Discussion in 'Pro Match Results and Discussion' started by djokovic2008, Nov 12, 2012.
Sorry, about what?
he's played in what.. 7 of the last 9 major finals and won 4 of those..
he's been very good.
At what's crazy is that Federer had Djokavic 2011/2012 type of seasons for the better part of 5 years.. 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009... i mean all were 2-3 slam seasons.
If Djokavic wants to get anywhere near Federer level.. he has to have another 2011 in 2013 AND 14
And who were his opponents compared to feds? I'm sure you would agree playing Nadal and murray and fed is tougher than playing blake davy roddick you get my point.
Neither Blake nor Davydenko have ever played in the final of a major.
Roddick would've been a 5 slam winner and considered an all-time great if Federer had never been born.
Maybe he would've even been better than that because his spirit wouldn't have been crushed
roddick was clearly better. He had a better head to head, and if he hadn't gotten terribly unlucky with the rain delays in 04, he would have been world no. 1. The momentum from that match was huge, I bet fed wouldn't have reached 10 grand slams if he had lost that, and roddick would have at least 5 grand slams. Don't forget, had he won, he wouldn't have fired brad gilbert. As for djokovic, that pusher wouldn't have had a chance in hell against roddick, prime james blake, davydenko, marat safin, nalbandian, etc. Heck he probably would have lost el aynaiou. imagining djokovic trying to push on fast grass or on the old u.s open surface would be hilarious. Heck, even old man agassi could probably have beat "prime" pusher djokovic. Back in those days, people could hit the crap out of the ball randomly, like rosol did except even better and far more of them doing it far more frequently. A pusher like djokovic would have no chance except on clay.
Which already says enough about the quality of the field in the Federer era, lol!
Which allready says that the field would have been called strong and competitive had Federer not been around.
Seriously have you been smoking CRACK, the reason he only has one slam is because of fed as fed smacked him about in slams right, But djoker has beat fed in slams and what was the h2h vs roddick and djoker from 2011 onwards?
PLEASE your embarrassing yourself.
But he was not GOOD ENOUGH to beat fed when it matterd bottom line, where as Nadal, djoker have proven they could beat fed in big matches that what makes them better than roddick and yes 1+1=2
Well they could not beat him enough to stop him being nr 1 for a record nr of weeks (etc, etc), into his thirties. Probably could not have done it even if they shared primes more exactly.
Roddick on the brink of retireing, weak argument, desperate stuff.
Please explain what is desperate about a current world no1 with five slams compared to Roddick who at his best only has 1 slam its pretty simple even for you.
Desperate was about your argument.
Btw., heres the head to head: http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=R485&oId=D643 .
let's see what the head to head of a 29-year old djokovic will be agains the next generation's best player in his best season. Roddick had to play prime fed, the one time djokovic did he got smoked in 07, just months before his 08 season which you, F1Bob, and other djokovic fanatics consider to be his best tennis aside from 2011. Plus, roddick was up a break in the third set before the rain delay in the 04 final, he would have gained so much confidence had he won, he was destroying fed, but got fazed by the delay and went from being up 4-2 to serving to stay in the set 4-5 0-40. This match was for the #1 ranking in the world, roddick would have gained confidence, and federer would have lost it. Plus, roddick wouldn't have fired Brad Gilbert. Djokovic only beat a post-prime fed, and even this season couldn't even beat an almost 31 year old fed at wimbledon. LOL.
Roddick was *possibly* better on grass, however on other surfaces (fast HC, slow HC, clay and even indoor)? Heck no.
Novak completely blows Roddick away on slow HC and clay especially and pigs would fly before Roddick even at his absolute best dominates the field across different surfaces to the degree Novak did in 2011, Fed or no Fed in the field.
Following that logic, zero slam finalist Haas is better than Roddick.
Well, he should have made sure to have won that match then cause the way it is now, it's all speculation.
First of all, the bolded part is either trolling or you're clueless about tennis (or my guess, a combination of both).
Secondly, while Roddick was an aggressive baseliner back in 2003-2004, his style of play since 2005 till the end of his career is far closer to pushing than Novak's.
Actually 2007 USO final was a very closely contested 3 setter which could have easily gone other way (same goes for their 2008 AO SF match) so no he wasn't smoked.
Yawn, this again, you're like a broken record.
