Djokovic looks spent and used up, we will see if he really is the equal of Federer or Nadal...

[bluetrain4]

them tieing at 20 would be bad for TTW but ironic in context. endless discussion for eternity!

On TTW, there would/will be endless discussion anyway. 20-20-20 actually makes it LESS interesting because then everyone can automatically go to the obvious "secondary" data (since Slams seem to always be the primary data these days), instead of positing a classic TTW argument about why Player A with 23 Slams should be ranked lower than Player B with 20 Slams because of weak eras, not tough enough draws, scheduling disadvantages for Player B, off-court issues, birth dates, the effect of global warming on outdoor tennis, and on and on.

 

[clayqueen]

What a strange thread. The debate is whether Novak’s career accomplishments are already ahead of Fedal’s. or if you want to focus on slams only whether he can beat them in number of slams (he is already the youngest to reach 20 slams). But who thinks he still needs to prove if he is their equal?

as for winning at the later stages of a career Novak reached 4 slam finals and won 3 slams in the season he turned 34. This is better than what Nadal did or will do. We can debate how this compares to Fed’s 3 slams spread out in the seasons he turned 36 and 37.

finally, the chances remain very high Novak will win another slam while everything indicates Fedal are done for. But let’s wait and see what 2022 brings

You are wearing rose tinted glasses.

 

[GabeT]

Not really sure what this means but you too have a nice day!

 

[clayqueen]

Not really sure what this means but you too have a nice day!

You are wearing rose tinted glasses seeing what you want to see.

 

[GabeT]

You are wearing rose tinted glasses seeing what you want to see.

Lol, most of what I posted are simply facts. I do think Novak will win more slams but I acknowledge we need to wait. And given that Novak reached all 4 slam finals and won 3 of them this year expecting at least one more win is hardly rose tinted. I think

 

[Fedforever]

Olympics, especially doubles, were waste of mental and physical energy.

Yes. But I guess if you're from a smallish country it's hard to think you're going to deprive them of one of their best medal hopes.

 

[Sampras-Bruguera 1993]

Except Nadal and Fed look 10x more washed up. I think Nole will be fine LOL

 

[Weekendhacker]

I am no fan of Nadal at all but as of today I cannot see how he cannot be considered leading the so called GOAT race between the 3. He has joint most slams joint most m1000s and singles and doubles olympic gold plus the most wins at a single major.It's clearly close between all three and had Djokovic won either Tokyo or NY he would have been leading but right now he is 3rd. Federer has a doubles gold and holds the record at one major and jointly holds record at another.
It can all change next year but this year turned into a huge disappointment for Djokovic as he could and should have ended the debate once and for all. He will know it too.

His 13 wins at the French can be viewed against him cause it makes it so lopsided and not well rounded. Olympics don’t mean too much historically for tennis. His major holes are his zero atp finals titles and weeks at #1 (relative to the other 2 guys).

 

[Deleted member 762343]

The OP’s thought summed up with numbers : 20 = 20 > 20. Surely that’s a brilliant take.

 

[GabeT]

I am no fan of Nadal at all but as of today I cannot see how he cannot be considered leading the so called GOAT race between the 3. He has joint most slams joint most m1000s and singles and doubles olympic gold plus the most wins at a single major.It's clearly close between all three and had Djokovic won either Tokyo or NY he would have been leading but right now he is 3rd. Federer has a doubles gold and holds the record at one major and jointly holds record at another.
It can all change next year but this year turned into a huge disappointment for Djokovic as he could and should have ended the debate once and for all. He will know it too.

I don’t believe in GOATs. But if you are going to compare numbers time at number 1 is key. In most sports it’s the single most relevant metric. Even if in tennis there are other measures number 1 stats are key for any comparison

 

[mike danny]

I am no fan of Nadal at all but as of today I cannot see how he cannot be considered leading the so called GOAT race between the 3. He has joint most slams joint most m1000s and singles and doubles olympic gold plus the most wins at a single major.It's clearly close between all three and had Djokovic won either Tokyo or NY he would have been leading but right now he is 3rd. Federer has a doubles gold and holds the record at one major and jointly holds record at another.
It can all change next year but this year turned into a huge disappointment for Djokovic as he could and should have ended the debate once and for all. He will know it too.

