Australian Open 2025 QF - [7] Novak Djokovic (SRB) v/s [3] Carlos Alcaraz Garfia (SPN)

Win Prediction Poll


  • Total voters
    116
  • Poll closed .

tudwell

G.O.A.T.
No I think he's just saying he was able to fight through it with the hope of 1-1 but would not have been down 0-2.
No way he throws in the towel. I don’t believe it. He won three straight sets against Alcaraz today over 3.5 hours. He was perfectly fine to keep battling. He would still have believed he could come back even if he was down two sets and a break.

Maybe that is indeed how he felt at one point in time but I think if push had actually come to shove, he would have fought till the last breath.
 

Winner Sinner

Hall of Fame
When the player with the highest tennis IQ in history (don't be offended, Nick, but it's not you...LOL) meets a player so limited tactically on his favorite surface, the limited tactically player is a dead player.

This is the summary of the match.
 

Move

Hall of Fame
Too good, Carlos isnt ready to play clinical yet, he has won a lot by talent and balls, but this doesnt translate yet to every tournament, dissapointed today but not losing the faith he Will become the player we all expect him to be.
Its been said ofter, Carlos just needs more shot accuracy and discipline when things are not going his way. Playing like he is now doing is going to keep causing upsets. Especially on medium / fast HC
 

TheSlicer

Hall of Fame
Its been said ofter, Carlos just needs more shot accuracy and discipline when things are not going his way. Playing like he is now doing is going to keep causing upsets. Especially on medium / fast HC
On this court It seems specially difficult for him to hit though the court, his shots dont harm the top guys a lot, on other hard courts this is different, and this is not a fast hardcourt, at uso for instance i feel his Game works better, despite what happened last year
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Fed was losing to Tsitsipas at a younger age than Novak is now. Novak is simply a greater and better player
Because results at the AO are the sole barometer for greatness. Djokovic is certainly greater than Fed at the AO, and certainly better than 37 aged Fed there. But Fed was better at 36 and probably 35 so who cares. Over the course of their careers Djokovic has generally done better here regardless of age.
I’m curious what would have to happen for you to admit you’re wrong. If a “real” player never comes to wipe out all of these horrible mugs who would’ve lost to all the top players of yore what then? Tennis is just in an infinite regress of crap. There will never be an actually good player again. Is Sinner tainted too because he’s lost too much to Djokovic and players Djokovic beat or is he far enough removed that if he dominates we can say he’s actually good and not just the first among bums.
Sinner is probably a doper sadly, which is the icing on the cake. Real player is relative. With a straight face can you say anyone born after 1990 is definitely a better player than Andy Murray? I don't know if it's in an infinite regress but considering that even as late as a couple of years ago Djokovic was mowing through slam draws with an ease even greater than his peak I think it's obvious that the level of tennis at the top has declined.
 
Alcaraz will never be greater than Djokovic no matter what he does. Having a losing h2h and been owned by someone 16 years younger than you is simply embarrassing. It's a permanent black stain that can never be erased. The same way Lebron will never be better than MJ because of his losing finals record and his shameful loss to the Mavericks in 2011.
 

Move

Hall of Fame
Lol, this 100% feels like mind games for Alcaraz, to make the loss feel that much more painful.
No he is still in the tournament and coaches of Zverev / Sinner would take note (telling details about his injury) of course. He explained that in the interview.
Sinner did the same.
 
Because results at the AO are the sole barometer for greatness. Djokovic is certainly greater than Fed at the AO, and certainly better than 37 aged Fed there. But Fed was better at 36 and probably 35 so who cares. Over the course of their careers Djokovic has generally done better here regardless of age.
Better at AO, RG and USO. Pretty much equal to Fed at WB. That's 3 slams to 1. Djokovic clearly the better player against any kind of opposition
 

Alcawrath

Professional
Alcaraz will never be greater than Djokovic no matter what he does. Having a losing h2h and been owned by someone 16 years younger than you is simply embarrassing. It's a permanent black stain that can never be erased. The same way Lebron will never be better than MJ because of his losing finals record and his shameful loss to the Mavericks in 2011.
At 24 majors I doubt anyone will achieve greater accomplishments than Djokovic, but the narrative that somehow Djoko is an elderly citizen is ridiculous. He played incredibly for the last two sets of today's match and did not show his age. Carlos could have played much better, but Djokovic only dropped his level for about 3-5 games in the entire match.
 

