tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
That's because these are the tournaments that the age factor really comes into play. If Fed could keep up for more than 3 hours the h2h wouldn't be 4-3 for Djokovic this season, it would've been 5-2 for Federer.
ESPN: "Novak Djokovic is the greatest tennis player in history"
- Thread starter JSummers
- Start date
That's because these are the tournaments that the age factor really comes into play. If Fed could keep up for more than 3 hours the h2h wouldn't be 4-3 for Djokovic this season, it would've been 5-2 for Federer.
ibbi
G.O.A.T.
Laughable argument. The fact that Federer has beaten him more often than not over best of 3 sets absolutely dumps on his entire aura. The guy is number 1 in the world right now because his greatest rival can't physically compete with him over 5 sets. Simple as that. He's not doing anything to suggest otherwise.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Federer is just the better player with the more remarkable peak..
mavsman149
Hall of Fame
I'm about as big of a Novak fan as there is and he is absolutely a tier 1 ATG but there is no way he is the greatest tennis player in history nor is there much of a chance he becomes that.
ESPN is the worst.
ESPN is the worst.
mavsman149
Hall of Fame
Peak for peak their most dominant seasons are difficult, if not impossible to select the superior season. The fact is that Federer has had more of those legendary seasons and has maintained an extremely high level of play longer. Federer>>Djokovic and that is unlikely to change.
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I don't rule out the possibility that Novak Djokovic is the greatest player of all time. Subjectively he is one of the rare players in tennis history that has huge weapons on backhand, forehand, serve and a good volley that's improving. He's lightning fast and his stamina is excellent. He's great on all surfaces. And he makes few unforced errors. I don't know what else you need. It's possible for LEVEL OF PLAY that he's better than anyone ever.
Do I think he is? Well he has a lot of competitors but he's in rarified air right with the best ever.
Do I think he is? Well he has a lot of competitors but he's in rarified air right with the best ever.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
That's what I mean.
Djoko has a great 2015 and 2011, but Roger had 3 of those years, 2 of them in a row.
Flint
Hall of Fame
You win this whole thread.
It does. You are still young. You will realise that "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my shoulders".
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
"Glory hunters".
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
This is so true, Karlovic had one of his best serving days (and that says something) combined with Djokovic being slightly below par, the surface being fast, the fact that it was a minor tournament and the first ATP tournament for Novak in 2015. Murray caught Djokovic on a really off day. Wawrinka caught lightening in a bottle once again but Federer remains the only player to really threaten Djokovic every time this year as evidenced by him beating Novak 3 times this year and winning at least a set in 3 of the 4 losses this season.
mavsman149
Hall of Fame
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
They're probably all Yankees and Man Utd. fans too.Sadly glory hunters or bandwagoners happen in every sport
Actually isn't Man City the popular one now?
Elessar
Rookie
It's way to early for articles like that one, even if it's from ESPN. Djokovic is not even the best player of the last 15 years, let alone the GOAT. Not even second best. I don't get this need to proclaim GOATs while those players are still playing and while there are several more successful players ahead of them. Not to mention how the GOAT debate is silly in the first place. Let's just wait and see what happens next season and season after that, before we jump to conclusions. The only thing I liked about ESPN was Grantland. And now that Grantland is gone, I almost don't care about ESPN anymore.
mavsman149
Hall of Fame
Admittedly I don't know much about football/soccer. Since I have no allegiance to any team, I would probably pick Man U soley based on the movie Eurotrip!
Also #@$% the Yankees! haha
Righto mr. ABCD - since you're still learning the alphabet lets just assume that you've only been watching tennis since 2011 and can barely hit topspin. Eat your veggies too.
kishnabe
Talk Tennis Guru
Honestly...it starting to get annoying.
Keep till their careers are over.
"Federer is the greatest of all time" 2006.....when he was plenty behind Sampras.
" Nadal is the greatest of all time" 2010....at least he had an argument and probable chance at that.
"Novak is the greatest of all time" 2015.....premature 10 slams...great but still far behind to declare such.
Keep till their careers are over.
"Federer is the greatest of all time" 2006.....when he was plenty behind Sampras.
" Nadal is the greatest of all time" 2010....at least he had an argument and probable chance at that.
"Novak is the greatest of all time" 2015.....premature 10 slams...great but still far behind to declare such.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
I think the next 3 years will give us the true measure of Djokovic.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Novak is the oldest and least realistic one to be praised though.
Think about it, Federer was 24/25 in 2006, Nadal was 23/24 in 2010. Novak is 28, and despite how good he's playing right now, I don't believe it's going to last forever nor do I believe he's going to win Andre Agassi's entire career's worth of slams to become the "GOAT".
Think about it, Federer was 24/25 in 2006, Nadal was 23/24 in 2010. Novak is 28, and despite how good he's playing right now, I don't believe it's going to last forever nor do I believe he's going to win Andre Agassi's entire career's worth of slams to become the "GOAT".
roundiesee
Hall of Fame
Did any one spot this mistake?