IMO, Federer and Djokovic have way too many things over Nadal for the latter to be leading the race.

 

[Kralingen]

It sounds like a "bud" of ours has returned, reading that post lol

 

[tlm]

Federer at this age had to compete with peak Nadal and peak Djokovic.
Djokovic today has to compete with Zverev and Medvedev. Big advantage. We should apply an asterisk to his slam number.

Exactly right. Its amazing how many can’t see this. It was much tougher when the big 4 were there. Now we have Joker and a bunch of weak minded bums, other than Med on occasion.

 

[DRII]

I am no fan of Nadal at all but as of today I cannot see how he cannot be considered leading the so called GOAT race between the 3. He has joint most slams joint most m1000s and singles and doubles olympic gold plus the most wins at a single major.It's clearly close between all three and had Djokovic won either Tokyo or NY he would have been leading but right now he is 3rd. Federer has a doubles gold and holds the record at one major and jointly holds record at another.
It can all change next year but this year turned into a huge disappointment for Djokovic as he could and should have ended the debate once and for all. He will know it too.

We won't even mention Davis Cup...

 

[DRII]

The OP’s thought summed up with numbers : 20 = 20 > 20. Surely that’s a brilliant take.

Here, let me break it down for the more simple minded. I actually thought some who cosigned your redundant post were among the more intelligent posters, but maybe I gave them too much credit.

The circumstances I was referring to are achievements of course (obviously, Djokovic has proven he's equal by amassing the same amount of slams) and those possible career changing events that a player overcomes. Both Federer and especially Nadal have come back from injury to dominate again. Djokovic didn't have a chance to do that til 2018, and he did.

Another milestone both Federer and Nadal have reached is amassing additional slams during a couple of twilight - swan years, as explained in the OP. Djokovic hasn't had the chance to do so yet because he hasn't reached his twilight, at least that we know of. I personally think he may have reached such after this year, but we shall see. Will he be able to win additional slams in years where he plays a very limited schedule? That is essentially the question, and again we shall see!

There you go, hopefully you will understand now.

 

[GabeT]

Here, let me break it down for the more simple minded. I actually thought some who cosigned your redundant post were among the more intelligent posters, but maybe I gave them too much credit.

The circumstances I was referring to are achievements of course (obviously, Djokovic has proven he's equal by amassing the same amount of slams) and those possible career changing events that a player overcomes. Both Federer and especially Nadal have come back from injury to dominate again. Djokovic didn't have a chance to do that til 2018, and he did.

Another milestone both Federer and Nadal have reached is amassing additional slams during a couple of twilight - swan years, as explained in the OP. Djokovic hasn't had the chance to do so yet because he hasn't reached his twilight, at least that we know of. I personally think he may have reached such after this year, but we shall see. Will he be able to win additional slams in years where he plays a very limited schedule? That is essentially the question, and again we shall see!

There you go, hopefully you will understand now.

Nadal‘s twilight was at 32?

Novak won 3 slams the season he turned 34, Nadal only won one slam the equivalent season

 

[Kralingen]

Nadal‘s twilight was at 32?

Novak won 3 slams the season he turned 34, Nadal only won one slam the equivalent season

The correct way to frame it is whether both Nadal and Djokovic can match up to Federer in late career success, but the OP has done some seriously high-level mental gymnastics here. Instead of questioning him, we should applaud him and be inspired by it.

 

[DjokoLand]

I always said Djokovic decline would be sudden and he will just stop winning slams but it’s not now. He has 3 slams this year and lost in the F of the last one with the pressure of CYGS, a horrible F record here and against a player that is in prime with a outstanding HC record.
For me now in a HC match against Med Djokovic has too play his best too get the win

 

[clayqueen]

Olympics don’t mean too much historically for tennis. His major holes are his zero atp finals titles and weeks at #1 (relative to the other 2 guys).