The Guru

Legend
Because results at the AO are the sole barometer for greatness. Djokovic is certainly greater than Fed at the AO, and certainly better than 37 aged Fed there. But Fed was better at 36 and probably 35 so who cares. Over the course of their careers Djokovic has generally done better here regardless of age.

Sinner is probably a doper sadly, which is the icing on the cake. Real player is relative. With a straight face can you say anyone born after 1990 is definitely a better player than Andy Murray? I don't know if it's in an infinite regress but considering that even as late as a couple of years ago Djokovic was mowing through slam draws with an ease even greater than his peak I think it's obvious that the level of tennis at the top has declined.
I can say yes I do think Carlos is better and if Sinner is clean (huge doubt) him too but also that’s a very different question when you’re asking me than when I’m asking you because you don’t think of Murray as a special player. He’s just a more consistent non ATG who’s not particularly noteworthy in your eyes. So I ask you what are the odds we not only don’t get a ATG for this long but also don’t even get a Murray or a Roddick or a Hewitt for this long. Do you really think that’s what’s happened. All it would take is one of those guys and they’d dominate the tour the last 5 years (juiced Sinner withstanding)? Anyway if one of these never comes what then? You’re holding to this theory that everyone sucks?
 

AM75

Hall of Fame
They’re more tactical than physical tbh. He has the groundstrokes, but he doesn’t have a good grasp of shot selection.
It‘s probably his Svengali who decides how Alcaraz need to play, and once the plan doesn‘t work problems begin.
 

Galvermegs

Professional
Terrible whining from nole over line calls too. I wont miss him when he finally leaves with 30 majors and a fractured skull as his career ending injury scare.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I can say yes I do think Carlos is better and if Sinner is clean (huge doubt) him too but also that’s a very different question when you’re asking me than when I’m asking you because you don’t think of Murray as a special player. He’s just a more consistent non ATG who’s not particularly noteworthy in your eyes. So I ask you what are the odds we not only don’t get a ATG for this long but also don’t even get a Murray or a Roddick or a Hewitt for this long. Do you really think that’s what’s happened. All it would take is one of those guys and they’d dominate the tour the last 5 years (juiced Sinner withstanding)? Anyway if one of these never comes what then? You’re holding to this theory that everyone sucks?
What seems more likely to you, that Djokovic has not only not declined from his mid-late 20's but possibly improved or there's been a dearth of talent at the top of the game? For me, watching Djokovic the past several years and watching the exploits of the other players the latter is quite obvious. It seems bizarre to me that we've been waiting so long for a top talent but that's clearly the situation we're in, who were the best players of the last two generations? Thiem and Medvedev? Says it all really. I have perhaps been too hard on Alcaraz because he is only 21 and HC obviously exposes his flaws, expecting a Big 3 like ceiling is perhaps unrealistic and he has defeated Djokovic before in big matches.

I don't think Roddick or Hewitt had the consistency to dominate for 5 years, I think they'd have similar slam totals to Sinneraz though. Murray I think would have feasted on this era because his high floor type of game and physicality would have been enough to beat all these guys more often than not.

