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

Win Prediction Poll

  • Total voters
    116
  • Poll closed .
Winner Sinner said:
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.
Click to expand...
Wilander wasn’t playing today…?
You are aware that tennis did, in fact, exist prior to 2007, right? :unsure:
 
NatF said:
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.
Click to expand...
Given that Alcaraz has won more majors than than Murray before being legally allowed to drink in the US, I can indeed say with a straight face that he’s a better player than Murray.

You could argue weak eras until you’re blue in the face, but if you’ve seen Alcaraz play, you’d know that at his best, he’s that special.
 
The Guru said:
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.
Click to expand...

How has the pool of amateur players varied over time?

For me it has drastically decreased. At least this is what I see in Switzerland. We have just half of the clubs we had in the '80 and '90. The periferic ones closed from 10 up to 20y ago. Right now in 2020 tennis is mostly a geriatric sport. And this is also reflected in the overall quality of the top players. And by level of technical talent, for me Mac is still GOAT and by far.
 
FedForGOAT said:
Given that Alcaraz has won more majors than than Murray before being legally allowed to drink in the US, I can indeed say with a straight face that he’s a better player than Murray.

You could argue weak eras until you’re blue in the face, but if you’ve seen Alcaraz play, you’d know that at his best, he’s that special.
Click to expand...
I've seen Alcaraz live and in person.
 
The Guru said:
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.
Click to expand...
If 2011 Djokovic vs 2023 Djokovic played say 10 times could you see 2023 Djokovic winning a fair amount?
 
NYTennisfan said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...

Dude has done nothing to improve his game. His serve still looks like junk. Better fire ferrero.
 
Oceans II said:
Feeling confident and looking forward. Have this stupid feeling Djokovic will defeat Alcaraz and Zverev but lose to Sinner in the final after everything that has happened with Sinner. Worst scenario and will continue the tradition of Murray collecting runners-up plates at AO.
Click to expand...
Dang, poor Murray!
 
FedForGOAT said:
Given that Alcaraz has won more majors than than Murray before being legally allowed to drink in the US, I can indeed say with a straight face that he’s a better player than Murray.

You could argue weak eras until you’re blue in the face, but if you’ve seen Alcaraz play, you’d know that at his best, he’s that special.
Click to expand...
Well, I'm not a Murray fan, but look whom had Murray compete against in his time (prime Djofedal, Stan, Cilic, delPotro etc) and who is prime in Alcaraz's time. Can't compare achievements.
 
The Guru said:
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.
Click to expand...
If you exclude Djokovic from the stats it goes up from 88.5% to 90% for all surfaces, and 90.2% on HC. Which is still slightly less than his HC score during his peak. As with all things there’s fluctuations, in 2004 he held serve 92.5% of the time against the top 10, which is more than he did in 2015 - even excluding Djokovic. I agree on the whole his serve did improve as a standalone shot but his hold game was always very strong. Nadal was actually the most common top 10 rival as well (12), though I think Roddick was number 2 (10). But he also played Hewitt 7 times and Agassi 6 times. He did play Djokovic 14 times in 14-17, but Murray just 5 times and Nadal 6 times.

Well Federer in 2004 final didn't serve at his best, that's part of the reason - there was obvious a big gap between the serving 10 years apart. But then there's matches like the 2003 SF where Fed wasn't broken at all for example. If you look at the 2014 final Federer only broke 3 times in a much longer match against a worse server. So it's swings and roundabouts. It seems we do agree the decline in return was more impactful than any serve improvements, so that's something lol.

What's your bar for ATG tennis? To me that's a nebulous term. I think many non ATG's can reach that level occasionally, but they can't repeat it as often. The old Big 3 still had ATG consistency but they would be challenged by the best non-ATG peaks imo. You bring up the 2021 RG SF but I would say the aggregate level of tennis for the Wimbledon 2004 F was better. It's simply that the conditions and lack of strong serving led to more brutal rallies, which is likewise why a match like the 2011 USO has been overrated before - though it was obviously a higher standard than the RG SF.

