the 100 m dash (wasn't Usain Bolt an outlier?) or, say, the 200 m freestyle. I don't know enough about times and ages in swimming, but I'm suspecting that Phelps was a bit of an outlier...and that's in a timed sport.
In tennis, you can shorten points by improving your serve, volleying more and better (I guess Novak's reflexes are still pretty good...and Fed and Rafa also shortened points as they got older), hitting more droppers, etc. Novak (since we're discussing him) can also "major in majors" now, and plan his schedule accordingly to peak at the slams, and even peak additionally for the second week of slams. So yes, I don't see much physical decline, and I also see improvements in other areas that compensate for whatever small decline there have been. Again, I don't think that he can, or wants to, win a 6-hour war of attrition, a la A012. And he also picks his spots as far as when to go all out in M1000s and even the YEC. And he's more vulnerable in those. But yes, I think he's essentially the same beast that he's always been at the slams.
And again, does it matter if we haven't seen this level of success in one's 30s in men's tennis before? But even so, wasn't Roger still playing great tennis at WC19, at almost age 38, if not quite what he was? No, Ken Rosewall wasn't as good as before, but without the benefits of modern sports science, and having been playing for far longer than Novak has to this point, he was still winning slams and making finals well up into his mid to late-30s. And in the newish OE with a lot of great players...as an undersized player.
Last edited:
The same game plan brought a lot problems to Nole before. We need to give due credit to Nole's improved volley. Without it, I don't see how he could have out grinded Med.
I asked you to tell me someone who was better at 37 than 27. And your response was he has adjusted tactically. Look man I respect novak but it’s more than him adjusting tactically. His competition sucks. I could go on and on about athletes in This age range and how they compete with their peers.
Again it’s not merely about novak winning these tournaments. He’s crushing people while doing it. To me that’s a compliment to novak, but it also makes me wonder about the players he is playing. It’s one thing to win or go on a run and do well at this age. It’s another thing to just destroy people day and day out in match after match
This,
Nole ceiling is arguable lower than Fedal, but I do think his floor is higher. He rarely lost early rounds of major from how many years back, probably as early as 2007? He is like Germany in men's soccer (before 2018). Game style might not be your type, not sexy or entertaining enough, but solid enough to always go deep. You can't use weak/mediocre era to discount his amazing consistency. When things aligned (Fedal/Murray/Stanimal retire, easy draws, closed roof, etc.), 2021/2023 happened.
RaulRamirez
Legend
That's not all I responded with, and you know it; I actually gave you a much more thorough answer than your somewhat sarcastic question deserved.
This is getting a bit tiresome, as I answered your question from so many angles. But yes, your rebuttal of "his competition sucks" was so much more effective.
So that you can bestow more wisdom on us, please tell us what specific point I made that you disagree with.
Or should we just assume that because we haven't seen this level of success among male tennis players in their 30s before that it all points to terrible competition.
Is Novak not fanatical about his diet, his stretching, etc?
Does he not - more than he ever did when he was younger when accused of "majoring in minors" - gear his schedule around the four slams?
Does he not put less effort now into winning other tournaments? Shortened his schedule some?
Is he not more experienced in prepping for slams, and peaking for the second week of slams?
Is his serve not acknowledged as better than before (generally), as is his volley?
Doesn't he also utilize more drop shots, partly as an acknowledgment that he doesn't want to get into 5-hour battles...And yes, I don't think his endurance is quite the same?
What metrics do you have that he has physically declined so significantly that be couldn't possibly be nearly as good now - at the slams - in consideration of all of this?
With all this, I would say that I don't think he redirects rallies as well as he used to, that his DTL BH is not as great. And again, I don't think he can dominate week in, week out, as he did in 2015. But his FH is arguably just as good, and his serve and volley are a bit better. If he's lost foot speed/agility/flexibility, it's hard to detect.
As for other players succeeding into their mid (even late) 30s, I mentioned the great Ken Rosewall, who still holds the record (if I'm not mistaken) for the oldest "slam" winner. And this was an undersized guy without benefits of modern science who logged huge mileage as an amateur and barnstorming pro. And I mentioned Roger, who while not as great as before, still played a heckuva Wimby19, almost two years older than Novak is now. Among other great efforts...as you know, his run from AO17 thru Sunshine Double thru Wimby was an amazing run of tennis bordering on age 36.
Again. You are using examples of guys who did well at older ages. He’s not just doing well. He is crushing people 10-15 years younger than him.
RaulRamirez
Legend
Again, this is getting quite tedious.
