Djokovic - The best player at USO post 2008 to present day

Hitman

Hitman

Bionic Poster
To me after this last final, Djokovic has been the best player at the USO post 2008, after Federer's reign came to an end.

From 2009 to 2023
Djokovic won 4 slams, 5 extra finals, reached at least the semis each year he played with the exception of 2019 and 2020. Most match wins, most top 10 and top 5 wins.

The best at AO, W, USO and WTF for the last 13-14 years. :D 8-B
 
Hitman said:
To me after this last final, Djokovic has been the best player at the USO post 2008, after Federer's reign came to an end.

From 2009 to 2023
Djokovic won 4 slams, 5 extra finals, reached at least the semis each year he played with the exception of 2019 and 2020. Most match wins, most top 10 and top 5 wins.

The best at AO, W, USO and WTF for the last 13-14 years. :D 8-B
Click to expand...
Resume packer.
 
Hitman said:
To me after this last final, Djokovic has been the best player at the USO post 2008, after Federer's reign came to an end.

From 2009 to 2023
Djokovic won 4 slams, 5 extra finals, reached at least the semis each year he played with the exception of 2019 and 2020. Most match wins, most top 10 and top 5 wins.

The best at AO, W, USO and WTF for the last 13-14 years. :D 8-B
Click to expand...
6 extra finals not 5
 
weakera said:
So his emergence at these slams perfectly coincided with Federer's prime ending?

How weird. Wonder if there is any connection?


:unsure:
Click to expand...
Cmon man you're better than this. Maybe the connection is that he's 6 years younger and Federer's prime lasted around 4 years? This applies to Rafa too, it's just he was a teenage freak and competed pre-prime with a prime Fed
 
Hitman said:
To me after this last final, Djokovic has been the best player at the USO post 2008, after Federer's reign came to an end.

From 2009 to 2023
Djokovic won 4 slams, 5 extra finals, reached at least the semis each year he played with the exception of 2019 and 2020. Most match wins, most top 10 and top 5 wins.

The best at AO, W, USO and WTF for the last 13-14 years. :D 8-B
Click to expand...
Djokovic was better than Fed at the USO in '09 despite being crushed by him? Interesting take
 
weakera said:
So his emergence at these slams perfectly coincided with Federer's prime ending?

How weird. Wonder if there is any connection?


:unsure:
Click to expand...
Coincidentally all of his RGs have been won after Rafa exited his clay prime; and 6 out of 7 Wimbledons, as well as 4 out of 6 WTFs after Roger exited his prime.
 
Rosstour said:
Semantics are cute

Djokovic isn't even clear of Nadal rn at USO let alone the guy who won 5 straight and made 6 straight finals plus another.
Click to expand...

Oh, I wasn't disputing that. I don't even rate Novak's tennis, tbh. He's well below Fed, Murray, and Nadal.

Also, it's not so much "semantics" as much as it's "identifying a flaw in the criteria." Not a significant flaw, but a slight imprecision in reasoning, yeah?
 
daggerman said:
Oh, I wasn't disputing that. I don't even rate Novak's tennis, tbh. He's well below Fed, Murray, and Nadal.

Also, it's not so much "semantics" as much as it's "identifying a flaw in the criteria." Not a significant flaw, but a slight imprecision in reasoning, yeah?
Click to expand...

I thought my argument was clear but maybe not. I'm saying that Djoko needing 2010-2024 to tie a record that Fed set in 1/3rd of the time is not a GOAT-making stat.

If he gets 5 next year which I'm assuming he will, then the conversation will be him vs Sampras, who got 5 over a 12-year span. And that was a perfect 5-0 Finals record.

Fed's 5 consecutive is another level, Djoko will need to win '24 and '25 to have a case for greatest USO champ ever.
 
Rosstour said:
I thought my argument was clear but maybe not. I'm saying that Djoko needing 2010-2024 to tie a record that Fed set in 1/3rd of the time is not a GOAT-making stat.

If he gets 5 next year which I'm assuming he will, then the conversation will be him vs Sampras, who got 5 over a 12-year span. And that was a perfect 5-0 Finals record.

Fed's 5 consecutive is another level, Djoko will need to win '24 and '25 to have a case for greatest USO champ ever.
Click to expand...

OK, but Fed's record from 1999-2019 is the same as Fed's record from 2004-2008. He won 5 over the latter period, but also only 5 over the former. What was buddy doing all those other years? It cuts both ways.

Tom Brady "needed 20 years" to win the same number of MVPs that Brett Favre won in consecutive years in his mid-20s. Favre's better than Brady? Even if he were, would you use that argument? I doubt it.

Also, I should emphasize: I really do not care where "Djokovic ranks at the US Open." He's clearly one of the best players there, and he's one of the best players everywhere else. If you want to say Federer's better there and everywhere else, that's perfectly fine. Fed was great. I simply think the criterion you've used is not the best.

My case for Fed would be: won a higher total percentage of his points than Djokovic (and everyone else), and his superior serve and net play make his game more resilient against the difficult conditions on Ashe and mitigate the attritional effects of a long, grueling season.
 
daggerman said:
OK, but Fed's record from 1999-2019 is the same as Fed's record from 2004-2008. He won 5 over the latter period, but also only 5 over the former. What was buddy doing all those other years? It cuts both ways.