"Djokovic only missed out in Paris last year, and there he beat Nadal and Murray on his way to the final, where Stan Wawrinka hit top form"
It was this year, not last. Perhaps Simon Barnes' memory is fading. I thought he had retired from sports journalism,
"Djokovic only missed out in Paris last year, and there he beat Nadal and Murray on his way to the final, where Stan Wawrinka hit top form"
It was this year, not last. Perhaps Simon Barnes' memory is fading. I thought he had retired from sports journalism,
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Did this author just start following tennis this year?
ForumMember
Hall of Fame
Yes. Sampras, Borg, Laver never thought they can challenge an umpire's call while Djokovic regulatory does that.
Point I am trying to make is that you using very wrong yardstick to compare players across different eras.
Charlemagne
Hall of Fame
Some gooooood shiit those guys must be smoking...
6august
Hall of Fame
How childish you are...
Let me tell you, raising war - conflict - anger among readers is a very old and basic trick of newspapers, magazines... I'm in insider so don't try to argue with me about this stuff.
The more you get heated, the more they succeed.
Look at you now. How old are you? Why let yourself to be led so easily?
Let me tell you, raising war - conflict - anger among readers is a very old and basic trick of newspapers, magazines... I'm in insider so don't try to argue with me about this stuff.
The more you get heated, the more they succeed.
Look at you now. How old are you? Why let yourself to be led so easily?
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
I get the feeling that Jamie Redknapp wrote this article.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
It certainly makes tennis look unbelievable at times. The Wimby 07/08 highlights after a good
I would like that you were right, but unfortunately you are not. I am probably 3 times you age and watched them all (before anybody knew how to hit top-spin). What guys today can do (backhand winners, winners from the back of the court etc), old players couldn't dream of. This is understandable as tennis was developing from recreational sport into serious business. The first time Wimbledon offered money prize was in 1968 (for you this is ancient history, for me it was yesterday) and it was £2,000 (equivalent to todays ~£30,000). This year Djokovic collected as a W winner ~£1.9M. Imagine what kind competition yields £30K and what kind of competition yields £1.9M. You can be more enthusiastic for Borg over Djokovic only if you never watched both of them live. I did.
Big_Dangerous
Talk Tennis Guru
I had only ever heard of Man United before this commercial aired a few years ago where they had like two brother and one was a Man U fan and the other was a Man city fan.
TheMusicLover
G.O.A.T.
It IS annoying, and has been for quite a while now.
You can only wonder *why* certain press/pundits think it's a 'good' idea to hype certain players to such an extent. You might conclude the sport doesn't draw enough attention on its own merits...
Sadly enough, plenty of 'fans' - or rather, fanboys - seem to be buying it. I well remember a bunch of overzealous Fed fans hopping around in T-shirts with "after14 comes..." up to twenty GS, no less, at tournaments.
I didn't make many friends that day when I called them out and told them they were getting ahead of themselves. Even more, quite insulting to all the other good players around.
How about just enjoying the ride, and see what will happen in the future?
SublimeTennis
Professional
Right, and if he has a bad season they'll not even talk about him. It's like when Nadal was on a run, Mac was "Nadal is the greatest", just because you are on television doesn't mean you are smart.
SublimeTennis
Professional
Right, and if he has a bad season they'll not even talk about him. It's like when Nadal was on a run, Mac was "Nadal is the greatest", just because you are on television doesn't mean you are smart.
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
it's essentially saying he's the latest champion, tennis evolve -> hence he's the greatest.
Lame argument. He might be in top-3 one day, but he ain't yet.
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
Sadly enough, I'd say some of them still believe Federer will reach 20 slams. Not unlike the Djokovic fans these days saying he's a shoe in or "likely" to get 18.
"What guys today can do (backhand winners, winners from the back of the court etc), old players couldn't dream of."
- Yes…and this has nothing to do with graphite rackets, slow gritty courts, and of course the ultimate weapon, polyester strings….No it was just the evolution of players that suddenly figured out how to hit winners 4 metres behind the baseline. You're laughable. Ask lendl about hitting winners from the back of the court btw.
And yes, the reason champions like Novak and Federer started tennis was because they thought it was their best chance at making money - it's for the money of course!!!
You stink of an armchair critic who has never played or truly appreciated the game. Hope you've been eating those veggies plugger.
TheFifthSet
Legend
That's pretty unfair lol.
How do you figure Federer would have for sure won if they were on level terms fitness-wise? He lost the first set in both of their slam matches. I realize the disparity might have done a number on Fed mentally, but the Wimbledon match was pretty decisive and in the USO neither guy really played that well.