Even if the best of old Djokodal was that good, they often won with their B/C games as well which wouldn't clear those players we've mentioned imo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RS
Mike Sams said:
Lot of hate on Alcaraz. It's quite clear he is not an elite talent on hard surfaces in majors. Having been dismissed at this same stage fairly handily by Zverev last year in a similar scoreline and having been crushed by Medvedev shortly before that in the SF of the US Open. People are more so banking on Djokovic being a pensioner as the only way for Alcaraz to get the victory. Djokovic is the tougher, more resilient player with the ability to change tactics on this surface. There's a reason he's won here 10 times.
Also, I don't think Alcaraz would've beaten Zverev if they had met in the SF. Alcaraz's draw towards the QF had been a complete cake walk. His talent on grass though is a different level. Much tougher to beat Alcaraz there.
Click to expand...

The gulf in skill and talent for HC tennis was just obvious. Return of serve, hitting the ball on the rise and changing direction, counter-punching, court positioning etc. Novak is just on another level to Carlos with the predictable bounce and sure footing HC provides, it's no coincidence he's 3-0 against him on HC.

Of course Alcaraz still wasn't far from probably snatching this match, if he took the 2nd set (Novak said himself he probably would have retired) or pushed it to 5. But that's because Novak's an old man in tennis terms.
 
NatF said:
If you exclude Djokovic from the stats it goes up from 88.5% to 90% for all surfaces, and 90.2% on HC. Which is still slightly less than his HC score during his peak. As with all things there’s fluctuations, in 2004 he held serve 92.5% of the time against the top 10, which is more than he did in 2015 - even excluding Djokovic. I agree on the whole his serve did improve as a standalone shot but his hold game was always very strong. Nadal was actually the most common top 10 rival as well (12), though I think Roddick was number 2 (10). But he also played Hewitt 7 times and Agassi 6 times. He did play Djokovic 14 times in 14-17, but Murray just 5 times and Nadal 6 times.

Well Federer in 2004 final didn't serve at his best, that's part of the reason - there was obvious a big gap between the serving 10 years apart. But then there's matches like the 2003 SF where Fed wasn't broken at all for example. If you look at the 2014 final Federer only broke 3 times in a much longer match against a worse server. So it's swings and roundabouts. It seems we do agree the decline in return was more impactful than any serve improvements, so that's something lol.

What's your bar for ATG tennis? To me that's a nebulous term. I think many non ATG's can reach that level occasionally, but they can't repeat it as often. The old Big 3 still had ATG consistency but they would be challenged by the best non-ATG peaks imo. You bring up the 2021 RG SF but I would say the aggregate level of tennis for the Wimbledon 2004 F was better. It's simply that the conditions and lack of strong serving led to more brutal rallies, which is likewise why a match like the 2011 USO has been overrated before - though it was obviously a higher standard than the RG SF.

Even if the best of old Djokodal was that good, they often won with their B/C games as well which wouldn't clear those players we've mentioned imo.
Click to expand...
Yeah we all disagree on this forum with what ATG tennis really is. Main problem.
 
NatF said:
If you exclude Djokovic from the stats it goes up from 88.5% to 90% for all surfaces, and 90.2% on HC. Which is still slightly less than his HC score during his peak. As with all things there’s fluctuations, in 2004 he held serve 92.5% of the time against the top 10, which is more than he did in 2015 - even excluding Djokovic. I agree on the whole his serve did improve as a standalone shot but his hold game was always very strong. Nadal was actually the most common top 10 rival as well (12), though I think Roddick was number 2 (10). But he also played Hewitt 7 times and Agassi 6 times. He did play Djokovic 14 times in 14-17, but Murray just 5 times and Nadal 6 times.

Well Federer in 2004 final didn't serve at his best, that's part of the reason - there was obvious a big gap between the serving 10 years apart. But then there's matches like the 2003 SF where Fed wasn't broken at all for example. If you look at the 2014 final Federer only broke 3 times in a much longer match against a worse server. So it's swings and roundabouts. It seems we do agree the decline in return was more impactful than any serve improvements, so that's something lol.

