Feliciano Lopez on Novak & Co.

PinShot

Rookie
Feliciano Lopez, at 34, is a contemporary of Roger Federer's and he has unbridled respect for the extraordinary Swiss maestro.

Also, Lopez, of course, possesses a special affinity and affection for his countryman Rafael Nadal, whose 14 Grand Slams - nine of them won at Roland Garros - are exceeded in the history of the men's game only by Federer's 17.

Lopez's long tenure gives him a unique perspective. His opinion, because of his wealth of experience, matters hugely.

So when he suggests Novak Djokovic, 28, the world No. 1 dominating the ATP World Tour in historic fashion, is the best of the best, period, because he's doing it at a time the game has never had more muscle at the top, it's an opinion worth processing.

Talent gulf widens

"Right now, I see a huge difference between Novak and the rest of the guys," said Lopez, who advanced to Friday's quarterfinals of the Fayez Sarofim & Co. U.S. Men's Clay Court Championship with a 7-6 (4), 6-1 victory over Lukas Lacko on Thursday. "And it's the way he wins. That's so important. He's giving 50, 60 percent (and winning). But, when he needs more, he finds it.

"I've been taught since I was a kid you always have a chance to win, but when you play against Novak now … a lot of things have to happen for you to have any chance. When Roger and Rafa were at their best, they weren't as good as Novak (is now)."

Note that Lopez is the only man to defeat Djokovic in 29 matches in 2016, after the Serb went 82-6 in 2015 while winning three of the four majors. But Lopez did it by winning only one set - 6-3 - in Dubai, after which the Serb retired with a blinding eye infection. That was the first time he hadn't advanced to a final in 17 tournaments.

But, when the two faced off a couple of weeks later in Indian Wells, all was normal. Djokovic prevailed in routine fashion 6-3, 6-3, improving to 8-0 against Lopez in matches that finished on the court.

"Last year I played one of my best matches of my life against Novak at the U.S. Open," Lopez said, sounding wistful. "I had a break point for going into the fifth set. I was so close."

In the end, though, not really.

Lopez added he's proud to have played during this era against Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. He believes they are tennis' true holy trinity, the greatest threesome, and he's not alone.

Sock impressed

American Jack Sock, 23, who won in Houston a year ago and is back in the quarters after beating Australia's Matthew Barton 6-2, 7-6 (5), lacks Lopez's tenure, but he knows what he's seen and he agrees with the Spaniard, throwing around phrases like "pretty remarkable" and "really impressive." about Djokovic.

"We're playing 25, 35 tournaments a year," Sock said, "and most of us are losing 25, 35 times a year. Also, he's playing five to seven matches in a week and holding up physically, taking great care of his body."

He crossed paths with Djokovic for the first time last summer in the round of 16 of the Masters Level tournament in Montreal. It didn't go well.

"When I held serve and was up 1-0 with a break point," Sock said, "I was feeling pretty good, and then I think I won two more games. Against a lot of the guys out here you're thinking you're in control of points and that you're going to finish them off. But (Djokovic) can turn defense into offense so fast. That's probably his biggest strength."

Asked if he thought it might be bad for tennis to be so under any one man's thumb, Sock said: "I don't think it's bad for the game. If someone's going to dominate, then it's more motivation for all of us. It's kind of like we're all going after Novak now. I know I'm definitely looking forward to playing him again, going toe to toe and seeing where I stack up. All of us, (when we) see his name in the draw. … he's got a bull's-eye on his back."

Grand Slam inevitable?

Which makes Djokovic's continuing to win match after match after match all the more remarkable. Although he doesn't have a career Grand Slam - the French Open title is missing despite his dethroning Nadal there last spring in the semifinals - Lopez thinks it's inevitable.