And Roddick didn't beat any kind of Fed at slams, if Fed was post prime since 2008 when Novak beat him in a slam then Roddick also faced post prime Fed in 2009 Wimbledon but couldn't seal the deal. Regarding Novak's loss to Fed at Wimbledon this year, Roddick had far worse losses at Wimbledon than that (like Gasquet, young Murray, Tipsarevic, Lu etc.).
This is kinda ridiculous, I actually like Roddick and think he's a better player than his record shows (and he did have the rotten luck of having peak Fed on his way) but Novak is flat out a better player.
I guess one of us doesn't use the same definition of "multiple" as other people do... :roll:
The so and so would have won this if so and so didnt exist is simply proof of the weakness of said player. If you are good enough to win majors you go through anyone to do it. Nadal and Djokovic didnt need Federer to not exist to win their majors, they simply went through him to win them, and did it frequently. Roddick needing people to not exist to win majors is just proof of the limitations of his abilities compared to the true greats of the game.
As for the Roddick vs Djokovic head to head, as others have noted there are many instance the much lesser player leads the H2H at times. Stich vs Sampras, Krajicek vs Sampras, Jo Durie vs Graf, Haas vs Roddick (actually Haas arguably isnt that much worse than Roddick, lol). This is another of those. Anyway watching the matches Roddick won it is clear there was something about his junkballing that bothered Djokovic for awhile, it certainly wasnt evidence of any superiority of tennis skill. Djokovic returned his serve quite easily except for their Dubai match on a lightning greased court, and he certainly was never overpowered or outhit by Roddick on the baseline. Apart from the Dubai match where Roddick was in his some of his all time GOAT form and bombing serves and forehands like late 03 vintage, Djokovic lost the other matches on his own with a ton of stupid unforced errors and just really bad play, he had many more winners than Roddick in all the matches, Roddick had limited aces and service winners, and you certainly wouldnt call Roddick a better grinder or rallyer than Djokovic normally either. Djokovic in 2009-2010 was also in the worst slump of his career, in 2007 and 2008 a young Djokovic generally beat the veteran Roddick, and I am pretty sure the 2011 and 2012 Djokovic would have the edge even on the 2003 and 2004 Roddick overall, but I will say they would have competitive matches with Roddick having a fighting chance at a few wins on fast outdoor hard courts and grass only. On Australian hard courts, slow to medium decoturf, indoors, or especialy clay, prime Djokovic would cream Roddick on all.
Its okay guys, this was mostly just idle trolling. I still do feel that if the rain gods hadn't cursed him, roddick would have walked away with around 4-5 slams and fed would have only got around 10-13. However, you are right. I'd say roddick would have beat novak on fast grass, and on other fast surfaces like cincinatti. My point is that roddick would likely have kept brad gilbert had he beat federer in the 04 wimbledon final, so he would have kept hitting and being agressive. Novak is a pusher, he tried to win early on without pushing, and then around early-mid 2010 when he was fading away, he realized that in today's game you need to push to win (only fed still defies this because he is one of the top 3 easily all time, I'd go with goat due to his consistency), so he made the switch, his results started to pick up, making his first wimbledon semifinal since 07, beating federer down matchpoint to the make the 2010 u.s open final, and then dominating 2011. You are right, I have to admit, that djokovic was a better player than roddick could have been, however, roddick got unlucky at times, whereas djokovic got lucky to be able to play a fed with mono possibly, and then getting to play a past-prime fed (do you really think that at the age of 29.5+ fed was prime). Djokovic has beat nadal in a slam final 3 times, however nadal too had begun his decline with injury just like bjorn borg, and this was off of clay. Roddick in 2010 played nadal very closely, and this was nadal's best year on tour, on faster surfaces. Ultimately, early on roddick was too temperamental, and it cost him. I will say this though, federer minus rain<nadal minus injuries, but nadal's injuries are at least partially due to his playing style and durability is a part of greatness, and as for the rain delays, federer only took what was given to him, whereas others did not.