What's your bar for ATG tennis? To me that's a nebulous term. I think many non ATG's can reach that level occasionally, but they can't repeat it as often. The old Big 3 still had ATG consistency but they would be challenged by the best non-ATG peaks imo. You bring up the 2021 RG SF but I would say the aggregate level of tennis for the Wimbledon 2004 F was better. It's simply that the conditions and lack of strong serving led to more brutal rallies, which is likewise why a match like the 2011 USO has been overrated before - though it was obviously a higher standard than the RG SF.

Even if the best of old Djokodal was that good, they often won with their B/C games as well which wouldn't clear those players we've mentioned imo.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your dive into these numbers but again his hold numbers are up even though we're including years he struggled with injuries and was not able to be as consistent with his effort. And they're also up in slams specifically which I think is probably the best measure.

I think there's no conclusion to draw other than his hold game was at least slightly better (though ofc I agree it was always exceptional) even if it's only slight or even if it's equal again significantly caps how much worse we can say that he was (and this applies to Djokovic as well). I think on a micro scale we'd say all the same sorts of things about how and why Djokovic and Federer were worse in their 30s than their primes but when you add it all up we see totally different players it seems like. To me it's clear that if you look at 17-22 Nadal 18-23 Djokovic and 12-17 Federer and imagine those levels as the prime levels of a hypothetical player and extend that to a full career we're looking at an ATG player. We might not be looking at a guy who pushes into the Big 3 + Borg and Sampras territory but we're at the very least clearing the Wilander/Becker/Edberg bar.

That's what I mean when I say ATG tennis that they were producing levels consistent with a prime ATG.

And so when we say of that hey these guys actually not that good and the second tier players of the past two eras would be out competing them I just think that's totally wrong. And the proof's kinda in the pudding with how Federer performed against the second tier guys from golden gen in his post prime. And if you respected Zverev/Thiem/Med in a way I think that you should the proof would be in the pudding for Djokovic and Nadal too. Not to mention how Djokovic has now held up against Sinneraz as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RS
RS said:
If 2011 Djokovic vs 2023 Djokovic played say 10 times could you see 2023 Djokovic winning a fair amount?
Click to expand...
Do you think 2023 Djokovic is at least as good as prime Murray? Did prime Murray win a fair amount against prime Djokovic? I'm not gonna compare match to match or a tournament to tournament or year by year but yes I think 30s Djokovic competes just fine with 20s Djokovic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RS
The Guru said:
Do you think 2023 Djokovic is at least as good as prime Murray? Did prime Murray win a fair amount against prime Djokovic? I'm not gonna compare match to match or a tournament to tournament or year by year but yes I think 30s Djokovic competes just fine with 20s Djokovic.
Click to expand...
When you put it like this yeah that's fair. Murray won 30% of his matches vs Djokovic and 20% in slams.

But if you take 2011 Djokovic which was in this comparsion he went 10-1 vs Fedal.
 
Last edited:
Look when 2011 Djokovic is locked in he doesnt lose not just to older Novak but to basically anyone ever on any surface. Younger Djokovic is better than older Djokovic so when young Djokovic brings it he wins and 2011 Djokovic brought it basically every time. Which is why he was like 11-1 or whatever against Fedal. So I don't think 23 Novak has much success there but I think my first response to your questions is the more important and informative one.
 
The Guru said:
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.
Click to expand...
I find it inspiring that you continue to be a tennis fan while being blind... It's really quite hard to appreciate the sport without being able to see things :unsure:

In all seriousness, to reply to your argument: you really didn't need to make it so convoluted. You could've just said "mid 30s Fed and Djok were top 5 players in the world. How much worse could they have gotten?" And everyone would have to agree that best on the cold, hard facts, they only must've lost a small edge.

HOWEVER... and it saddens me to repeat this claim which has only been mentioned here ad nauseam... At this level of tennis (and many other endeavors) LITTLE EDGES MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE. Allow me to repeat and rephrase: FINE MARGINS DETERMINE ALMOST ALL TOP LEVEL MATCHES.

Did you get it? Need I repeat it again? Let me give an example. Remember the 2019 RG SF between Nadal and Federer? It was a routine straight set affair for Nadal: 6-3 6-4 6-2. What percentage of the points do you think Nadal won? That's right: 56% https://www.atptour.com/en/scores/match-stats/archive/2019/520/ms003. So Nadal basically won 11 out of every 20 points, Federer 9.
Care to wager what the margin was for the 2007 FO final? That's right, 53% to 47%. Nadal won less than one more point out of every 15. I just chose these two matches, but you could repeat these with many matches. Actually even in the most absurd beatdowns (say, RG 2008 F), you're unlikely to win 2/3 points.