How much more upset would Djokovic be if Olympics did matter?

 

[GabeT]

How much more upset would Djokovic be if Olympics did matter?

That’s the difference between an event mattering in comparing tennis careers and mattering to a particular player. Not the same thing

 

[clayqueen]

IMO, Federer and Djokovic have way too many things over Nadal for the latter to be leading the race.

 

[clayqueen]

That’s the difference between an event mattering in comparing tennis careers and mattering to a particular player. Not the same thing

What does that even mean?

 

[Deleted member 762343]

Here, let me break it down for the more simple minded. I actually thought some who cosigned your redundant post were among the more intelligent posters, but maybe I gave them too much credit.

The circumstances I was referring to are achievements of course (obviously, Djokovic has proven he's equal by amassing the same amount of slams) and those possible career changing events that a player overcomes. Both Federer and especially Nadal have come back from injury to dominate again. Djokovic didn't have a chance to do that til 2018, and he did.

Another milestone both Federer and Nadal have reached is amassing additional slams during a couple of twilight - swan years, as explained in the OP. Djokovic hasn't had the chance to do so yet because he hasn't reached his twilight, at least that we know of. I personally think he may have reached such after this year, but we shall see. Will he be able to win additional slams in years where he plays a very limited schedule? That is essentially the question, and again we shall see!

There you go, hopefully you will understand now.

You of all people calling someone else simple minded after making such an idiotic thread, the irony.

What you're doing is called mental gymnastics. Everyone undestood your post well and what you're essentially saying is that Djokovic isn't their equal as of now because he didn't have a great comeback season in his "twilight years", which is just a stupidly arbitrary take. You're trying too hard to prove Djokovic is still below the other 2. What you're saying is exactly like saying 20 = 20 > 20 otherwise you wouldn't say he needs more slams to equal them. You can't argue with the numbers so you're trying to work around them with a vague and overcomplicated reasoning, "he's their equal because he has 20 but he's not really their equal". You can try to word it as you want to make it look clever, it's still a dumb take.

You'd better keep complaining endelessly about the roof being closed at 2018 Wimbledon SF, it'd be more in line with who you are and more believable than the whole "I'm smart and analytical" act.

 

[GabeT]

What does that even mean?

It means that winning the Olympics was (and remains) a goal for Novak. He wants it, badly. But the Olympics are not part of the tennis tour and many athletes don’t even participate today. So they are not part of any GOAT or “best of” discussion.

 

[Bubcay]

Singles Olympics Gold says hi!

The Olympic Gold seems to be brought up as an argument only in the Olympic year. It is the least important factor in the GOAT race (if there is a such thing). I personally never considered it a factor.

 

[clayqueen]

Djoker fans' way of getting over their disappointment is to throw mud at his rivals. This is not where they thought they would be before Tokyo Olympics.

 

[clayqueen]

The Olympic Gold seems to be brought up as an argument only in the Olympic year. It is the least important factor in the GOAT race (if there is a such thing). I personally never considered it a factor.

No, it's not. It's always a factor.

 

[Weekendhacker]

No, it's not. It's always a factor.

Yes, a small factor

 

[DRII]

Nadal‘s twilight was at 32?

Novak won 3 slams the season he turned 34, Nadal only won one slam the equivalent season

Why the he11 are some of you so focused on literal age? It's almost meaningless! Please get some perspective.

It's about means/ability. Djokovic hasn't needed to be in his twilight time yet. I think that may change after this year, but we don't know yet.

 

[Fedforever]

That’s the difference between an event mattering in comparing tennis careers and mattering to a particular player. Not the same thing

This is an excellent point, RG 09 being the perfect example.

Federer never played for higher stakes than in that Final but the record books will show a routine straight sets win.

 

[DRII]

I always said Djokovic decline would be sudden and he will just stop winning slams but it’s not now. He has 3 slams this year and lost in the F of the last one with the pressure of CYGS, a horrible F record here and against a player that is in prime with a outstanding HC record.
For me now in a HC match against Med Djokovic has too play his best too get the win

Thank you for the reasoned reply. We'll see when it is for Djokovic. He has to sacrifice more than Federer or Nadal, it's like he has to change his entire life style to be in slam winning form.

