(@mike danny) This would be a reasonable point if it was made by a genuine Djokovic GOAT believer but I haven't found many yet. I have only ever known Djokovic fans that blame Nadal for being a freakish child prodigy that wanted to take on peak Federer. It would be special to find one that contradicts me.Poor Djokovic, what a fool. Should have dropped some sets on purpose to make the competition better.
'Merely 7 slams' dude.... can you actually reread that and then say it out loud slowly to yourself. Then add before he turned 29. Goodness me, people these days have no sense of perspective.Problem is not with Djokovic winning 17 slams post 2015, problem is he won merely 7 slams before it, if he was that good to win 17 slams post 28 then what stopped him from winning even 10 before 2015? That's my point and a very valid one.
this one had me laughing for agesOver BO3 sure but at slams, not really. Both equally as effective at winning H2H. 0% win rate.
son, 7 out of 24 and that too when you were supposed to be in your absolute prime is merely when you win 17 after turning 28 lol'Merely 7 slams' dude.... can you actually reread that and then say it out loud slowly to yourself. Then add before he turned 29. Goodness me, people these days have no sense of perspective.
I intended this post to come before my last to you. That is the order I still intend the posts to be read. Unfortunately I got distracted making a joke and ran out of time to finish this post at the time.Murray was not a factor post back surgery ?!?!?!?!? He was #1 in 2016 and 2017, he was a factor until mid-2017 so he was a rival to Djokovic most of his career.
Who cares if he is "past his prime" or not. He won EIGHT slams after 2014 RG. That's 3 fewer than half his total. And what about AO 2019? Or it doesn't count because Djokovic won convincingly? Should he have dropped a few more games or a set for it to count? And if Nadal loses early it is Djokovic's fault? Djokovic was not past his prime most of this period since he is only one year younger than Nadal? Why can Djokovic win past his prime and Nadal cannot? We discount Federer's wins over Nadal at the AO 2017 and Wimbledon 2019 since Nadal was past his prime? How many slams did Federer win then beating ATG if "past his prime" doesn't count? Because if past his prime doesn't count then before your prime doesn't count either? What are the slams Federer won beating ATGs in their prime? Nadal was a top player until 2022. He won multiple slams that year and almost finishes #1. Last year yes, he wasn't around. If he was not in his prime it's not Djokovic's fault. Not to mention that's ignores he won a huge chunk of his slams in that period.
Top talent that did well in an ultra strong era. He lost the final in straight sets to Djokovic instead of getting match points in the 5th set. He was definitely a greater competitor than Federer during this epic era that was the greatest in tennis history.Kevin Anderson says hello!
Who wasn't?Top talent that did well in an ultra strong era. He lost the final in straight sets in instead of getting match points in the 5th set. He was definitely a greater competitor than Federer during this epic era that was the greatest in tennis history.
He was so insignificant I don't even know why I mentioned him. What were we discussing again?Who wasn't?
Kevin Anderson says hello!
Kevin Anderson has a better grass resume than Stef will ever have lol. Before 2020 we have had one such finalist but 2020-2023 produced so many gems like Kyrgios, Berettini, Stef , Ruud in span of 3-4 years.
Kandyman took Novak to 5 set at Wimbledon, don't see mugs of 2020-2023 era doing that, Novak is the second most successful player at Wimbledon.
He was still Bambi on Ice and an extremely limited player. I kinda liked Kandy, though. He was a very nice guy
Steffi, Denis and FAA haven't improved since they were teenagers. Berrettini's backhand is on level with Karlovic and Johnson - and Paire's fh. It's strange how top athletes are unable to improve on a quite simple stroke like the two handed backhand.
True but how many mugs of 2020-2023 you see pushing Novak to 5 set at Wimbledon?
He’s been on mine for a long time lolOh no what will I ever do being on Neutral Fan's ignore list. No man should ever experience such cruelty.
The post you replied to was pretty bad but man I was looking forward to a genuine rebuttal here. Feel a bit cheated after reading this.I intended this post to come before my last to you. That is the order I still intend the posts to be read. Unfortunately I got distracted making a joke and ran out of time to finish this post at the time.
Do you really believe what you wrote here? I will start with a compliment you should be really proud of before i begin with my harsh critique of this post you have written.
The compliment (can not use plural here unfortunately):
There is so much misinformation/bias etc packed into one post that you should be commended here for your ability to be so concise.
The criticisms:
There are so many problems with this whole post that I could write a book about it if I had the ability to be as concise as you. Unfortunately I do not have your super powers and this would have to be a mini series of books about 600 pages long each instead.
To address all of your faulty arguments in this thread I would need to earn income from from doing so. For various reasons this would be unpractical for me at this stage of my life. The interest and the patience is simply not high enough to spend so much time debunking this many faulty arguments either.