I can't really fathom how you can disagree with me tbh. Considering the battles Djokovic had with the likes of Murray, Wawrinka etc...in his actual prime, how can there be any doubt that they'd probably be beating his mid to late 30's version quite consistently?
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
Djokovic was hitting his forehand much bigger than Alcaraz on average in the 1st two sets. He was at 81 mph in the 1st and 85 mph in the 2nd. Alcaraz was 79 in the 1st set and 74 mph in the 2nd iirc. Not sure about 3rd and 4th sets because they didn't show the graphic again.
 

zvelf

Hall of Fame
I will never look at Alcaraz the same again in terms of his greatness relative to all time greats. You can't lose to a middle aged Djokovic this badly mind you and be considered an all time great.
Djokovic is still 37. 37-year-old Jimmy Connors beat 23-year-old Stefan Edberg 6-2, 6-3, 6-1 at the 1989 U.S. Open. Alcaraz performed much better than Edberg, so I guess Edberg can never be considered an all-time great.

There's no way Nadal, Federer or hell even prime Murray or Wawrinka would get punked by 38 year old Djokovic.
Hell, I bet even Zverev wins next round.
Nadal lost to Federer who was just 1 month shy of 38 (slightly older than Djokovic is now) at 2019 Wimbledon so why not?
 

ppma

Professional
It's kind of dumb Fedr fans are constantly trashing on Alcaraz for not being the smartest player, but their favorite was not exactly a tactical genius on the court either lmao. The most creative for sure (just like Alcaraz!), but incredibly incredibly stubborn.
From my POV that's part of what made him entertaining to watch. Playing smart is often playing boring.
 

marc45

G.O.A.T.
Are you still there. Alcaraz while he played ok had a lot of nerves in this match
he did at the beginning and idk why, he had more than enough experience to avoid that and I can't see how the broadcaster thing would affect him...but there's no doubt as the match went on Novak got in his head and made him question his strategy and abilities, even with JCF right there to help him...Carlos even imitating Novak was a sign of doubt, even if it was funny and the material provided by Novak is legendary (on one leg this time!)...I don't think Carlos ever capitulated, just ran out of answers...overall though a pretty disappointing performance from him, not horrible, just not good enough...I am surprised this could happen at this point in their careers and with Novak literally hobbling around between points...Carlos really needs to dig in on hardcourts too because he's in a slump on them at this point, particularly in Melbourne
 
Last edited:

zvelf

Hall of Fame
What seems more likely to you, that Djokovic has not only not declined from his mid-late 20's but possibly improved or there's been a dearth of talent at the top of the game? For me, watching Djokovic the past several years and watching the exploits of the other players the latter is quite obvious. It seems bizarre to me that we've been waiting so long for a top talent but that's clearly the situation we're in, who were the best players of the last two generations? Thiem and Medvedev? Says it all really. I have perhaps been too hard on Alcaraz because he is only 21 and HC obviously exposes his flaws, expecting a Big 3 like ceiling is perhaps unrealistic and he has defeated Djokovic before in big matches.

I don't think Roddick or Hewitt had the consistency to dominate for 5 years, I think they'd have similar slam totals to Sinneraz though. Murray I think would have feasted on this era because his high floor type of game and physicality would have been enough to beat all these guys more often than not.

I can't really fathom how you can disagree with me tbh. Considering the battles Djokovic had with the likes of Murray, Wawrinka etc...in his actual prime, how can there be any doubt that they'd probably be beating his mid to late 30's version quite consistently?
There's clearly been a decline in level of competition after 2016 (although the decline in 2017 was mostly due to Murray, Nishikori, and Raonic all getting serious injuries that ultimately derailed their careers and Djokovic also being injured and not recovering until mid-2018). That said, the Big 3 have spoiled people's expectations. The Big 3 won with a consistency never before seen in tennis and that's the comparison now. Alcaraz and Sinner were never going to have that kind of consistency and people now expect them to be practically perfect or else they are failures. Pre-injury Thiem and Medvedev are only slightly inferior to pre-injury Hewitt and Roddick, but Alcaraz and Sinner (leaving doping accusations aside) are better than all four of these players, probably substantially so. I imagine they will both eventually beat say, the resume of an Andre Agassi (even with the upcoming competition of Fonseca and Mensik). They just aren't Big 3 level.
 

