Andy Roddick: ´Novak Djokovic Can´t be Compared to Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal´

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
At the same time we can already say that Djokovic is one of the greatest players of all time. If he will achieve the Career Slam winning the French Open, that will be a certainty and much more valuable".
You are slanting what Andy said...
 

Edgecrusher

Professional
Plus he is a disgrace on the court so not even close to the guys in terms of sportsmanship.
Every nation has black sheeps they feel embarassed about. Even my beloved Irish frieds. You would be among the top 3 :lol:

In contrast Novak "the disgrace" is loved by millions all over the world. Just a last question, what in comparison did you achieve in your life? :lol:
 

Cortana

Hall of Fame
He has 4 WTF titles and more weeks on #1 than Nadal. He is the alltime best of the AO and will it also be for Indian Wells & Miami in the future. He is almost tied in H2H with Nadal whereas Federer lost 23 times in 33 matches.

Why should Djokovic be that far away from Nadal? Only because he lost too many GS finals?
 

daddy

Legend
I completely agree with ARod. He needs at least two more good years and few slams to cement his place. RG and Olympic gold would make his career as good as it gets.


By the way things look right now, he should do it.
 

Edgecrusher

Professional
He had his lowest moment on court for me last night with the ball boy. No class at all. Everyone in Serbia loves him - the rest of the world thinks he's an a****** - hence no one ever really supports him at tournaments.
Blablablabla. Well I´m not in Serbia and at my German tennis club a lot of people admire him. in 2 weeks 8 of us will head towards Monte Carlo to cheer for Novak. But you can persuade yourself that only Serbs love Novak if you feel better.

Yesterday Novak was screeming in frustration towards his box. Everyone knows that. But of course you would make a big deal of it because it makes your hate towards your bogeyman eligible. Poor you are.

Nadal really deserves better fans who are more humble just like him. But he can´t pick his fans.

Nole about the incident yesterday
 

vanioMan

Legend
He has 4 WTF titles and more weeks on #1 than Nadal. He is the alltime best of the AO and will it also be for Indian Wells & Miami in the future. He is almost tied in H2H with Nadal whereas Federer lost 23 times in 33 matches.

Why should Djokovic be that far away from Nadal? Only because he lost too many GS finals?
Only?

:lol::lol::lol:

GS are far, far ahead of everything else. He has six less. For example, take a look at Borg and Lendl. Lendl has got nearly 170 weeks more at #1, 4 YE #1 compared to Borg's 2 and 5 WTFs compared to Borg's two. And yet, nobody considers Lendl the greater player. Do you know why?
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
The tone of the article was more pro-Djokovic than the OP made out. Seemed to be saying he's in that phase where he's moving slowly from tier 3/2 to tier 1 but he still has a ways to go.

I've actually noticed that on foxsportsnews, Roddick seems to be careful to be a bit pro Novak, he told the story of their almost fight, and maybe he doesn't want to seem biased.
 

Firstservingman

Talk Tennis Guru
I'm not sure he should be compared to them.

Djokovic is currently Tier 2, and I am becoming increasingly confident that he will end up in Tier 1.

But Fedal are different, and here's how I see the trio:

I think that Federer is at the point where at his best, his level actually becomes difficult to quantify in any meaningful way.
Essentially, he essentially maxes out how well tennis can be played within human physical limits, and in these moments watching Roger Federer play tennis is like watching the hand of God move a Wilson PS 90.

Nadal himself talks about this in his book, where he says that a large part of playing Federer in his prime was to simply weather the storm and wait for his level to drop so you could get back into the match. The guy's given Nadal 6-1 sets at RG before.

But Nadal is the master of handling Federer, something which almost seems as if it was intended by the divine, to keep another divine force in check and prevent it from making a complete mockery of the sport.

As such, Nadal himself must be almost equally great to be capable of this feat, so both are, in essence above the level at which their tennis can be quantified.

Rafa has something which Djokovic and even Federer do not, and that is an unbreakable will to win, which makes him the most reliable winner ever in my view, and possibly the best player, even if not the greatest.

Djokovic is an ATG no doubt, and will probably become Tier 1 too, but comparing him to a duo who, at their best, barely operate within the bounds of the possible is more than a bit unfair.