Anyone who has statistically analyzed tennis will tell you (and this has been posted many times) how much more dominant is a player who wins 56% of points over a year, compared to say, 54% of points.
So bottom line: yes, no one is saying Federer and Djokovic are suddenly losing challenger-level matches in their mid 30s. But if they're losing 2% more of their points, that is a meaningfully huge difference.
Thank you for attending my TED Talk.
 
zagor said:
The gulf in skill and talent for HC tennis was just obvious. Return of serve, hitting the ball on the rise and changing direction, counter-punching, court positioning etc. Novak is just on another level to Carlos with the predictable bounce and sure footing HC provides, it's no coincidence he's 3-0 against him on HC.

Of course Alcaraz still wasn't far from probably snatching this match, if he took the 2nd set (Novak said himself he probably would have retired) or pushed it to 5. But that's because Novak's an old man in tennis terms.
Click to expand...
Djokovic killed Alcaraz's second serve.
Alcaraz only won 37% of his second serves.
Djokovic beefed up his forehand especially.
No doubt Djokovic is one of the greatest ever on HC.
Zverev and Sinner are also specialists on HC. Probably their best surface as they both have had impressive results in Melbourne.
Zverev having reached the SF last year and Sinner being the defending champion.
Djokovic will need to be in top level to go through these guys back to back. That's also depending on the quality of play that Zverev and Sinner respectively bring.
Sinner should be healthy going forward after struggling 2 days earlier.
 
Unless zverev chokes on serve, this will likely be a very long match.

Avg first serve speed 128
Avg second serve speed 109

Zverev is hitting bigger than even Opelka and unlike Opelka he is fit.

Djokovic's biggest decline is in return of serve. What can Andy Murray add to make it a fair fight ?
 
FedForGOAT said:
I find it inspiring that you continue to be a tennis fan while being blind... It's really quite hard to appreciate the sport without being able to see things :unsure:

In all seriousness, to reply to your argument: you really didn't need to make it so convoluted. You could've just said "mid 30s Fed and Djok were top 5 players in the world. How much worse could they have gotten?" And everyone would have to agree that best on the cold, hard facts, they only must've lost a small edge.

HOWEVER... and it saddens me to repeat this claim which has only been mentioned here ad nauseam... At this level of tennis (and many other endeavors) LITTLE EDGES MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE. Allow me to repeat and rephrase: FINE MARGINS DETERMINE ALMOST ALL TOP LEVEL MATCHES.

Did you get it? Need I repeat it again? Let me give an example. Remember the 2019 RG SF between Nadal and Federer? It was a routine straight set affair for Nadal: 6-3 6-4 6-2. What percentage of the points do you think Nadal won? That's right: 56% https://www.atptour.com/en/scores/match-stats/archive/2019/520/ms003. So Nadal basically won 11 out of every 20 points, Federer 9.
Care to wager what the margin was for the 2007 FO final? That's right, 53% to 47%. Nadal won less than one more point out of every 15. I just chose these two matches, but you could repeat these with many matches. Actually even in the most absurd beatdowns (say, RG 2008 F), you're unlikely to win 2/3 points.

Anyone who has statistically analyzed tennis will tell you (and this has been posted many times) how much more dominant is a player who wins 56% of points over a year, compared to say, 54% of points.
So bottom line: yes, no one is saying Federer and Djokovic are suddenly losing challenger-level matches in their mid 30s. But if they're losing 2% more of their points, that is a meaningfully huge difference.
Thank you for attending my TED Talk.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your condescending worthless addition to the discourse. I desperately needed something I already knew explained to me by someone who clearly knows less about it than me. Very much appreciated.
 
Last edited:
The Guru said:
Thank you for your condescending worthless addition to the discourse. I desperately needed something I already knew explained to me by someone who clearly knows less about it than me. Very much appreciated.
Click to expand...
I had quite a similar response prepared to this comment of yours, but I don't think this will get the discussion anywhere. I do apologize for being needlessly sarcastic and condescending. I tend to get very irritated when someone states something with too much confidence for my liking and I tend to respond overly harshly.