The Guru

Legend
What seems more likely to you, that Djokovic has not only not declined from his mid-late 20's but possibly improved or there's been a dearth of talent at the top of the game? For me, watching Djokovic the past several years and watching the exploits of the other players the latter is quite obvious. It seems bizarre to me that we've been waiting so long for a top talent but that's clearly the situation we're in, who were the best players of the last two generations? Thiem and Medvedev? Says it all really. I have perhaps been too hard on Alcaraz because he is only 21 and HC obviously exposes his flaws, expecting a Big 3 like ceiling is perhaps unrealistic and he has defeated Djokovic before in big matches.

I don't think Roddick or Hewitt had the consistency to dominate for 5 years, I think they'd have similar slam totals to Sinneraz though. Murray I think would have feasted on this era because his high floor type of game and physicality would have been enough to beat all these guys more often than not.

I can't really fathom how you can disagree with me tbh. Considering the battles Djokovic had with the likes of Murray, Wawrinka etc...in his actual prime, how can there be any doubt that they'd probably be beating his mid to late 30's version quite consistently?
I have the same take I had with Federer. Yes he has declined but just way less than you think. You see a chasm between 2005 and 2017 and 2011 and 2023. I don’t. I see small margins that matter when you’re playing someone on the level of peak big 3 but not in many other cases. Like looking at the data and results against players I think we are forced to draw conclusions like post prime Fed and Djokovic were harder to break than peak Fed and Djok. I think this is also true of Nadal but with him it’s more complicated so I’m excluding him. So essentially they were better at half of what tennis constitutes and it’s the half that you claim is the more important half. How much worse then could they really be? Worse. But not massively so.

I really think you have Murray born 5 years later and you have a similar result with Djokovic winning around 80% of their slam matches. I think the level Djokovic has produced since 2018 at each slam is better than the best Murray we saw. I think Djokovic like many great athletes across all sports and like Nadal and Federer extended his greatness well into his 30s.

I can get on board with the post Big 3 90s gens were weak. I can’t get on board with the claim that they were so weak that not only are they clearly the worst ever they’ve actually reversed the progress of tennis to such an extent that the best of them would get dominated by second tier players born 20 years earlier. So unlike every other sport tennis is getting worse and the game didn’t produce even a second tier talent for 15 years.

There’s also a lot of implicit implications about how good 30s big 3 are and how they were worse than past worse greats which extends the regress of tennis back even further. The entire thesis is just completely implausible because it’s taken to such an insane extent. You can’t just be happy with they were weak. It has to be they’re so weak that everything that happens is completely illegitimate and that’s how we end up with people saying Peak Ferrer would dust peak thiem and all credibility is just completely out the window.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
There's clearly been a decline in level of competition after 2016 (although the decline in 2017 was mostly due to Murray, Nishikori, and Raonic all getting serious injuries that ultimately derailed their careers and Djokovic also being injured and not recovering until mid-2018). That said, the Big 3 have spoiled people's expectations. The Big 3 won with a consistency never before seen in tennis and that's the comparison now. Alcaraz and Sinner were never going to have that kind of consistency and people now expect them to be practically perfect or else they are failures. Pre-injury Thiem and Medvedev are only slightly inferior to pre-injury Hewitt and Roddick, but Alcaraz and Sinner (leaving doping accusations aside) are better than all four of these players, probably substantially so. I imagine they will both eventually beat say, the resume of an Andre Agassi (even with the upcoming competition of Fonseca and Mensik). They just aren't Big 3 level.
Sure I think that's fair.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I have the same take I had with Federer. Yes he has declined but just way less than you think. You see a chasm between 2005 and 2017 and 2011 and 2023. I don’t. I see small margins that matter when you’re playing someone on the level of peak big 3 but not in many other cases. Like looking at the data and results against players I think we are forced to draw conclusions like post prime Fed and Djokovic were harder to break than peak Fed and Djok. I think this is also true of Nadal but with him it’s more complicated so I’m excluding him. So essentially they were better at half of what tennis constitutes and it’s the half that you claim is the more important half. How much worse then could they really be? Worse. But not massively so.