Fedal is the gold, nay, platinum standard of tennis to which all aspire.
Djokovic, I think, may have come the closest, and one thing I do really admire about him is that he is not content with this state of affairs.
He wants to join them, and become an Immortal.

And I wish him all the luck in the world in doing so.
 

uliks

Banned
He had his lowest moment on court for me last night with the ball boy. No class at all. Everyone in Serbia loves him - the rest of the world thinks he's an a****** - hence no one ever really supports him at tournaments.
FGS just the other week Nadal threatened to an umpire that he'll put him out of his umpire business you hypocrite.
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
I'm not sure he should be compared to them.

Djokovic is currently Tier 2, and I am becoming increasingly confident that he will end up in Tier 1.

But Fedal are different, and here's how I see the trio:

I think that Federer is at the point where at his best, his level actually becomes difficult to quantify in any meaningful way.
Essentially, he essentially maxes out how well tennis can be played within human physical limits, and in these moments watching Roger Federer play tennis is like watching the hand of God move a Wilson PS 90.

Nadal himself talks about this in his book, where he says that a large part of playing Federer in his prime was to simply weather the storm and wait for his level to drop so you could get back into the match. The guy's given Nadal 6-1 sets at RG before.

But Nadal is the master of handling Federer, something which almost seems as if it was intended by the divine, to keep another divine force in check and prevent it from making a complete mockery of the sport.

As such, Nadal himself must be almost equally great to be capable of this feat, so both are, in essence above the level at which their tennis can be quantified.

Rafa has something which Djokovic and even Federer do not, and that is an unbreakable will to win, which makes him the most reliable winner ever in my view, and possibly the best player, even if not the greatest.

Djokovic is an ATG no doubt, and will probably become Tier 1 too, but comparing him to a duo who, at their best, barely operate within the bounds of the possible is more than a bit unfair.

Fedal is the gold, nay, platinum standard of tennis to which all aspire.
Djokovic, I think, may have come the closest, and one thing I do really admire about him is that he is not content with this state of affairs.
He wants to join them, and become an Immortal.

And I wish him all the luck in the world in doing so.
Great post.

Fed is the gold standard overall but I would say Rafa is the best "winner" in a big match, and Novak's peak level of tennis is comparable to Fed's.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
I'm not sure he should be compared to them.

Djokovic is currently Tier 2, and I am becoming increasingly confident that he will end up in Tier 1.

But Fedal are different, and here's how I see the trio:

I think that Federer is at the point where at his best, his level actually becomes difficult to quantify in any meaningful way.
Essentially, he essentially maxes out how well tennis can be played within human physical limits, and in these moments watching Roger Federer play tennis is like watching the hand of God move a Wilson PS 90.

Nadal himself talks about this in his book, where he says that a large part of playing Federer in his prime was to simply weather the storm and wait for his level to drop so you could get back into the match. The guy's given Nadal 6-1 sets at RG before.

But Nadal is the master of handling Federer, something which almost seems as if it was intended by the divine, to keep another divine force in check and prevent it from making a complete mockery of the sport.

As such, Nadal himself must be almost equally great to be capable of this feat, so both are, in essence above the level at which their tennis can be quantified.

Rafa has something which Djokovic and even Federer do not, and that is an unbreakable will to win, which makes him the most reliable winner ever in my view, and possibly the best player, even if not the greatest.

Djokovic is an ATG no doubt, and will probably become Tier 1 too, but comparing him to a duo who, at their best, barely operate within the bounds of the possible is more than a bit unfair.

Fedal is the gold, nay, platinum standard of tennis to which all aspire.
Djokovic, I think, may have come the closest, and one thing I do really admire about him is that he is not content with this state of affairs.
He wants to join them, and become an Immortal.

And I wish him all the luck in the world in doing so.
Djokovic may end up in the Borg/Sampras category of Tier 1..
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Great post.

Fed is the gold standard overall but I would say Rafa is the best "winner" in a big match, and Novak's peak level of tennis is comparable to Fed's.
:lol: :lol:

No way.. Outside 2011, he's been nothing compared to peak Federer.
 

Firstservingman

Talk Tennis Guru
:lol: :lol:

No way.. Outside 2011, he's been nothing compared to peak Federer.
But at peak level, which would include 2011, they probably aren't very far apart.