You didn't answer one question I posed or rebut anything that I said, and you demand that I give you an example of another tennis player who crushed the competition similarly at his age. if his record is better than anyone else in the OE at his age (although we've also seen some great accomplishments from Rosewall , Rafa and Roger, if not this good), how can you give an example? So, I guess he's the best at this age range, and he's almost inarguably the greatest male player of the Open Era, so...
And he, obviously, has put himself in position to contend for all these titles due to every single factor I cited.
So, how do you attempt to quantify, or even describe, how much Djokovic has declined as far his ability to win slams or are you just referring to his birth certificate and saying that it's impossible unless everyone else sucks. Again, there's no way to measure this (either way), but I mentioned quite a few factors to point to how it's possible for Novak to still be playing just as well (again, specifically at slams) or nearly as well. And, crickets...
What gets me is not the difference of opinion - which is always welcome- but the way that so many form arguments, smugly and dismissively.
And then the need to misrepresent other points of view, and also the almost pathological need to disparage players.
EdMcMush
Professional
ehh, its def a weak generation. but looking at ELO ratings, the top 10 and top 5 are very comparable and somewhat higher in most years compared to 2000-2007.
I don't need no ELO rating to work out that this is the weakest generation of all time. Players of 2000 gen would thrash this gen easily.
NatF
Bionic Poster
It's logical to ignore how it actually worked in practice in favour of whatever it is you're doing? OK agreee to disagree there lol.
Well you said Federer enjoyed a period with no ATG's yes? How long was that period? I wouldn't use that phrasing myself as Federer had Agasssi/Nadal, Djokovic has had Nadal as well - so neither had a period with actual 0 ATG's.
An honest question. Why do you look at this stat till he turned 28? Federer and Nadal swept 6 slams from AO 2017 to FO 2018. So why should we not include till at least 2018 to see his record in finals.
While there is no question that Novak is benefitting from keeping himself fit and motivated while the field around him (except Alcaraz) is nothing to rave about, it is also true that he has nothing more to prove against Fedal. If he didn't had a slump for those 18 months from Jan 2017, he wouldn't have needed this mopping up of slams at this stage to lead the slam race.
TearTheRoofOff
G.O.A.T.
I do feel a general shift towards shorthand positions, with efficiency sought out of sheer exasperation. 'MUG' has a fair amount of explanatory power in just three characters, and even just flippant laughter might convey all that's needed for current tennistic affairs.
TearTheRoofOff
G.O.A.T.
Thing is, ELO is all relative to the field, but that's the very thing we're evaluating. We'd need an approach that transcends the intra-generational fuzz and the only sort of thing that comes to mind is e.g. seeing a player return serve from New Jersey.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Because he only started to consistently be dominant once he reached that age.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Then you know Med is a hugely limited player if even Djokovic can trouble him with his net play.
initialize
Hall of Fame
This. Absolutely hilarious when Nole fans bring up "but... but... ELO!"
mike danny
Bionic Poster
I am excluding Alcaraz from my reply since he is obviously better than the other players.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
It was still only 1 close set. Yes, he could've made it more of a contest, but he didn't, so I can't give him brownie points for could've/should've/would've
Because he played an old Djokovic while being a decade younger. Still got wrecked in 2 slam finals. Way more is an exaggeration especially when they faced vastly different competition.
The numbers are displayed bare-bones, there's nothing open to interpretation. Only 2 slams won by that entire group.
Against a vastly better player not mid 30's Fed.
I already mentioned USO 2019. 2021 we all know why that happened.
Djokovic just played his C game which was enough back then since Med was still a relative nobody.
Are you talking about Alcaraz? Sure, but so does Zverev, it only proves that Carlos played a bad match.
He performed better against prime Fed than Med against old Djokodal. Med does not have a signature match vs a prime ATG.
It's not cherry-picking. Why would Djokovic bring his A game against a relative nobody in the 4R of a slam?
mike danny
Bionic Poster
It's an insult to those guys to compare them to the 90's born. They're close to Murray/Stan level than 90's born
But Federer being born in that decade changes things a lot as opposed to Med being the best the 1989-2002 group has to offer.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
And Djokovic has benefitted much more from that than Federer.
The Guru
Legend
lol ur just shifiting the goalposts because I'm right and you painted yourself into a corner. You're argument wasn't that Djokovic had a period with no ATGs so why would that be what I responded to. Nadal was relevant until 22 and Alcaraz started being relevant in 22 boom Djokovic has always had ATG competition. Point is they were similarly distanced from ATGs.
If you want to make it about who actually faced ATGs more it's Djokovic. That we can just look up and know to be true. I don't even know what your point is at this point. I don't know if you have one.