This post along with others you have written have confirmed my view that "benefit of the doubt" is almost as unrealistic as hoping you will correct your falsehoods in this thread and stop spreading misinformation lol.
These posts stem from a level of bias that shows me you are completely detached from reality. A level of bias that would even force you to tell people that 1+1=3 if it suited your agenda. Giant cats, ancient aliens that live in a tunnel colony 500km below sea level that control us telepathically and yeti tribes with invisibility cloaks they stole from Harry Potter (so we can't see them) must be child play for you as well. To me this is the more logical conclusion than those you have made in this thread with your faulty arguments.
I went a bit far with the jokes at your expense but that is what happens when you are this unbelievably inconsistent/illogical with your arguments. If there was ever a time for banter I think this is the appropriate context. Hopefully you can take a joke like most people. If you don't like it you can always improve the quality of your debating skills and become a smaller target.
I am going to point out some examples of your faulty logic to try and improve the quality of the discussion. If that is unreasonable to you, consider moving to a country with a totalitarian dictatorship for its political system if you haven't already. If you can handle the criticism that needn't apply.
My first example is exactly what I am talking about. You apply an argument yourself when it supports your biased opinion. You will also dismiss the exact same type of argument you just made a few posts before or later when it contradicts your biased views. My following post (men in black joke i posted before this in the wrong order) is a great example of what I am talking about.
More on this later when I have more time to decide the next example I will choose to spend my time to critique...
You're an even crazier more hardcore fanatic than nolefam if thats possible
And what agenda is that? I call it like I see it.
Sinner's emergence is completely irrelevant, when you take into consideration the larger picture.
He, like the many before him, was completely outclassed by a geriatric Novak Djokovic.
In fact, it took a very significant drop in Djokovic's game, for Sinner to finally break-free of the Serb's stranglehold on the game, so that he could win his first grand slam.
Even if you don't want to acknowledge this...Sinner has very few credible rivals. Alcaraz has been losing to Djokovic on a consistent basis. So has Zverev and Medvedev.
The field is so weak that they can't even deal with a 36 year old Novak Djokovic.
He’s been on mine for a long time lol
I was focussing my efforts elsewhere (back to work after holidays/taking care of kids and being ridiculous in another thread by testing posters illogical lines of argumentation and I got carried away lol). I didn't have the time/patience to tackle everything at once so please don't feel cheated. I just need a good block of time and I will be back. There is a lot to choose from here and can be difficult to know where to start. An example proving inconsistency with the lines of argumentation due to bias I feel is a good start for now (especially when these inconsistencies are in the same post or a few posts apart). This proves there is detachment from reality/dishonesty/lack of reading comprehension always present and the poster has no credibility. People will know not to take them very seriously and never trust anything they have to say (which was my goal, until the posts improve in their quality). There isn't much need for a rebuttal of everything, if it is all likely nonsense anyway.The post you replied to was pretty bad but man I was looking forward to a genuine rebuttal here. Feel a bit cheated after reading this.
Lol you were expecting sanity and cogency from that dude?The post you replied to was pretty bad but man I was looking forward to a genuine rebuttal here. Feel a bit cheated after reading this.
Aren't you the proven blatant hypocrite that was telling me I was misrepresenting what you wrote, when it was actually you misrepresenting me? No arguments. No self awareness, living in a fantasy world/no reading comprehension skills/dishonest. Maybe all three options? No credibility is a certainty at the very least. I only had to critique two of your posts for that to be blatantly obvious to everyone and you ran away to stop the losses. lolLol you were expecting sanity and cogency from that dude?
I had my hopes since the post was a long oneLol you were expecting sanity and cogency from that dude?
Lol you were expecting sanity and cogency from that dude?
@Phenomenal I have something more to add:You can't say both. If you say Nadal and Djokovic just 1 year apart so they should be in their prime same time. Nadal doesn't need to be in his prime since 2007 to now.
One of the worst arguments i always hear from Djokovic fans. Either you will accept btw 2007 to 2011 or this argument is completely invalid.
Nadal winning more slam than Djokovic btw 2012-2014 shows his greatness. Nadal won 1 more slam without playing 3 slam during this period.
I'm not including 2015. Djokovic can have his prime year at that age sure eventhough i think competition was worse than prior years but it's not his fault. It's not his fault now too just think he was better.
All of us have some bias in this forum. Some have so much that they reflect to their arguments all the time. I try to be as fair as possible most of the time. When they don't like or nothing to say they don't even respond anymore.@Phenomenal I have something more to add:
The cut off is usually when it would begin to hurt this category of posters agenda. There is nothing in between. Maximum impact when needed and totally irrelevant if someone that disagrees with you goes over/under the cutoff by the distance of an electron (or vice versa when appropriate). Both variations can apply in the same post when needed or any other time it suits.