Roddick only a fighting chance on fast surfaces. no, roddick would have beat novak on faster surfaces like 60% of the time. Novak may have made errors, but roddick made a lot and crashed out early in slams many times as well, plus he played defensive instead of hitting the crap out of the ball many times in addition to the poor decision to fire brad gilbert. On slower surfaces novak would have the edge obviously, probably win around 50% at the uso (higher in today's USO, lower in the surface back then), like 75% of the time at the australian, and like 90% at least on clay. My point was back in 03-04 there were a lot of huge hitters on the tour who wouldn't consistently beat novak djokovic, but djokovic would be liable to get upset many times. This is why lleyton hewitt, who was esentially a djokovic with a decent serve who tired out young (just see the fact that he pushed around djokovic this season) got upset many times in prime at slams, federer did till the wimbledon final of 2004, roddick did, nadal did, marat safin did. There are so many examples, just look at guys like jochaim johansson if you need someone or marat safin (though compared to the other guys he was as consistent as federer). A pusher can't beat an offensive player gunnning on all cylinders, just see nadal losing to rosol for example.
And I agree with the OP, djokovic has been the best player the last 2 seasons, no doubt about that.
Please, Djokovic is like a better version of Hewitt in every way, but with MUCH more firepower and weaponary off the ground to go with his smoldering defense. Hewitt does not have a better serve, unless you are talking about 2010 Djokovic only who got the service yips for awhile, otherwise Djokovic has the better serve. Hewitt never had what I would call a good serve, and I saw him play a ton of times in his prime, just a servicable one at best. Imagine prime Hewitt beating prime Nadal 6 times in a row at one point, including twice in straight sets on clay, and in 3 straight slam finals, as Djokovic did. When purple pigs fly maybe. Djokovic has a number of matches with Federer he has had more winners, not most of their matches, but a number of them, which Hewitt never had even when playing baby Federer. Djokovic vs Hewitt is like Hingis vs Sanchez, with one being just a great defensive player with almost no offenisive skills other than to counterpunch and use their opponents offense, while the other (Hingis and Djokovic) having as good or even better defense, more variety, and much more offensive skills (although even a female Djokovic has more raw power off the ground than Hingis had).
Djokovic was also not pushed around by Hewitt this year. In the event that were the case Hewitt would have beaten him atleast once which he didnt. Past prime Hewitt is only able to give tough matches to Djokovic on grass, on non grass surfaces Hewitt has won one set since 2007, and it was never in a match he looked like he had a prayer of winning. I never rated Djokovic that high on grass, so would probably give prime Hewitt the slight edge over prime Djokovic on grass (probably Roddick as well), so not surprising even post prime they have some tough matches on grass with Hewitt stealing some sets (albeit always in defeat), but that is it.
Do you really believe that? if so you need to watch more tennis, Fed himself has called djoker a shotmaker and I can show you many a clip of djoker crunching winners from all over the court from both wings. If you think you can get to the pinnacle of pro tennis by pushing why don't you have a go!!
I suppose Hewitt has a bit too big a swing to be an as effective counterpuncher as Djokovic, or something...
Meanwhile Federer went through everybody to build the superior record. And the rest of the players of his era would have needed him not to be there to change it.
Peak Roddick and Peak Hewitt would give any of todays top guys trouble, but they are in no way better.
Re: the OP
Well, yeah, he was ranked #1 at the end of 2011 and 2012. That would make him the best player over the last two years.
So what is your point? This was a comparision of Djokovic and Roddick. Anyway on your last point, Nadal has done 10 times more damage to Federer's career than Federer to Nadal's, in fact Federer is almost irrevelant to Nadal's career. Federer cost Nadal probably 1 slam, while Nadal cost Federer about 8 or 9. Nadal's problem was always the field, Federer was never an issue or big worry.
You don't really follow tennis, do you?
Federer has also been very damaging to Nadal's career, in the sense that Nadal has been playing second fiddle to Fed for most of his career (and now is to Djokovic). Because of Federer, and despite everything he's achieved, Nadal is likely to go down in history as the perennial #2, the Poulidor of tennis. Fortunately for him, he's also got the clay GOAT achievement, and nobody's going to take that away from him, at least in the near future.
"Unlucky, unlucky, oh yes," uncle Toni said. "If there wasn't Federer, perhaps Rafael would have been No. 1 for four years. But with Federer, that was impossible."
You don't say.
Blame it on the rain gods then, it still doesn't change anything.
And peak for peak Novak would beat him on slow & medium HC and roflstomp him on clay.
I do agree with that, Roddick's biggest career mistake was firing Gilbert and reverting to his junior defensive style play, in that sense I agree he underachieved because he didn't keep up with the playing style which has brought him most success.