Let me assure you that I've followed quite a bit of tennis. And I'm quite aware of Federer, Djokovic, and other ATGs performances as they age. I'm happy to have a serious discussion on the topic. However, let me just say that watching the AO 2009 and AO 2017 side by side, is enough to show a very stark difference in athletic ability, IMHO.
 
FedForGOAT said:
I had quite a similar response prepared to this comment of yours, but I don't think this will get the discussion anywhere. I do apologize for being needlessly sarcastic and condescending. I tend to get very irritated when someone states something with too much confidence for my liking and I tend to respond overly harshly.

Let me assure you that I've followed quite a bit of tennis. And I'm quite aware of Federer, Djokovic, and other ATGs performances as they age. I'm happy to have a serious discussion on the topic. However, let me just say that watching the AO 2009 and AO 2017 side by side, is enough to show a very stark difference in athletic ability, IMHO.
Click to expand...
You insult me and mock my argument and then proceed to explain how tennis works to me like I'm an idiot and then proceed to make an absolutely asinine argument for yourself. Pop quiz here: What percent of points did Federer win in 2005 vs 2017 (the years I cited in the post you quoted)? 55.2 vs 54.9. Nothing even remotely close to the 2% number you pulled out of your ass. Now what argument was I actually making? Federer did a better job at holding serve as he aged. How about the hold % numbers from 2005 to 2017? Oh would you look at that 89.2% to 91.3%. My argument that you mocked and called me blind for is not only not stupid but factually correct. And hey would you look at that the difference is over 2%.

Now you can make arguments about why that is or why you think it's not representative and defend it reasonably with even a modicum of class as Nat did and you won't come off as a jerk and a buffoon. I'm not saying stats are everything and there are reasonable counter arguments to say that Roger's hold game didn't improve but you didn't make them instead you made an ass of yourself.

One last pop quiz how about the points won % of Fed from 2009 to 2017 (the years in your example)? 54% to 54.9%. Almost a whole percent lower in 2009. Would you look at that. Maybe it's time to turn the mirror inward and think about who might be stating things with too much confidence.

I'll lay off you now because you apologized. And I do agree that Fed and Nadal were more athletic in 2009. Though that has nothing to do with the argument I was originally making.
 
The Guru said:
You insult me and mock my argument and then proceed to explain how tennis works to me like I'm an idiot and then proceed to make an absolutely asinine argument for yourself. Pop quiz here: What percent of points did Federer win in 2005 vs 2017 (the years I cited in the post you quoted)? 55.2 vs 54.9. Nothing even remotely close to the 2% number you pulled out of your ass. Now what argument was I actually making? Federer did a better job at holding serve as he aged. How about the hold % numbers from 2005 to 2017? Oh would you look at that 89.2% to 91.3%. My argument that you mocked and called me blind for is not only not stupid but factually correct. And hey would you look at that the difference is over 2%.

Now you can make arguments about why that is or why you think it's not representative and defend it reasonably with even a modicum of class as Nat did and you won't come off as a jerk and a buffoon. I'm not saying stats are everything and there are reasonable counter arguments to say that Roger's hold game didn't improve but you didn't make them instead you made an ass of yourself.

One last pop quiz how about the points won % of Fed from 2009 to 2017 (the years in your example)? 54% to 54.9%. Almost a whole percent lower in 2009. Would you look at that. Maybe it's time to turn the mirror inward and think about who might be stating things with too much confidence.

I'll lay off you now because you apologized. And I do agree that Fed and Nadal were more athletic in 2009. Though that has nothing to do with the argument I was originally making.
Click to expand...
for the service number fed did not play clay and one percent is also significant. look at someone who won 49 percent vs someone who won 50 percent of points in their careers, there might be a pretty big skill gap there between the two players. Regardless of your original argument, your reasoning here is not very strong.
 