I really think you have Murray born 5 years later and you have a similar result with Djokovic winning around 80% of their slam matches. I think the level Djokovic has produced since 2018 at each slam is better than the best Murray we saw. I think Djokovic like many great athletes across all sports and like Nadal and Federer extended his greatness well into his 30s.

I can get on board with the post Big 3 90s gens were weak. I can’t get on board with the claim that they were so weak that not only are they clearly the worst ever they’ve actually reversed the progress of tennis to such an extent that the best of them would get dominated by second tier players born 20 years earlier. So unlike every other sport tennis is getting worse and the game didn’t produce even a second tier talent for 15 years.

There’s also a lot of implicit implications about how good 30s big 3 are and how they were worse than past worse greats which extends the regress of tennis back even further. The entire thesis is just completely implausible because it’s taken to such an insane extent. You can’t just be happy with they were weak. It has to be they’re so weak that everything that happens is completely illegitimate and that’s how we end up with people saying Peak Ferrer would dust peak thiem and all credibility is just completely out the window.
Ok let's explore this a little bit, I don't care about Federer's efficacy in dispatching early round opponents so I'll focus on just the top 10.

Looking at equivalent periods, Federer in 04-07 held 87.8% of the time, and in 2014-2017 he held 88.5% of the time. So there is a slight edge to 2014-2017, it's less than 1% - there's a full 5% drop in return games won though. Which is significant in a game of fine margins as you call it. The proportion of clay matches probably has something to do with both those stats as well, 7 matches in 14-17 vs 14 in 04-07. If we look at just HC the most represented surface, he actually held more versus the top 10 in 2004-2007 (90.4% vs 88.6%). Though I guess you could call that the Djokovic factor in 2014/2015? I don't think it's clear at all though that you'd want Older Fed serving for you if your life depended on it against an elite opponent. On grass he held serve better in 2014-2017, holding serve 91.3% of the time versus 89.8 but there's a monstrous 10% difference in return games one 24.3% versus 14%...Not sure how exactly you'd quantify Federer's decline but outside of specific tournaments and runs it's quite obvious IMO. Massive decline is too far in a game we agree is often decided by fine margins but it's enough to flip some results in 2004-2007 the other way IMO, or turn four set wins into hard five setters etc...

I'll do a quick look at Djokovic, but I don't want to include the back half of 2016, so 2011-2016.5 he held serve against the top 10 83.9% of the time (broke 29.9%), on HC this 85% and 32.2%. From mid 2018 to 2023 he was at 86%/23.1, and 88.4%/23.5% on HC. I would think the quality of the top 10 opponents in this timeframe versus the earlier one influences these but I guess you'd say the reverse for Federer. So on face value he did have a significant uptick in hold percentage, with a slightly bigger drop in return effectiveness. What I would say here though is that if we look at say 2015, he held serve 86.7% of the time and broke 32% of the time, versus 2023 where was at 88.5% holds and 22.5% breaks - which again looks like a significant dip to me.

I do (rightly) think the serve is the most important shot but even Fed was never a serve bot - not enough to offset the drop in return quality.

If you look at the physicality of the 2012-2013 Djokorray matches at the AO I don't see how you could favour 2021/2023 Djokovic for example. Perhaps 2019 was good enough to avoid that kind of attritional match but that's just one year. The best of the next generation went down so easily at the AO in 2021/2023, USO 2023 etc...I just don't see how you could argue the level tennis hasn't regressed. Not when we have dozens of matches where second tier talents at least took sets or even beat the Big 3 when they were in or closer to their primes.

If I put my salt shaker down for a moment I will say that the weakness of the nextgen doesn't invalidate Djokovic's achievements nor does it mean he doesn't have a strong GOAT case. For me it just means there's still plenty of room for debate, which is not the opinion of many. So I do push back perhaps a little too hard.
 