He's a baseline controller.
FFS man, paragraphs, ever heard of them? Anyway, you also make your own luck, all that matters is the end result and Novak reached heights Roddick never did and never even potentially could have, that's not a knock on Roddick who was a terrific player but Novak is in a different league.
Considering Nadal couldnt produce decent results on anything but clay in 2005, 2006, and most of 2007, if there was nobody else to take #1 without Federer, then that only proves how massively dire the competition in the Federer era was (something all but ****s know already anyway).
Still Federer was nr 1 this year, 5-7 years of of his peak.
Not #1 when it counted, at the end of the year, a long way from his former dominance, and a long way from the dominance Serena Williams who is exactly the same age enjoyed (rankings BS of the WTA aside). If you say that is because the womens field is currently weak, well that also shows you understand how much a weak field makes it easier to dominate, as was the case for Federer in 2004-2006 as well. The fact you are even talking about Nadal being #1 in 2005 and 2006 without Federer, when outside of clay he was a joke of a player at that point, says it all about the level of players in the Federer era and the quality of Federer's contemporaries really.
I guess one can ponder whether it is worse to have the record for most weeks at nr 1 and a negative h2h to a surface goat, or to be a surface goat but delegated to nr 2 for a record nr of weeks.
I guess one can ponder whether it is worse to lose an additional 8 or 9 slams to someone (Federer to Nadal) or lose about 1 slam because of somebody (Nadal to Federer). I would have figured Nadal doing far more damage to Federer than vice versa is something so obvious even the stupidest of ****s would accept, but never underesimate Planet TW ****ville.
Djokovic is the one who has done by far the most damage to Nadal's career, not Federer. Without Djokovic, Nadal would likely be very close to Federer's slam record today, and likely to break it within the next 2 years. After all he did what Federer almost never do to Nadal, deny him major titles. Djokovic also kept Nadal from further time at #1 when he was actually really a potential #1 caliber player, not a clay only player producing crappy slam results at all but RG, who would only have been #1 (maybe) due to the abysmal joke field that is Federer's age peers in the mid 2000s.
Oh did not realise the date mattered. And yes, a long way from his peak. Federer has proved his level over time. Loosing three GS matches of clay still has left him with 17. Don't know where you got the number 9 from, when they have only met 8 times at GS.
Since if Djokovic and Federer met in the 2010 U.S Open final, Federer was winning that one for sure. I know he lost to Djokovic in the semis, but that was a semifinal, when Federer knew he would have to play Nadal in the final, and he played a really bad match that day too, and wouldnt have played that poorly 2 days in a row hypothetically, or certainly in a slam final facing someone not named Nadal. Djokovic was not in any form that year really (was #7 in the race which is unheard of for him), was majorly low on confidence, was serving really weak, and even on one of his better tournaments/matches of the year wasnt in anywhere near even his 2007-2009 form, let alone 2011-2012, and not playing well enough to beat Federer or Nadal in a slam final. So that is the hypothetical 9th, but I say 8 or 9 since Djokovic probably beats Federer at this years Australian anyway, so more likely 8. Actually come to think of it Djokovic might well have beaten Federer at the 2008 French too, so make it 7 or 8 (with Djokovic almost certainly winning the 2012 Australian, and probably winning the 2008 French too), still a huge difference from 1 or 2.
Definately he is. Nobody better.
Yes but wouldn't you say Fed had an excellent shot at winning 2008 AO and 2011 AO titles if Novak hadn't beaten him there? So he almost damaged Fed's career as much as he did Nadal's, the difference is one slam basically and as crazy as it may sound at this point, I still would have given Fed a shot against Nadal in 2011 USO if not for Novak (not in 2010 obviously), maybe 20-30% chance at most but still a chance.
Just like the song. Ain't No Other Man. Djokovic is the king.
That is true, other than a couple more hard court majors really doesnt add much to Federer at this point. He is already considered the overall hard court GOAT. Whereas Nadal kept Federer from being a top 5 clay courter of all time, an insurmoutnable forever slam record of 24 or more slams, and created a stigma about Federer's career. Yes though I see your point, Djokovic has probably cost both Federer and Nadal several majors.