EddieChang said:
for the service number fed did not play clay and one percent is also significant. look at someone who won 49 percent vs someone who won 50 percent of points in their careers, there might be a pretty big skill gap there between the two players. Regardless of your original argument, your reasoning here is not very strong.
Click to expand...
Ok take 2005 vs 2015 instead Fed held 91.9% in 2015 a gap of almost 3%. And that one percent is in the opposite direction that he wants to be that is 17 Fed won one percent more points not less.
 
The Guru said:
Ok take 2005 vs 2015 instead Fed held 91.9% in 2015 a gap of almost 3%. And that one percent is in the opposite direction that he wants to be that is 17 Fed won one percent more points not less.
Click to expand...
Oh ok. Thats interesting. I never doubted the big 3 have improved parts of their games as they got older. But I guess we will never know like which version of them is the strongest because the competition is different
 
D.Nalby12 said:
Alcaraz has got losing 3-5 record against old Djokovic. *Facepalm*
Click to expand...
Why is that a surprise? Basically he's got:
- speed
- stamina
- strength
- dexterity

And doesn't have:
- intelligence
- deception
- wisdom
- perception
- intimidation

Can't win against the GOAT with these stats. Needs some level up.
 
Elden-Ring-Malenia-2.jpg
png-transparent-tazmanian-devil-tasmanian-devil-bugs-bunny-taz-time-busters-marvin-the-martian-taz-cartoon-animation-tazmania.png
 
The Guru said:
You insult me and mock my argument and then proceed to explain how tennis works to me like I'm an idiot and then proceed to make an absolutely asinine argument for yourself. Pop quiz here: What percent of points did Federer win in 2005 vs 2017 (the years I cited in the post you quoted)? 55.2 vs 54.9. Nothing even remotely close to the 2% number you pulled out of your ass. Now what argument was I actually making? Federer did a better job at holding serve as he aged. How about the hold % numbers from 2005 to 2017? Oh would you look at that 89.2% to 91.3%. My argument that you mocked and called me blind for is not only not stupid but factually correct. And hey would you look at that the difference is over 2%.

Now you can make arguments about why that is or why you think it's not representative and defend it reasonably with even a modicum of class as Nat did and you won't come off as a jerk and a buffoon. I'm not saying stats are everything and there are reasonable counter arguments to say that Roger's hold game didn't improve but you didn't make them instead you made an ass of yourself.

One last pop quiz how about the points won % of Fed from 2009 to 2017 (the years in your example)? 54% to 54.9%. Almost a whole percent lower in 2009. Would you look at that. Maybe it's time to turn the mirror inward and think about who might be stating things with too much confidence.

I'll lay off you now because you apologized. And I do agree that Fed and Nadal were more athletic in 2009. Though that has nothing to do with the argument I was originally making.
Click to expand...
Dude, that's a bush league response. I'll admit (and have admitted) I was out of line in my original post. But then for you to talk to me a very rude way (frankly much ruder than I have been - I was condescending but I used nice language) and continue bashing me, only to end with "I'll lay off you now because you apologized"? Lol.

You have to choose. Either you accept an apology - and you could even have said in the beginning of your post something like "I think you were being an ass, but I accept you apology", or you don't accept it. But you can't continue being a jerk and THEN say "I'll lay off now". That's like what a little kid does, he hits another kid, and after he's finished he says "ok, now truce?".


Please, allow me to bash you, and then I can say (and actually mean it) that I'll lay off of you in the end.

As to your arguments, notice I never said that Fed won 2% more points in 2005 compared to 2017. I used that as a simplified example of a case that many people would not think is very meaningful but actually is. I very clearly said "SAY, 56% to 54%". I don't know if you actually failed to understand that, or were trying to deliberately twist my words (basically employing straw-man arguments), but either way, that's not a great look.
And for what it's worth, I don't consider points won % a good metric at all to rate a pro's level. Again, I was just using a simplified example.
And since you're trying to show me how much better you know these topics, here's a fun question: If a player wins x% of his service points, and y% of returns points, and each point is believed to be an i.i.d (Independent identically distributed random variable), what's the probability that he wins the set he's playing (best of 12 games win by 2, or tiebreak). I've actually calculated the polynomial expression - feel free to check my posts if you don't believe me.
Perhaps you shouldn't assume that you know everything best, and you won't come off as a jerk and a buffoon. But hey, I'll lay off of you, since you promised to do the same.