Again, we shall see.

 

[DRII]

You of all people calling someone else simple minded after making such an idiotic thread, the irony.

What you're doing is called mental gymnastics. Everyone undestood your post well and what you're essentially saying is that Djokovic isn't their equal as of now because he didn't have a great comeback season in his "twilight years", which is just a stupidly arbitrary take. You're trying too hard to prove Djokovic is still below the other 2. What you're saying is exactly like saying 20 = 20 > 20 otherwise you wouldn't say he needs more slams to equal them. You can't argue with the numbers so you're trying to work around them with a vague and overcomplicated reasoning, "he's their equal because he has 20 but he's not really their equal". You can try to word it as you want to make it look clever, it's still a dumb take.

You'd better keep complaining endelessly about the roof being closed at 2018 Wimbledon SF, it'd be more in line with who you are and more believable than the whole "I'm smart and analytical" act.

Pearls before swine...

If you weren't so insecure you could see that I was also clearly complimenting your guy by saying he's already tied in achievement (the main achievement most go by, slams) before even having to clear the milestone of twilight slam wins. But no you choose to sulk and find grievance.

Your choice, you be you.

 

[DRII]

It means that winning the Olympics was (and remains) a goal for Novak. He wants it, badly. But the Olympics are not part of the tennis tour and many athletes don’t even participate today. So they are not part of any GOAT or “best of” discussion.

You wish!

 

[DRII]

The correct way to frame it is whether both Nadal and Djokovic can match up to Federer in late career success, but the OP has done some seriously high-level mental gymnastics here. Instead of questioning him, we should applaud him and be inspired by it.

Your fall continues.

 

[davced1]

Not a Djokovic fan per se but give him some credit. He won three slams and made a final at 33-34, unreal achievement. He is already the equal to the other two and probably more. He doesn't have to prove anything more to anyone and neither do Federer or Nadal.

 

[Keizer]

So after winning three slams and reaching four slam finals in 2021 Djoker is finished because he lost to the 2nd best HC player in Medved in straights. What does that make one-knee-Hurkacz-bagel-eating Federer and Muller-Weiss-part-time-player Nadal?

 

[GabeT]

You wish!

GOAT discussions boil down to number of slams and time at number 1 (we can debate weeks vs YE1). Winning OG doesn’t compensate for that.

 

[GabeT]

Why the he11 are some of you so focused on literal age? It's almost meaningless! Please get some perspective.

It's about means/ability. Djokovic hasn't needed to be in his twilight time yet. I think that may change after this year, but we don't know yet.

You are unclear. Novak is 34 and isn’t in his twilight but Nadal at 33 was? Makes no sense

under any normal definition is already in the twilight of his career. And he’s won more than either Fed or Nadal post 30.

 

[Bartelby]

Not only that he came to within one match of a CYGS with the worst draw imaginable and at a time in his career where he is far less than what he was when twenty-five.

Novak is unfortunately the GOAT looked at objectively.

Not being able to win as convincingly as he once did meant more court time and less likelihood of winning the next match. I'd suggest that one slam next year may be it.

Not a Djokovic fan per se but give him some credit. He won three slams and made a final at 33-34, unreal achievement. He is already the equal to the other two and probably more. He doesn't have to prove anything more to anyone and neither do Federer or Nadal.

 

[davced1]

Not only that he came to within one match of a CYGS with the worst draw imaginable and at a time in his career where he is far less than what he was when twenty-five.

Novak is unfortunately the GOAT looked at objectively.

Not being able to win as convincingly as he once did meant more court time and less likelihood of winning the next match. I'd suggest that one slam next year may be it.

Maybe he is GOAT by the numbers but it's highly subjective as the numbers can be interpreted in many different ways. What is an Olympic gold and 13 French Open worth? Five straight US Open's and Wimbledon's? Most weeks at no 1 and the best h2h record?