Obviously Federer is the superior overall player though, and he sustained it for longer.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
But at peak level, which would include 2011, they probably aren't very far apart.


Obviously Federer is the superior overall player though, and he sustained it for longer.
But if you include 2011 into Novak's peak, you need to also add 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015, ect.

I know Novak is very impressive (he reminds me of Pete Sampras in terms of his achievements and how he is seen on the tour) but not quite up to Federer's level. With peak Federer, nobody had ever seen anybody that good before. Including Sampras.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
Andy is right, Novak can't be compared with those two, cuz Novak is better than them. He is on a different level than those guys.

As a person and as a tennis player. Give Novak Ferrer/Soderling/Berdych/Gonzalez finalists and he wins 15 slams easily too.

Nole will end up with 14 slams and given his competition that is enough to easily put him as goat.
 

Firstservingman

Talk Tennis Guru
But if you include 2011 into Novak's peak, you need to also add 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015, ect.

I know Novak is very impressive (he reminds me of Pete Sampras in terms of his achievements and how he is seen on the tour) but not quite up to Federer's level. With peak Federer, nobody had ever seen anybody that good before. Including Sampras.
Oh, by peak, I mean his best matches ever, not necessarily over a given period.

His average peak (those years you stated) is lower, yes.
Fed 2004-2009 was miles better in terms of dominance.

But I mean individual matches, sorry for the confusion.

And yeah, Fed is better then too, but not by as much.
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
:lol: :lol:

No way.. Outside 2011, he's been nothing compared to peak Federer.
do you know what the word "peak" means?

my point isn't that he is as good a player as Federer or has comparable acheivements, so I don't need to include all those years.
 

Firstservingman

Talk Tennis Guru
Andy is right, Novak can't be compared with those two, cuz Novak is better than them. He is on a different level than those guys.

As a person and as a tennis player. Give Novak Ferrer/Soderling/Berdych/Gonzalez finalists and he wins 15 slams easily too.

Nole will end up with 14 slams and given his competition that is enough to easily put him as goat.


But yeah, we can all say whatever we want and it's basically impossible to disprove, so point taken. :)
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
do you know what the word "peak" means?

my point isn't that he is as good a player as Federer or has comparable acheivements, so I don't need to include all those years.
Do you? Usually one's peak goes on for more than a year.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
do you know what the word "peak" means?

my point isn't that he is as good a player as Federer or has comparable acheivements, so I don't need to include all those years.
I think 99% of people here don't know what peak means.

They connect peak with peak results, but that is circular and a little too convenient as an excuse.

Like a person can't lose in his physical peak? Agassi did better past his physical peak, so using results as peak and then just make excuses when you don't win at your peak is crazy.

Guess what people, you can have better results past your peak and worse results in your peak. Peak is related to physicality and not results.

You have men who are in better shape at 50 than in 20, cuz they were lazy and ate too much in their 20s, but even when they have better results at 50, their peak is still in their 20s, because body has the maximum potential at the time.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.


But yeah, we can all say whatever we want and it's basically impossible to disprove, so point taken. :)
But really if Nole wins 14 slams with career slam, he might have a good case, because all his slams he had to go trough big 4 and in most of them vs two of the big four.

So, if he continues he may end up with a leading h2h vs Federer and Nadal and he will have 6 WTF titles and over 250 weeks nr.1.

Of course IF he continues to dominate for next 2-3 years, which is very unlikely of course.
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
I think 99% of people here don't know what peak means.

They connect peak with peak results, but that is circular and a little too convenient as an excuse.

Like a person can't lose in his physical peak? Agassi did better past his physical peak, so using results as peak and then just make excuses when you don't win at your peak is crazy.

Guess what people, you can have better results past your peak and worse results in your peak. Peak is related to physicality and not results.

You have men who are in better shape at 50 than in 20, cuz they were lazy and ate too much in their 20s, but even when they have better results at 50, their peak is still in their 20s, because body has the maximum potential at the time.
True good point. What age would you say is peak for men EXACTLY?
 

Russeljones

G.O.A.T.
I think 99% of people here don't know what peak means.

They connect peak with peak results, but that is circular and a little too convenient as an excuse.

Like a person can't lose in his physical peak? Agassi did better past his physical peak, so using results as peak and then just make excuses when you don't win at your peak is crazy.