And since I don't want to hijack this thread,
peace.
 
FedForGOAT said:
Dude, that's a bush league response. I'll admit (and have admitted) I was out of line in my original post. But then for you to talk to me a very rude way (frankly much ruder than I have been - I was condescending but I used nice language) and continue bashing me, only to end with "I'll lay off you now because you apologized"? Lol.

You have to choose. Either you accept an apology - and you could even have said in the beginning of your post something like "I think you were being an ass, but I accept you apology", or you don't accept it. But you can't continue being a jerk and THEN say "I'll lay off now". That's like what a little kid does, he hits another kid, and after he's finished he says "ok, now truce?".


Please, allow me to bash you, and then I can say (and actually mean it) that I'll lay off of you in the end.

As to your arguments, notice I never said that Fed won 2% more points in 2005 compared to 2017. I used that as a simplified example of a case that many people would not think is very meaningful but actually is. I very clearly said "SAY, 56% to 54%". I don't know if you actually failed to understand that, or were trying to deliberately twist my words (basically employing straw-man arguments), but either way, that's not a great look.
And for what it's worth, I don't consider points won % a good metric at all to rate a pro's level. Again, I was just using a simplified example.
And since you're trying to show me how much better you know these topics, here's a fun question: If a player wins x% of his service points, and y% of returns points, and each point is believed to be an i.i.d (Independent identically distributed random variable), what's the probability that he wins the set he's playing (best of 12 games win by 2, or tiebreak). I've actually calculated the polynomial expression - feel free to check my posts if you don't believe me.
Perhaps you shouldn't assume that you know everything best, and you won't come off as a jerk and a buffoon. But hey, I'll lay off of you, since you promised to do the same.

And since I don't want to hijack this thread,
peace.
Click to expand...
Tldr:

• Admits Fault: Acknowledges being out of line in the original post.
• Criticizes Response: Points out the other person was ruder despite the apology.
• Apology Clarification: States apologies should be clear without continued insults.
• Defends Argument: Explains the use of simplified statistics and addresses misunderstandings.
• Challenges Knowledge: Poses a technical question to test the other person’s understanding.
• Seeks Peace: Expresses willingness to move past the conflict.
 
FedForGOAT said:
Dude, that's a bush league response. I'll admit (and have admitted) I was out of line in my original post. But then for you to talk to me a very rude way (frankly much ruder than I have been - I was condescending but I used nice language) and continue bashing me, only to end with "I'll lay off you now because you apologized"? Lol.

You have to choose. Either you accept an apology - and you could even have said in the beginning of your post something like "I think you were being an ass, but I accept you apology", or you don't accept it. But you can't continue being a jerk and THEN say "I'll lay off now". That's like what a little kid does, he hits another kid, and after he's finished he says "ok, now truce?".


Please, allow me to bash you, and then I can say (and actually mean it) that I'll lay off of you in the end.

As to your arguments, notice I never said that Fed won 2% more points in 2005 compared to 2017. I used that as a simplified example of a case that many people would not think is very meaningful but actually is. I very clearly said "SAY, 56% to 54%". I don't know if you actually failed to understand that, or were trying to deliberately twist my words (basically employing straw-man arguments), but either way, that's not a great look.
And for what it's worth, I don't consider points won % a good metric at all to rate a pro's level. Again, I was just using a simplified example.
And since you're trying to show me how much better you know these topics, here's a fun question: If a player wins x% of his service points, and y% of returns points, and each point is believed to be an i.i.d (Independent identically distributed random variable), what's the probability that he wins the set he's playing (best of 12 games win by 2, or tiebreak). I've actually calculated the polynomial expression - feel free to check my posts if you don't believe me.
Perhaps you shouldn't assume that you know everything best, and you won't come off as a jerk and a buffoon. But hey, I'll lay off of you, since you promised to do the same.