Tom Brady "needed 20 years" to win the same number of MVPs that Brett Favre won in consecutive years in his mid-20s. Favre's better than Brady? Even if he were, would you use that argument? I doubt it.

Also, I should emphasize: I really do not care where "Djokovic ranks at the US Open." He's clearly one of the best players there, and he's one of the best players everywhere else. If you want to say Federer's better there and everywhere else, that's perfectly fine. Fed was great. I simply think the criterion you've used is not the best.

My case for Fed would be: won a higher total percentage of his points than Djokovic (and everyone else), and his superior serve and net play make his game more resilient against the difficult conditions on Ashe and mitigate the attritional effects of a long, grueling season.
Click to expand...
I see this a lot here. You can highlight concentration or short term dominance (winning consecutively) or you can focus on longevity (winning over a long period of time). There’s really no reason to prefer one over the other. And posters here will regularly jump from highlighting one or the other depending on what makes their fave players look best.
 
daggerman said:
OK, but Fed's record from 1999-2019 is the same as Fed's record from 2004-2008. He won 5 over the latter period, but also only 5 over the former. What was buddy doing all those other years? It cuts both ways.
Click to expand...

So you don't give any weight to Fed's 5x being consecutive?

daggerman said:
Tom Brady "needed 20 years" to win the same number of MVPs that Brett Favre won in consecutive years in his mid-20s. Favre's better than Brady? Even if he were, would you use that argument? I doubt it.
Click to expand...

Bad analogy as MVP is a vote and not an on-field contest.

daggerman said:
Also, I should emphasize: I really do not care where "Djokovic ranks at the US Open." He's clearly one of the best players there, and he's one of the best players everywhere else. If you want to say Federer's better there and everywhere else, that's perfectly fine. Fed was great. I simply think the criterion you've used is not the best.

My case for Fed would be: won a higher total percentage of his points than Djokovic (and everyone else), and his superior serve and net play make his game more resilient against the difficult conditions on Ashe and mitigate the attritional effects of a long, grueling season.
Click to expand...

Can't argue with the last paragraph. And saying "did it in X years vs Y" is another way of saying "X years in a row". I'm saying that Djoko took much, much longer than Fed did to reach 5 and isn't even there yet. Plus he has Finals losses there to three different players, all of whom are substantially worse than him.
 
donald-duck-cherry-picking.gif
 
Rosstour said:
Bad analogy as MVP is a vote and not an on-field contest.
Click to expand...

The fact that it's a vote doesn't make it a bad analogy. It's a fine analogy because, whether it's a vote or not, people make comparisons between players on the basis of criteria like number of MVPs won. Now, you could argue it's a bad analogy because Brady is obviously better than Favre, so pro-Favre arguments are plainly nonsensical in a way that pro-Federer arguments aren't. Perhaps if Favre's overall resume were closer to Brady's, the fact that he won 3 consecutive MVPs would matter more (if only irrationally so). I could buy that.

But the fact that it's a vote simply means the votes could conceivably have gone a different way. That's also true about tennis tournaments. Sure, Brady could've won more MVPs, but that's not any more true than saying Djokovic (or Federer) could've won more USOs.
 
WeekendTennisHack said:
^^^So Djokovic only won all those Wimbledons because Alcaraz was not matured yet?
Click to expand...

I mean, I think it's pretty obvious the Novak would have fewer Wimbledon titles if he faced Alcaraz at more of them. That's just kinda how sports works, no? The better an athlete is, the harder it is to defeat them.
 
Hitman said:
Dude has been the best at four of the five biggest events of the annual season for almost a decade and a half. :cool:
Click to expand...
I mean - he's great. But this is the kind of cake you can cut in different ways depending on your player of preference.

Section off 2000-2018. We get Fed as the best at 3 of the 4 slams.

Cut it to your liking.

Of course in the next few years, Novak might hold the record at 3 of the four slams independently.

That will really be something extra great.
 
GabeT said:
Why would consecutive wins be better than overall wins?
Click to expand...
They are not, this is one of those often-repeated untruths which are completely wrong. Fact is it doesn’t matter when or how you win your titles, sure it is cool to win them consecutively, but if a player shows some concentrated dominance over some years but never wins anything before or after it can also raise questions whether he simply took advantage of weak opponents and couldn’t win as long as stronger players were still there or as soon as stronger players arrived. A guy who wins his titles spread over a longer time period shows that he can handle different opponents/generations, even if not quite as dominant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Hitman
List who is the best HC player for each year from 2003 to 2023
3 4 5
Replies
223
Views
5K
Entername
Entername
BauerAlmeida
Who would have won each year had Nadal and Djokovic faced each other at the USO?
Replies
39
Views
844
NatF
NatF
Entername
Rank Federer's seasons from best to last from 2008 onward
Replies
20
Views
1K
junior74
junior74
aditya123
A look at Top 3s high profile wins at Uso:
Replies
30
Views
907
aditya123
aditya123
abmk
The curse at the USO on men's side after 2008
Replies
38
Views
1K
AnOctorokForDinner
AnOctorokForDinner
Back
Top