The Guru
Legend
Yeah sure still a closer match. Not gonna argue about this anymore it's a dumb argument who cares.
No it's not it's a fact. He has been far more successful objectively. Yes that has a lot to do with Novak's age but the fact that you can't admit something that's just factually accurate shows how hopelessly biased you are about this whole thing.
Yep true. I can also say Fed gen only one won slam after Fed showed up and were completely displaced by teenage Djo, Ned, and Murray. I can say Oldassi 8 matches vs Fed 0-8 5 whole sets and Roddick 3-21 vs Federer 14 sets won in total. I can say Hewitt from 04-09 was 0-14 with 5 sets won. I can say Safin was 1-7 vs prime Federer only 2 matches where he takes a set. I can say that factually this level of competition is pretty much the same as what Dimitrov, Nishikori, and Raonic provided to Djokovic during his prime and probably even less than Berdych, Cilic, Tsonga, and Ferrer did. Numbers are displayed bare bones. No interpretation necessary.
Don't think Carlos played a bad match but agree to disagree. Roddick doesn't have a win that good period.
He objectively did not. You define Fed's prime as 04-10 AO. Roddick literally won 0 matches in that period. By your definition Med doesn't even have a match against a prime ATG (except maybe Alcaraz) so how could he have a signature one lol.
Right so 4R AO 13 was irrelevant and Djokovic wasn't trying. Good to know. Man these are some good arguments.
Nope
Last edited:
RS
Bionic Poster
I was skimming through a past thread and caught this exact same argument near word for word from you back in 2021 a couple timesYeah sure still a closer match. Not gonna argue about this anymore it's a dumb argument who cares.
No it's not it's a fact. He has been far more successful objectively. Yes that has a lot to do with Novak's age but the fact that you can't admit something that's just factually accurate shows how hopelessly biased you are about this whole thing.
Yep true. I can also say Fed gen only one won slam after Fed showed up and were completely displaced by teenage Djo, Ned, and Murray. I can say Oldassi 8 matches vs Fed 0-8 5 whole sets and Roddick 3-21 vs Federer 14 sets won in total. I can say Hewitt from 04-09 was 0-14 with 5 sets won. I can say Safin was 1-7 vs prime Federer only 2 matches where he takes a set. I can say that factually this level of competition is pretty much the same as what Dimitrov, Nishikori, and Raonic provided to Djokovic during his prime and probably even less that Berdych, Cilic, Tsonga, and Ferrer did. Numbers are displayed bare bones. No interpretation necessary.
Don't think Carlos played a bad match but agree to disagree. Roddick doesn't have a win that good period.
He objectively did not. You define Fed's prime as 04-10 AO. Roddick literally won 0 matches in that period. By your definition Med doesn't even have a match against a prime ATG so how could he have a signature one lol.
Right so 4R AO 13 was irrelevant and Djokovic wasn't trying. Good to know. Man these are some good arguments.
Nope
NatF
Bionic Poster
What goalposts have I moved? Pretty sure that Mike's initial point would have been about younger ATG's so if anyone moved goalposts it would be you.
If you want to count facing crap'dal in 2015-2016 as facing more ATG's then be my guest. I'm sure that counts for more than the 11 meetings with Agaasi etc...lol. Though I wasn't suggesting we count anyway.
The fact is despite having a same age peer ATG in Nadal, Djokovic has has a rather different career trajectory to him and Djokodal have only sporadically been in form at the same time the past 6 years. The lack of a credible young rival has obviously helped Djokovic (and Nadal) immensely. I do agree Federer not having a late 20's ATG in his rise helped him but considering his own form at the time versus Djokovic's in 2018+ I know who was helped more...
Anyway no point arguing, anyone who can't admit that the last 6 years have more than balanced out any perceived weakness in Federer's early career isn't worth engaging with.
The Guru
Legend
Pointing out that looking only in one direction for ATGs (the direction that favors your argument) is not goalpost shifting it's showing a more complete picture to a biased argument. How that is goalpost shifting in your mind is beyond me.
Well unless Djokovic faced Nadal 22 times in 15-16 he's alright lol. Let's also pretend Fed never faced any ATGs when they were crap either. What are these arguments this is getting so silly.
Balanced out is a verbiage I'm fine with. Benefitted much more I think is pretty clearly wrong.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Because the argument is focused on 2018 to present and the super strong field when Djokovic came up isn't relevant to that. No one is claiming that Djokovic inflated his stats in the earlier period.
You're misconstruing things but whatever. Djokovic's timing when meeting ATG's is probably the best of all time lol.