And since I don't want to hijack this thread,
peace.
Click to expand...
Also, potential Psychological Observations:


• Frustration and Irritation:
• The tone reflects significant annoyance with the other person’s approach and comments.
• Defensive Behavior:
• Quickly justifies and defends personal viewpoints, possibly indicating sensitivity to criticism.
• Desire for Control in Communication:
• Prefers structured interactions where criticism is followed by genuine apology, showing a need for clear resolution pathways.
• Assertion of Intellectual Superiority:
• Uses detailed statistics and technical questions to establish authority on the topic, which may stem from a need to assert competence.
• Conflict Aversion Coupled with Confrontational Approach:
• While expressing a desire to end the conflict, the approach taken is confrontational, suggesting internal conflict about how to handle disputes.

Note: This analysis is based solely on the provided

I love ChatGPT, it's so fun to play with
 
And, to end it for both of ya, our overlord ChatGPT says:

Interpersonal Dynamics:
• Escalation of Conflict:
• Both parties exhibit defensiveness and aggressiveness, leading to an escalating conflict rather than resolution.
• Communication Breakdown:
• Misunderstandings and accusations prevent constructive dialogue, fostering resentment.
• Need for Respect and Understanding:
• Both individuals seek respect and proper acknowledgment of their arguments, but the approaches hinder mutual understanding.

Conclusion:
The interaction between both parties is characterized by defensiveness, frustration, and a lack of constructive communication. Each individual feels misunderstood and disrespected, leading to aggressive exchanges rather than productive dialogue. Both parties exhibit behaviors that suggest a need for validation, control, and respect in discussions, but their approaches hinder effective conflict resolution.

it was fun, I for one welcome our predictive machine overlords :)
 
The Guru said:
Look when 2011 Djokovic is locked in he doesnt lose not just to older Novak but to basically anyone ever on any surface. Younger Djokovic is better than older Djokovic so when young Djokovic brings it he wins and 2011 Djokovic brought it basically every time. Which is why he was like 11-1 or whatever against Fedal. So I don't think 23 Novak has much success there but I think my first response to your questions is the more important and informative one.
Click to expand...
I would ask about 2015 but I am sure you rate 2015 Djokovic and 2011 Djokovic more or less equals so I imagine you would say the same. I guess that applies more to 2012-2014 Djokovic I think some of NoleFam would put 2018-2023 Djokovic ahead of that.
 
Vincent-C said:
it's the carrots

;)
Click to expand...
Are you implying that he's on drugs but because of the money involved in the tour, the "investors" are afraid of pointing it out and bring the whole tennis down to what Armstrong did with cycling? The same thing they did with a WTA player for years? Then sir, you're most probably right :cool:
 
Bogdan_TT said:
Well, I'm not a Murray fan, but look whom had Murray compete against in his time (prime Djofedal, Stan, Cilic, delPotro etc) and who is prime in Alcaraz's time. Can't compare achievements.
Click to expand...

But Murray only made his first slam final at an age where Alcaraz already won four. It wasn't the Big 3 stopping Murray from making finals earlier.

So maybe Alcaraz is simply better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rafa4LifeEver
  • Poll Poll
2025 Australian open SF - [7] Novak Djokovic (SRB) v/s [2] Alexander 'Sascha' Zverev (GER)
15 16 17
Replies
819
Views
28K
Bride of Alcaraz
B
Rafa4LifeEver
  • Poll Poll
2025 Roland Garros QF - [2] Carlos Alcaraz Garfia (SPN) v/s [12] Thomas John Robert Paul (USA)
8 9 10
Replies
454
Views
11K
sportsfan1
S
Rafa4LifeEver
  • Poll Poll
2025 Wimbledon R32 - [2] Carlos Alcaraz Garfia (SPN) v/s Jan-Lennard Struff (GER)
7 8 9
Replies
434
Views
6K
Djokovic_is_the_best#1
Djokovic_is_the_best#1
Rafa4LifeEver
  • Poll Poll
2025 Wimbledon QF - [2] Carlos Alcaraz Garfia (SPN) v/s Cameron Norrie (Great Britain)
8 9 10
Replies
483
Views
10K
Tallawah Tennis
T
Rafa4LifeEver
  • Poll Poll
2025 Rotterdam Open ATP 500 R32 - [1] Carlos Alcaraz Garfia (SPN) v/s Botic van de Zandschulp (NLD)
Replies
29
Views
1K
Rafa4LifeEver
Rafa4LifeEver
Back
Top