Guess what people, you can have better results past your peak and worse results in your peak. Peak is related to physicality and not results.

You have men who are in better shape at 50 than in 20, cuz they were lazy and ate too much in their 20s, but even when they have better results at 50, their peak is still in their 20s, because body has the maximum potential at the time.
Considering 99% of people here don't take a thing you say seriously, I think it's a tad ironic for you to make such a generalization.

Since the topic of discussion is tennis, we might as well relate superlatives to tennis results rather than other abstract qualifications. It then follows, if you follow, that peak results can legitimately be ascribed to belong in a player's peak.

I know this will cause you to retort with superfluous allegory but I like living on the edge.
 

Firstservingman

Talk Tennis Guru
Considering 99% of people here don't take a thing you say seriously, I think it's a tad ironic for you to make such a generalization.

Since the topic of discussion is tennis, we might as well relate superlatives to tennis results rather than other abstract qualifications. It then follows, if you follow, that peak results can legitimately be ascribed to belong in a player's peak.

I know this will cause you to retort with superfluous allegory but I like living on the edge.
The fact that he is always kind and respectful puts him in the Top 1% of posters automatically.
There are very few folks on here who can just enjoy conversation and never be mean to each other.
I'm certainly not among them, although I am young.

So age is an excuse after all, I suppose. :)
 

Russeljones

G.O.A.T.
The fact that he is always kind and respectful puts him in the Top 1% of posters automatically.
There are very few folks on here who can just enjoy conversation and never be mean to each other.
I'm certainly not among them, although I am young.

So age is an excuse after all, I suppose. :)
Kind? I suppose he is some kind of something.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
Great post.

Fed is the gold standard overall but I would say Rafa is the best "winner" in a big match, and Novak's peak level of tennis is comparable to Fed's.

Not even close.


An old man Federer is still capable of beating an essentially peak Djokovic, on surfaces that heavily favor Djokovic. Djokovic didn't start scoring a significant amount of wins until Federer started to lose ground simply due to age. Preposterous to think that Djokovic at his absolute best could beat Federer at his absolute best.

Djokovic routinely allows his opponents to get back into points because of the way he plays. He's abit more offensive than Nadal, but he has a similar gameplan of just moving the other guy around and forcing him to hit risky shots under pressure. When the other guy does do that (ala Wawrinka at the Australian Open last year), Djokovic is in serious trouble.

At Federer's peak, he simply would just outgun people and not allow them any kind of momentum in the match. This is a guy at his peak who with a bum ankle nearly won the entire World Tennis Masters Final, and had the final been played in a best of 3 like it is today, he would have easily won.
 

a10best

Hall of Fame
He had his lowest moment on court for me last night with the ball boy. No class at all. Everyone in Serbia loves him - the rest of the world thinks he's an a****** - hence no one ever really supports him at tournaments.
Exactly. He is like Lendl 30 yrs ago. He's eastern European and will never get the majority of fans in any event final unless it's in Belgrade. He has nothing flashy about his game that people like or want to teach. He just needs to get used to it btu still gets frustrated with fans. His improved volley and serving skills, stamina, and never give up attitude as a player are the only takeaways one can emulate yet he is still boring to watch.
 
Last edited:

cknobman

Legend
I dont understand what the big deal is.

Andy made a perfectly logical and sensible statement.

Nole is an all time great but still has a lot to achieve in order to be compared to Rafa and Roger.
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
He has 4 WTF titles and more weeks on #1 than Nadal. He is the alltime best of the AO and will it also be for Indian Wells & Miami in the future. He is almost tied in H2H with Nadal whereas Federer lost 23 times in 33 matches.

Why should Djokovic be that far away from Nadal? Only because he lost too many GS finals?
Because Roddick would be taking titles from Novak if he were in his prime.
 

-Bobo-

Semi-Pro
It's why I love Andy, brutal honesty :)

And LOL at Cortana the Djokovic fanboi :lol:
Considdering how much you seem to dislike the djoker I'm surprised you like Roddick who has done way more ******y stuff and was regarded as as ahole by a large portion of the tour and has a well documented history of bullying.