No way he throws in the towel. I don’t believe it. He won three straight sets against Alcaraz today over 3.5 hours. He was perfectly fine to keep battling. He would still have believed he could come back even if he was down two sets and a break.

Maybe that is indeed how he felt at one point in time but I think if push had actually come to shove, he would have fought till the last breath.
Yeah I agree tbh he is not wired to cede lightly.
 

Winner Sinner

Hall of Fame
Sinner should take notes from Djokovic on how to beat Alcaraz.
Today Djokovic when the momentum of the match went in his favor capitalized on the moment, something Sinner failed to do in any of the 3 challenges last year.
If there is one thing that Sinner still lacks compared to Djokovic it is the killer instinct.

Obviously even Nole is not immune from the lack of killer instinct every now and then, watch the Wimbledon 2023 final, in particular the tiebreak in the second set, but he gives it to you once every 100 games played.
 

roysid

Legend
he did at the beginning and idk why, he had more than enough experience to avoid that and I can't see how the broadcaster thing would affect him...but there's no doubt as the match went on Novak got in his head and made him question his strategy and abilities, even with JCF right there to help him...Carlos even imitating Novak was a sign of doubt, even if it was funny and the material provided by Novak is legendary (on one leg this time!)...I don't think Carlos ever capitulated, just ran out of answers...overall though a pretty disappointing performance from him, not horrible, just not good enough...I am surprised this could happen at this point in their careers and with Novak literally hobbling around between points...Carlos really needs to dig in on hardcourts too because he's in a slump on them at this point, particularly in Melbourne
well Carlos himself admitted he made a mistake by not pressing hard in second set and let novak out of jail. after that he just collapsed.

he needs to steel up carlos, the occasion and the situation in match affected him
 
Wow. Kudos to Djokovic. That was a hell of a performance. Best slam match he’s played against this level of opposition since the 2023 Wimbledon semi if not longer. Alcaraz didn’t play poorly – he looked lost tactically at times but was constantly adjusting to find something that worked. Leagues better than his loss to Zverev here last year. He hasn’t put it all together yet on hard courts, but the tools are clearly there. (Continuing to improve the serve will help of course lol.)
Yah man - Novak was superb, Peter Pan incarnate, but with clout. Chappeau. The positive energy garnered from a match like this will be of significant help in playing the SF, and it would not surprise me if Novak prevails against Sasha. Except that Sacha too has a certain air about him........ should be a good contest.

Still have Jannik for the title, but it would be noteworthy for any of the contenders to win it - Novak to win a GS after last year's drought, and add to his gigantic haul; Sasha/Ben/ADM/Sonego (unseeded) to win their first GS; Jannik to continue his outstanding run. But in case there was doubt, Novak has reminded all and sundry of his prowess.

My dude Carlitos was outplayed, end of topic. Hope he'll be okay and remember that he can and has won at this level, not be demoralised, although it is likely he will be stinging from this beating for a while.

That's life - onwards and upwards, or sink. Looking forward to the remaining matches.
 

The Guru

Legend
Ok let's explore this a little bit, I don't care about Federer's efficacy in dispatching early round opponents so I'll focus on just the top 10.

Looking at equivalent periods, Federer in 04-07 held 87.8% of the time, and in 2014-2017 he held 88.5% of the time. So there is a slight edge to 2014-2017, it's less than 1% - there's a full 5% drop in return games won though. Which is significant in a game of fine margins as you call it. The proportion of clay matches probably has something to do with both those stats as well, 7 matches in 14-17 vs 14 in 04-07. If we look at just HC the most represented surface, he actually held more versus the top 10 in 2004-2007 (90.4% vs 88.6%). Though I guess you could call that the Djokovic factor in 2014/2015? I don't think it's clear at all though that you'd want Older Fed serving for you if your life depended on it against an elite opponent. On grass he held serve better in 2014-2017, holding serve 91.3% of the time versus 89.8 but there's a monstrous 10% difference in return games one 24.3% versus 14%...Not sure how exactly you'd quantify Federer's decline but outside of specific tournaments and runs it's quite obvious IMO. Massive decline is too far in a game we agree is often decided by fine margins but it's enough to flip some results in 2004-2007 the other way IMO, or turn four set wins into hard five setters etc...