 

[Bartelby]

It's subjective, and always will be, but there are more points in Novak's favour than for the others. I call Federer the last tennis player, and comfort myself with the idea/delusion that tennis is just different now.

Maybe he is GOAT by the numbers but it's highly subjective as the numbers can be interpreted in many different ways. What is an Olympic gold and 13 French Open worth? Five straight US Open's and Wimbledon's? Most weeks at no 1 and the best h2h record?

 

[DRII]

You are unclear. Novak is 34 and isn’t in his twilight but Nadal at 33 was? Makes no sense

under any normal definition is already in the twilight of his career. And he’s won more than either Fed or Nadal post 30.

Twilight years are not defined by the player's age but their abilities. If Djokovic is able to play a full to nearly full schedule, like he did this year, next year; then that would not be a twilight year for him.

A twilight swan year is a year such as Federer's 2017 and 18 and Nadal's 2019 and 20; years when the player plays a limited schedule, the swan part means they add to their slam tally. It has nothing to do with the player's age!

 

[GabeT]

Twilight years are not defined by the player's age but their abilities. If Djokovic is able to play a full to nearly full schedule, like he did this year, next year; then that would not be a twilight year for him.

A twilight swan year is a year such as Federer's 2017 and 18 and Nadal's 2019 and 20; years when the player plays a limited schedule, the swan part means they add to their slam tally. It has nothing to do with the player's age!

So if he wins 3 slams each year for the next 6 years and retires at 40 he will never have a twilight?

 

[DRII]

So if he wins 3 slams each year for the next 6 years and retires at 40 he will never have a twilight?

Not if he plays a full or nearly full schedule those 6 years. Yes, if his schedule was very limited and focused on the slams. At least when it comes to the discussion we're having in this thread.

 

[Incognito]

You are unclear. Novak is 34 and isn’t in his twilight but Nadal at 33 was? Makes no sense

under any normal definition is already in the twilight of his career. And he’s won more than either Fed or Nadal post 30.

he probably means, Djokovic did not have 9 majors, and a career golden slam like Nadal had prior to 2011. The wear and tear and all that…

 

[DRII]

Fed 17/18
Ned 19/20
Djok 20/21
?

No...

Djokovic has not had a twilight year, let alone a twilight-swan year yet!

 

[nolefam_2024]

Nadal looks like he is 40. Federer is 40. It's really idiotic to question a guy who went 27-1 days ago in grand slams.

 

[terribleIVAN]

An all singing all dancing, fully fit form of Djokovic on a surface on which he is supposed to be the King, only won 1 match in straight sets at the 2021 USO and lost in straight sets in the final. It's not going to be plain sailing for him anymore. And this was by far the most important match of his career.

Totally concur.

If he had lost in close fought match, his aura would have been intact.

Instead, after all his bravado (about enjoying pressure) and record breaking aspirations, he's shown his true colors: he cannot hold his nerves on crucial moments against inferior opposition.

I wouldn't be surprised if he never wins another slam; he's uncovered his frailty for all to see.

 

[Bartelby]

This analysis makes no sense. And in fact the opposite is true. You don't win twenty slams and then suddenly show that you can't handle pressure. It's an absurd hypothesis.

Djokovic is ageing and slowing and dropping sets with gay abandon. On top of this fact he had a hard draw, and his younger and excellent opponent had an easy one, so the conclusion is obvious.

He ended his slam beating Zverev in five and had nothing left for the final.

Totally concur.

If he had lost in close fought match, his aura would have been intact.

Instead, after all his bravado (about enjoying pressure) and record breaking aspirations, he's shown his true colors: he cannot hold his nerves on crucial moments against inferior opposition.

I wouldn't be surprised if he never wins another slam; he's uncovered his frailty for all to see.

 

[clayqueen]

The correct way to frame it is whether both Nadal and Djokovic can match up to Federer in late career success,............

What do you mean? Nadal & Djokovic have the same number of slams as Federer and they lead Federer in M1000 titles. Nadal has singles OG. This is just for starters.