I also agree Federer had a decent chance vs Nadal in the 2011 U.S Open final, 30-40% I would say, although Nadal would still be thrilled to face Federer in the final and not Novak. The ironic part about your 2010 obviously not is that most ****s on this forum believe Federer would have beaten Nadal even in 2010 (completely delusional and ridiculous I know but that is their reality apparently). It is nice to talk to a sane Federer fan for once.
That's true but I wasn't comparing the damage Novak did to Fed's career to the damage Nadal did to (it isn't even close) it but rather comparing the damage Novak did to Fed's career to the damage he did to Nadal's.
Yes and the damage is comparable IMO.
Well let's say Fed would have had a 30% and presume Fed would have won 2008 AO (mono or not, Fed was still terrific when dealing with big hitters back then) and 2011 AO (Murray was a mental mess in the final) and presume Nadal would have won 2011 Wimbledon (Nadal served great in the final and Tsonga has a poor ROS) and 2012 AO (I don't think Murray would have had enough left in the tank had he won his marathon against Novak).
That leaves us with Novak taking 2 slams from each with 70% of taking 3 slams from Nadal and 30% of taking 3 slams from Fed which is why I say it's comparable (the damage).
In short Nadal may be standing on 13-14 slams now if not for Novak but the Fed's slam record he'd have to chase would be 19-20.
Oh I have no doubt about that, even Toni admitted he thinks "they" would have won USO if Fed beat Novak.
Well my personal opinion is that while Nadal overall as a player is obviously different to guys like Safin or Krajicek his 2010 USO performance is similar to Safin's 2005 AO and Krajicek's 1996 Wimbledon in that while there are plenty of players in tennis history who are overall much better USO, AO and Wimbledon players respectively they all IMO reached the level in those specific tourneys comparable to anyone who ever played the game.
In short, it would take peak Fed firing on all cylinders to beat Nadal in the form he displayed that tourney and I feel it would take similar from other USO open greats as well (such as Sampras, Connors, Lendl etc.), that doesn't mean Nadal is overall comparable to them as a player at USO but IMO his 2010 USO level is comparable to their best levels at that tourney.
Now that doesn't mean for example Novak's win over Nadal in 2011 USO or Murray's win over Nadal in 2008 weren't wins over a peak Nadal - they were, one tourney doesn't constitute a peak (otherwise we could say Fed wasn't at his peak in all of his AO wins but 2007 which he won without dropping a set), 2010 USO performance was a one off, even if Nadal wins another USO in the future I doubt he'll ever match that level of play.
It's hard to define sane but thanks anyway.
Imo you are overrating Nadal on his usopen 2010 performance. He was playing very good but dont forget that he played Verdasco in the quarterfinals and Youzhny in the semifinals not really impossible opponents.
I'm not saying Nadal didn't have a weak draw (relatively speaking) and that his opposition may have made him look even better than he was to a degree but just focusing on Nadal's game in that tourney, his serving, transition from defense to offense, movement etc. it is my opinion that the level of play he reached in that tourney is comparable to peak level of play of much better overall USO players than him.
Novak is a pusher, just watch him play. He is in terrific physical condition and when he is one, he won't even miss shots on the run. That's why he is the best player of the last 2 years. However, this pushing style from novak would have got him nowhere in 03-04 because the courts were faster and they were way more big hitters who would have their good days when they would not be beaten by a pusher.
You have to be in great shape, and besides "pushing" by pro standards probably means hitting the ball harder than most of us can. Djokovic used to go for his shots and all, but around 2010 he converted to pushing and look at the success it has brought him.
I have watched more Novak matches than I can remember and no he isn't a pusher (not even a pro equivalent of a one).
No, terrific physical conditions is merely one of the reasons for Novak's success.
Terrific ballstriking, one of the best ROS on tour (some would say ever), great at changing the direction of the ball, transition from defense to offense, fearless mentality on big points etc.
Aside from overhead, volleys and slice Novak's game is incredibly technically sound, it is amazingly hard to break him down or pin him down to one wing to open up the court.
Oh please, the courts may have been slightly faster in those days but the major slowdown of the game occurred in early 2000s (in 2002 the most) and Novak at his best is a nightmare for big hitters, he exposes their movement like no one else. He is somewhat vulnerable to all-court players and those who vary pace/spin a lot and have a great feel for the ball (junkballers, like Murray or Fed for example) but not to big hitters.
Wozniacki loses to world 103 Pervak in Brisbane.
The slide continues...
Separate names with a comma.