I'll do a quick look at Djokovic, but I don't want to include the back half of 2016, so 2011-2016.5 he held serve against the top 10 83.9% of the time (broke 29.9%), on HC this 85% and 32.2%. From mid 2018 to 2023 he was at 86%/23.1, and 88.4%/23.5% on HC. I would think the quality of the top 10 opponents in this timeframe versus the earlier one influences these but I guess you'd say the reverse for Federer. So on face value he did have a significant uptick in hold percentage, with a slightly bigger drop in return effectiveness. What I would say here though is that if we look at say 2015, he held serve 86.7% of the time and broke 32% of the time, versus 2023 where was at 88.5% holds and 22.5% breaks - which again looks like a significant dip to me.

I do (rightly) think the serve is the most important shot but even Fed was never a serve bot - not enough to offset the drop in return quality.

If you look at the physicality of the 2012-2013 Djokorray matches at the AO I don't see how you could favour 2021/2023 Djokovic for example. Perhaps 2019 was good enough to avoid that kind of attritional match but that's just one year. The best of the next generation went down so easily at the AO in 2021/2023, USO 2023 etc...I just don't see how you could argue the level tennis hasn't regressed. Not when we have dozens of matches where second tier talents at least took sets or even beat the Big 3 when they were in or closer to their primes.

If I put my salt shaker down for a moment I will say that the weakness of the nextgen doesn't invalidate Djokovic's achievements nor does it mean he doesn't have a strong GOAT case. For me it just means there's still plenty of room for debate, which is not the opinion of many. So I do push back perhaps a little too hard.
So I think we can agree your quick analysis points to a slight improvement from both on a high level. I think the more you dig into those numbers the less slight it looks. As you mentioned there’s a pretty big difference on how much you’re going to hold when you’re most common top 10 rival is Roddick and Djokovic. I mean Federer’s 3 most common opponents in that time frame are guys who all have claims to have a top 3 all time return game. Not only that though there’s also (and this applies to Djokovic as well) how you’re able to invest energy into matches as you age. I imagine that in slams where complete focus and energy is being applied the gap in hold% is even larger. I’ve made this argument before but think it’s pretty reflective of a big change when peak Djokovic is struggling more to break you in a Wimbledon final than Roddick did a decade ago. I think we could probably same something similar with like Alcaraz and Wawrinka though I haven’t checked the numbers.

Anyway of course I agree that they’re improvements on holding don’t outweigh their decline in breaking but I think it’s remarkable to say they’re better at half the game and that certainly caps how much worse we can say they’ve gotten. And to me that cap is clearly above Andy Murray as great as I think he was. Old Big 3 were producing firmly ATG level tennis and sometimes reached up to GOAT level tennis when they turned back the clock. They were still that good.

I think it’s also relevant here that Novak was mostly clubbing these guys so there’s plenty of margin between being less good than peak and beating tier 2 guys of the 00s/10s. Even a 5 setter like RG 21 is a complete beatdown in terms of the level of tennis being played.

I get the frustration with Djokovic (and previously Nadal) smoking these guys over and over (though I think it cancels out their prior bad luck) but I also think in full honesty here the best from old Novak and Olddal clears non ATGs best stuff by honestly a lot.
 

marc45

G.O.A.T.
well Carlos himself admitted he made a mistake by not pressing hard in second set and let novak out of jail. after that he just collapsed.

he needs to steel up carlos, the occasion and the situation in match affected him
he's definitely right about the second set, even Novak said he was most likely done if he loses that
 

Move

Hall of Fame
He needs what the worst of his delusional fans believe he already has: a Plan B.
He was trying to mix things up in the 4th set but it really showed that he is not comfortable playing plan B. Big difference compared to Djokovic of course who has many strings to his bow
 
Last edited:
Top