It's tough to argue with someone who can do magic tricks every time so they are always correct about everything, everytime. It could be the GOAT argument that someone could win against somebody with these magical powers (impossible even?). Not even sure I need to critique anything else? When there are no standards set by the poster everything they say will be not worth debating anyway. It comes from a fantasy land. It's not real! They need to use an unequal argument. They are trying to convince themselves of something deep down inside, where they are unconvinced about their belief (I wonder what it is?) There are many more examples, but why invest my time? I could end up as the MIOAT (Most Insignificant Of All Time) because I failed to achieve the impossible: win a logical argument against an extremely biased poster who has no debating standards! The GOAT waste of time (if there ever was one). I still have not had one credible poster make a good rebuttal to my post early in the thread about Federer's competition/early era compared with Djokovic. Guru disqualified himself multiple times already so I don't need to add anything to what I responded to him with already. I might take a break for now...
Can we imagine an era worse than this where Casper Ruud makes multiple finals, Stef makes multiple finals , Kyrgios and Berettini makes final? That too in span of 4 years .so out of 16 slams we had these clowns making 7 finals and then add Meddy to the mix, Albiet 2 tiers above them but not an ATG making 4 finals. That's total of 11 finals and then add Z and theim lol.
Altough this is only for slams another logic i like is comparing the slams competition seperate based on success of players. Nadal at RG Djokovic at AO Federer at Wimbledon are most important players. For example during Federer's career 2003 to 2015 or 2019. when these players having bad results it can be considered weaker in general. For Djokovic AO from 2008 to now for Nadal all of his career.Comparing years, competition is obviously not fully but bit subjective. i have different logic idk how people feel when comparing years.
IMO for example in 2015 most important player is Djokovic and Nadal to me based on their success in 2012-2014.
So Nadal having a bad year in 2015 makes the competition hugely worse for me unless other players having insane year. Federer in 2015 is not the most important player to judge the competition. You also see from AO/RG he didn't have great year not comparable to his best years. What i mean is expectations, success before the year is important.
So Federer is 3rd player for me when judging the competition in 2015 since he wasn't the man to beat prior years.
In this context Federer is the important player from 2007-2010 and very close in 2009 with Nadal etc.
Djokovic's success is less important judging competition. Altough he had great year in 2008 so 2009 can be seen less competitive also with Nadal since RG.
2017 is relativly weaker due to Djokovic having bad year and so on.
Big3 are obviously dominant players in last 20 years. Competition of the tour is also important but for me top players(2-4) performance relative to each other is atleast as important.
Idk why am i debating with people about Sampras and Nadal in other FPT. Stats atleast should be somewhat important isn't it. Big 3 are clearly the best players in the OE(Borg has some cases overall big 3 are better stat wise atleast).All of us have some bias in this forum. Some have so much that they reflect to their arguments all the time. I try to be as fair as possible most of the time. When they don't like or nothing to say they don't even respond anymore.
I learnt over the years here that %95-99 of the people are not even discussing with little bias. I'm bit stat based usually, maybe bit too much. Probably because of how world see sports these days(for 20 years or so) like in football, all other sports.
I like stats and i think they are important but i also believe they are not everything anymore. Context is also important but here comes subjectivity. IMO most things we debate are subjective.
To add just a little... I didn't mean to imply that standards should be unreasonably high. Obviously nobody is ever going to be perfect. Nobody ever will be (or even close). The main point is that we need to be able to challenge our bias. We can not have a meaningful debate when we are consistently using faulty logic.All of us have some bias in this forum. Some have so much that they reflect to their arguments all the time. I try to be as fair as possible most of the time. When they don't like or nothing to say they don't even respond anymore.
I learnt over the years here that %95-99 of the people are not even discussing with little bias. I'm bit stat based usually, maybe bit too much. Probably because of how world see sports these days(for 20 years or so) like in football, all other sports.
I like stats and i think they are important but i also believe they are not everything anymore. Context is also important but here comes subjectivity. IMO most things we debate are subjective.
On average, was he better than when he was 6 years younger over the last 5 or so years as well? Or do players never decline until they retire?So what, even if Federer made it to Wimbledon Final instead of Kyrgios, he would have lost to Djokovic again. Djokovic was just too good.
On average, was he better than when he was 6 years younger over the last 5 or so years as well? Or do players never decline until they retire?
Yes. Those people also think they can draw conclusions from statistics without context (living in a fantasy land). The definition of words can be changed to confirm their biased opinions and beliefs.Some Djokovic fans unironically believe that Djokovic winning 2 three slams a a year in his mid 30s was playing best tennis of his career.