Would you disagree with benefitted more? If you disagree strongly with much more then I assume so.
NatF
Bionic Poster
So dishonest.
33-42 year old Hewitt has more wins over Federer from 2014-2023 than Murray does. What it tells but us?
RS
Bionic Poster
I guess USO 04 QF and AO 05 SF especially bear a lot I guess I think in real life and not hypothetically which could be a different story would have to still say Nalbandian.
The Guru
Legend
That was a troll but expanding the scope doesn't help at all. Add in 08 and 09 and Murray has like 7x their combined wins.
Difference is that is New Balls Gen at their peak ages that you defend as strong competition and they all played Federer tons of times way more times than Murray did in that period. Murray never played Fed after 2015. It's not even close to the same. My troll argument is way more valid lol.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Let's skip over multiple injuries etc...so yeah dishonest again
Nalbandian, Canas, Voldandri, Fish, Blake, Karlovic etc...all scored wins over Fed in that expanded period and are of his generation. So perhaps you want to adjust that 7x figure you gave
Nevermind that Ferrero, Hewitt and Roddick all scored wins over Fed post Wimby 2003 anyway.I don't think Murray would have enjoyed playing Federer after 2015 outside of the injured stretch in 2016...
The Guru
Legend
We have a sample of 2 matches of Fedberg vs Murray 2.0 and they're at Fed's 2 favorite events one in which Fed had perhaps his best serving day of his entire career and the other is the event that Fed perhaps played the best of any event during Edberg's tenure so pretty tough to extrapolate off of that.
The Guru
Legend
Already admitted it was a troll. Still pretty crazy that it's true though.Let's skip over multiple injuries etc...so yeah dishonest again
Nalbandian, Canas, Voldandri, Fish, Blake, Karlovic etc...all scored wins over Fed in that expanded period and are of his generation. So perhaps you want to adjust that 7x figure you gave
I don't think Murray would have enjoyed playing Federer after 2015 outside of the injured stretch in 2016...
Wait so you mean to say an entire generation of players might have as many wins or more as 1 guy. Wow that's crazy.
Yeah I imagine Murray with a metal hip would've struggled to beat Federer you got me there.
NatF
Bionic Poster
It would be true if you said Hrbaty as well. I guess he's better than the Newballs Gen too?
I'll try and steer us back to arguing in good faith here...the fact is Federer's overall consistency dipped in 2007 and a lot of players that were winless against him got some results after that. His intensity and shot tolerance dipped in non slam events. Federer in the later rounds of events in 2004-2006 was a different beast. Its like throwing shade on Nadal for getting beaten like a drum in 2011 because Tommy Haas beat Djokovic in Miami of 2013...
That's not to say Murray isn't better than those guys, but it's not because he beat Federer in Dubai of 2008 etc...
EdMcMush
Professional
I think this board for one reason or another (nostalgia, personal narratives) slightly underates medvedev and co and wildy overrates Roddick (who like 9 years ago was considered overrated just cause he is American, now that crazy Fed fans need a new narrative he is actually a would ATG), Nalbandian, and aggasi with a fused spine. Federer is the second greatest player of all time. And you could argue Nadal was unlucky for never having an era where he could dominate as the top guy (except 2010) . He went from the Fed peak to the Novak peak. Idrc about the goat race, I am a weird Kevin Anderson fanboy (the us open was over when he didnt get through qualis). but lets stop with the hypotheticals, and look at pure numbers and statistics that are given to us.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
calm down bro
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
They sure made it competitive vs Nadal and Federer though. Weird. Why couldn't Fedal in their 30s stop these guys like Djokovic if they are that useless? I mean Tsitsipas has 2 wins against Fedal at AO. Nadal has lost to useless players at the other slams as well. So did Federer.
EdMcMush
Professional
guy. we are on a tennis forum out of boredom. These are tennis players who we are defending that are worth like 500 million to 1 billion dollars. Fed or nadal does not care. and Novak probably does care a bit but thats cause he is nuts like Michael Jordan or Tom Brady
World Beater
Hall of Fame
Scoreline looks easy but match was tough...but that is djokovic greatness...he can out-battle almost anyone and make comptitive matches look routine on the scoreboard.
he did it to tsitsipas and med before in slam finals.
dude is just a cyborg.
he did it to tsitsipas and med before in slam finals.
dude is just a cyborg.