Fedalforever
Semi-Pro
It is debatable that he's not even better than Sharapova because of his lack of talent to win the FO. The day this cheat becomes GOAT will be the day tennis dies. It will never happen though. 50% Rafa and 40% Fed will ensure it doesn't happen.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Being solid is what won Djoker those matches, it's not like he played jaw-dropping tennis.
TheFifthSet
Legend
So then he should be given no credit?
So, save for the stamina advantage, Federer should be 5-2 this year against him?
Djokovic played brilliantly in the Wimbledon final, and returned unbelievably well against a Federer that was serving in the high 60's. He saved a set point in the first set with an unreturnable serve, ran Fed ragged in the tiebreak and won sets 3 and 4 quite comfortably.
Now that Novak is gaining on Fedal he's getting smeared the same way that Nadal was back when he was a dominant champion, by claiming he does "nothing spectacular" and plays "boring tennis". Yes, these claims were both in vogue when Nadal was sweeping the clay court events and making deep runs at HC slams. It held no weight even then, but personally I find Novaks game more interesting to watch than Nadals. Aesthetically his strokes are a lot nicer/more fluid. He's one of the cleanest ball strikers of all time. And defensively nobody is better on a non-clay surface.
That last point is important. It's as if people want to ignore that Djokovic is one of the best defenders of all time and one of the best at turning defense into attack. Why is that not 'jaw-dropping'? Because it's not as easy on the eye? Well, defense and athleticism are some of the hallmarks of the modern game and he's tops in both categories.
His return is also more than just 'solid', it's arguably the best ever and the depth he gets on an average return forces offensive players to go for more on their serves.
To boot, people can decry Djokovics post-2011 reversion to counter punching all they want, he's still a more offensive player than Nadal and many other top players have ever been, and in a pure baseline tug-of-war is almost impossible to beat.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
I think Nole's game far more boring than Nadal's.
For one Djokovic only excels on surfaces that suit his game-style. He lacks rhythm and timing when he plays on anything fast paced (not counting medium paced courts like the USO).
It's laughable to say Djoker is a more offensive player than Nadal at his best. His "offense" to me is counterpunching, whereas Nadal's "offense" comes off as raw, brute strength. Aggression from the baseline. Just because Nadal doesn't go for winners every single ball doesn't mean he is less offensive than one of the most defensive top-players of all time. His brutal strokes push players back and allow Nadal to dictate from the back of the court, Djokovic in comparison just counters until he can find an opening.
And finally, his tennis is not "jaw dropping" because he's just an extremely consistent, well rounded counterpuncher.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
You make some good points, but I think you're selling Djokovic short as a well rounded counter-puncher, given his ability to dictate points on his own terms. It's just that when he is put on the defensive he then gets the chance to showcase his outstanding counter-punching abilities. Djokovic is very often in control of his own destiny because of how he's able to stay at the baseline without ceding ground often and then utilises his superior ball redirection abilities.
Nadal is similar - he's a brilliant counter-puncher because often he has to be, but more often than people like to accept, he's dictating terms from the baseline.
Fedalforever
Semi-Pro
Djokovic and offensive in the same sentence? Lol. Didnt Andy Murray have more winners than Novak in a match where he barely won 5 games or something in Paris. 0 winners in an entire set in a GS match lol. In most matches Novak wins he has fewer winners than his opponents. Attacking player my arse.
Fedalforever
Semi-Pro
Delete post.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Defense is Nole's forte though. He can be offensive at times, true, but that isn't his usual go-to play style.
TheFifthSet
Legend
Really, winners count shouldn't be the point you use if you want to compare Nadal favourably to him. Nadal hits less winners than his opponents a higher % of the time than Djokovic does, and I would bet anything that Djokovic has hit more winners than Nadal in at least 75% of their matches.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
I think it's confusing really because sometimes tendencies don't align with the strongest areas of one's game. I think Djokovic genuinely prefers to attack, by controlling the court and using controlled aggression, making his opponent do more of the running, but he's better at defence than offence even though it's not his preferred tendency and as such, it's showcased as much or more than his offence. Both Djokovic and Nadal are quite controlling players and they have the tools to keep their opponents on a leash. Just as you perceptively put forward that Nadal's method of being aggressive needn't have to involve hitting outright winners, nor does Djokovic's. Djokovic turns it into a battle of holding ground at the baseline and he ends up on top more often than not. Both players are such terrific movers and athletes though that, when required, we see an awful lot of incredible defence from both, which leads to some misconceptions about how they play. One thing for sure is that they both play at a very suffocating and controlling tempo when they are at their best, with Djokovic always making his opponent work harder than himself and Nadal yanking his opponents all around the court with his all-time great forehand.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
The way Djoker controls the point looks defensive a lot of the time, his attacking tendencies only come out when he knows he can hit a clean winner. At least from what I've seen.
I was probably exaggerating a bit, but I still do believe Nadal is the more offensive of the two IMO.
Similar threads