Not saying Djoker is great or anything but him, Fed, and Nadal have all done so many things that make them look like whiney princesses I find it hilarious how much people like the other two.
 

a10best

Hall of Fame
I Novak gets 4-5 more slams in 2 years he's defnitely in the discussion but nor right now. I think he could capture RG this year since Nadal is not in peak form.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
Considering 99% of people here don't take a thing you say seriously, I think it's a tad ironic for you to make such a generalization.

Since the topic of discussion is tennis, we might as well relate superlatives to tennis results rather than other abstract qualifications. It then follows, if you follow, that peak results can legitimately be ascribed to belong in a player's peak.

I know this will cause you to retort with superfluous allegory but I like living on the edge.
99% of people here don't take seriously 99% of stuff that 99% of people here say.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
True good point. What age would you say is peak for men EXACTLY?
I don't know, it's not an exact science. Maybe 20-30? And it's probably a little different for everyone.

Using peak for results is just an excuse. It's circular reasoning too.

He is not winning, therefore he is not at his "peak", so the losses shouldn't count.

You realize how crazy that sounds? It's basically saying, he is losing and because he is losing, his losses shouldn't count.

This is what basically people do with tying results to peak level.

And this excuse started only because people want to use h2h for measuring greatness and not results.

So of course when you will say that Fed is losing now, so he isn't as good, so he isn't as great as we thought, the other side will say, well he is past his best, so he is that great.

Both sides are wrong. Fed fans who buy this false h2h propaganda and then have to use a fallacy to defend against it and Rafa fans who create h2h fallacy in the first place. And we go in circles till the end of time while we should only be looking achievements.
 

spinovic

Hall of Fame
He has 4 WTF titles and more weeks on #1 than Nadal. He is the alltime best of the AO and will it also be for Indian Wells & Miami in the future. He is almost tied in H2H with Nadal whereas Federer lost 23 times in 33 matches.

Why should Djokovic be that far away from Nadal? Only because he lost too many GS finals?
It's got more to do with how many GS finals they've won. How many they've lost doesn't matter that much, IMO.
 

spinovic

Hall of Fame
Nadal himself talks about this in his book, where he says that a large part of playing Federer in his prime was to simply weather the storm and wait for his level to drop so you could get back into the match. The guy's given Nadal 6-1 sets at RG before.
To be fair, shouldn't we also mention that Djokovic won 8 consecutive games against Nadal at RG.
 

Earnest One

Semi-Pro
99% of people here don't take seriously 99% of stuff that 99% of people here say.
True, but self-referencing, so this holds little weight, logically!

I do agree with Firstsevingman, however: From what I can discern, your posts are polite and decent. This already places you in the top 1%.
 

spinovic

Hall of Fame
As for Roddick, I think the point he is making is simple and accurate. In terms of historical rankings, Djokovic has work to do to get in the tier 1 discussion. Six majors is too much difference, and in the interview he specifically says, "If those numbers stay the same..."

Andy is being reasonable and realistic and basing it on what has actually happened, not on the idea of what could happen.

Consider that at the end of 2007, Federer passing Sampras at 14 majors was a foregone conclusion. A year later, there were serious doubts about whether he would even match that number.

Fast forward to the 2011 French Open - many felt like Nadal had a good chance at catching Federer, then Djokovic happened. And, again at the end of the 2014 French Open the talk of Nadal catching Federer was heating up. Now, less than a year later, there are questions that Nadal may not win another.

The hype train gets out of control. I think the underlying implication is that it is a significant achievement to win a single major, much less 8, much less 14. It's not easy, and just assuming anyone is going to win 4, 5, 6 more is looking way too far ahead. Historically, guys don't win 6 more majors once they get to Novak's age. Obviously, the age in tennis has gone up, so perhaps that will change with him, but as of now, it is without precedent.

Appreciate what he's done and enjoy watching an all-time great near the top of his game.
 

daddy

Legend
On another thought, although I completely agree with Andy, I do think that he should not make such comments while they are active and playing, I mean who knows what can happen. Let the guys play and let the history judge their achievements one day when they are retired.
 

D.Nalby12

G.O.A.T.
Although, at the moment he's tier two great in All time list, game is not over yet.

In next week he officially will become second most dominant player of the era. Considering current state of competition and his physical fitness, it's certainly possible for him to end with second best player of the era or best player of generation.

In my opinion Djokovic is more versatile and gifted player than Nadal. He will prove it eventually, just matter of time.
 
Top