The Guru
Legend
My focus here is less on Murray and more on the false idea that Newballs Gen were these legitimate challengers to Federer in a way that the last generations of challengers were not for Djokovic (and to a lesser extent Nadal). The rhetoric around this stuff is ridiculous. Guys like Nishikori and Ferrer are literal punchlines 2-5000 and the like and New Balls are these amazing players to be revered. Nishikori actually won a slam match vs Djokovic and Ferrer vs Federer is like a historic meme matchup and yet he still took more sets off Fed in their 17 matches than Hewitt did in the 15 matches that took place during Fed's prime. The amount of disrespect the second and third tier players of the 2010s and 20s get from you guys is terrible and honestly it's completely poisoned the discourse of this site. Every thread every match thread is just filled with moaning about how awful every player and match is it's honestly sad. You read the stuff on here and you would think there hasn't been a single good tennis match in years and that basically no one on here even enjoys watching tennis.It would be true if you said Hrbaty as well. I guess he's better than the Newballs Gen too?
I'll try and steer us back to arguing in good faith here...the fact is Federer's overall consistency dipped in 2007 and a lot of players that were winless against him got some results after that. His intensity and shot tolerance dipped in non slam events. Federer in the later rounds of events in 2004-2006 was a different beast. Its like throwing shade on Nadal for getting beaten like a drum in 2011 because Tommy Haas beat Djokovic in Miami of 2013...
That's not to say Murray isn't better than those guys, but it's not because he beat Federer in Dubai of 2008 etc...
This is all true but Murray did get his win 06 fwiw lol. I also think Federer's dip in consistency also had something to do with better competition particularly on HCs but whatever.
Fair enough
NatF
Bionic Poster
You talk of poisoning the discourse but there's a not too small part of your fanbase who's posts this year can be summarised as "bow down and worship". So I don't think we'll see eye to eye here lol.
Newballs were by and large not legitimate challengers to Fed but then Fed was in that period far and away better than anyone we've had since middle 2016 so it's all relative no? If Fed was a slightly worse player he probably goes five with Hewitt twice in slams for example. IMO the likes of Tsitsipas, Med and Zverev are clearly inferior players to the Newballs guys. That's not to say that the Newballs guys didn't throw in stinkers and play poorly on the big stages at times, I just don't see anyone in this recent generation reaching the heights some of them did in big slam matches and I think on aggregate they'd be faring better against old Djokodal and not going down in straights like bunny's to 36 year old Djokovic.
Fed was knackered after Toronto tbf...
Your argument about Fed's consistency dipping due to competition is easily falsifiable unless you think the guys from Fed's own generation who also started scoring wins got better, even post hip surgery Hewitt got two wins over Fed in 2010 and 2014...I also think it's unlikey the standard of tennis jumped that much in just a single year or year and a half.
The Guru
Legend
Ok I don't think I'm part of that problem. Maybe you'd disagree I'd be surprised but I've been surprised before. I do think you're a part of the problem I described. You can make a difference in making that better.
Yeah I don't really find any of this objectionable. I think the New Balls guys are greater than the vast majority of the second and third tier guys of the last 15 years. That being said I still think the biggest difference between them and the little 4, Lost Gen, and Next Gen is the early 00s period to pile achievements in and that while they may fare better against old Djokodal it would not be in any meaningful way. They'd still be 1 and 2 in the world and they'd still win basically everything they won.
Well I think it's both. Fed didn't have the same level tournament in tournament out and the competition got better that's what I was saying. They were compounding factors.
RS
Bionic Poster
You think Fed would have still won even on clay and at AO in 15? Not impossible just asking though.
I guess at AO more than he would have got past Seppi more than not and been in better form in the late rounds but that didn't actually happen there
Last edited:
NatF
Bionic Poster
You're not and I wasn't trying to imply you were. I'm shocked you think I'm part of the problem
I have gone through phases where although I do think this is a hideously weak era, I've tried not to say it too much - at least after a slam win so that you guys (or Nadal fans) can enjoy the win a bit. But I don't always have patience and I can't pretend that my perception of this as an "inferior product" and Djokovic's piling up of wins in the era hasn't made me salty because it has lol.I mean, achievements are one thing but I'm talking about them as players. The last two Crap Gens could have won some slams in other areas, but I don't think they do them with as much flourish. I also think that the differences between them would be meaningful enough to deny slams - but we had this debate at length before and I cba to revisit it.
Agree to disagree on the last stuff, I don't think Roddick, Stepanek, Blake etc...got better in 2008, Fed was just worse. Nadal and Djokovic were better but I don't think the second tier players of later on were tougher than Newballs personally.
Last edited:
RS
Bionic Poster
I had no idea Ferrer got more sets in those periods you selected. Doesn't feel like it weirdly.
No slam matches though tbf helps I guess while Hewitt had many.