Although, on a personal level, he would love to see Nadal snare a 10th title at Roland Garros before retiring, Lopez said, "I would be surprised if Novak doesn't win this year."
 

uliks

Banned
Only on TTW you have posters, the majority here, who are claiming that the opinion of the regular TTW poster, have the same or bigger merit than that of the ex players, active players, tennis writers, commentators, trainers etc, etc... For some reason this place is nesting some of the biggest idiots on the whole Internet. :eek:
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
Only on TTW you have posters, the majority here, who are claiming that the opinion of the regular TTW poster, have the same or bigger merit than that of the ex players, active players, tennis writers, commentators, trainers etc, etc... For some reason this place is nesting some of the biggest idiots on the whole Internet. :eek:

Not only that, but they claim opinions such as those referenced in the articles are "ridiculous" "trolling" "I bet you don't even watch tennis" :D:eek:
 
N

Navdeep Srivastava

Guest
I personally think Fed dominance was better but Novak has pretty awesome one also.
 

Jonas78

Legend
If it is so important for some of you Nole-fans that prime-Nole is better than prime-Federer and prime-Nadal, i have no problem with that (as a Federer-fan ). Sprinters run faster than they did 10 years ago, and alpine-skiers are also faster. Most people also agree that Messi is better than 80s Maradona. Tennis evolves as everything else; equipment, training methods, nutrition, playing style etc etc. But just as you cant say Messi is greater than Maradona, or that Usain Bolt is greater than Carl Lewis, you also have to judge tennis-players by their own era. Nole owns this era, no need to try to take greatness away from the players in the past. Nole is a product of the players he learned from when he was young, you Nole-fans should credit these players, like Novak does himself.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
If it is so important for some of you Nole-fans that prime-Nole is better than prime-Federer and prime-Nadal, i have no problem with that (as a Federer-fan ). Sprinters run faster than they did 10 years ago, and alpine-skiers are also faster. Most people also agree that Messi is better than 80s Maradona. Tennis evolves as everything else; equipment, training methods, nutrition, playing style etc etc. But just as you cant say Messi is greater than Maradona, or that Usain Bolt is greater than Carl Lewis, you also have to judge tennis-players by their own era. Nole owns this era, no need to try to take greatness away from the players in the past. Nole is a product of the players he learned from when he was young, you Nole-fans should credit these players, like Novak does himself.

Well said, and I say this as a Djokovic supporter.
 
N

Navdeep Srivastava

Guest
If it is so important for some of you Nole-fans that prime-Nole is better than prime-Federer and prime-Nadal, i have no problem with that (as a Federer-fan ). Sprinters run faster than they did 10 years ago, and alpine-skiers are also faster. Most people also agree that Messi is better than 80s Maradona. Tennis evolves as everything else; equipment, training methods, nutrition, playing style etc etc. But just as you cant say Messi is greater than Maradona, or that Usain Bolt is greater than Carl Lewis, you also have to judge tennis-players by their own era. Nole owns this era, no need to try to take greatness away from the players in the past. Nole is a product of the players he learned from when he was young, you Nole-fans should credit these players, like Novak does himself.
Bolt > Lewis , others I agree.
 

RunDatGame

Semi-Pro
If it is so important for some of you Nole-fans that prime-Nole is better than prime-Federer and prime-Nadal, i have no problem with that (as a Federer-fan ). Sprinters run faster than they did 10 years ago, and alpine-skiers are also faster. Most people also agree that Messi is better than 80s Maradona. Tennis evolves as everything else; equipment, training methods, nutrition, playing style etc etc. But just as you cant say Messi is greater than Maradona, or that Usain Bolt is greater than Carl Lewis, you also have to judge tennis-players by their own era. Nole owns this era, no need to try to take greatness away from the players in the past. Nole is a product of the players he learned from when he was young, you Nole-fans should credit these players, like Novak does himself.

Great post.
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
If it is so important for some of you Nole-fans that prime-Nole is better than prime-Federer and prime-Nadal, i have no problem with that (as a Federer-fan ). Sprinters run faster than they did 10 years ago, and alpine-skiers are also faster. Most people also agree that Messi is better than 80s Maradona. Tennis evolves as everything else; equipment, training methods, nutrition, playing style etc etc. But just as you cant say Messi is greater than Maradona, or that Usain Bolt is greater than Carl Lewis, you also have to judge tennis-players by their own era. Nole owns this era, no need to try to take greatness away from the players in the past. Nole is a product of the players he learned from when he was young, you Nole-fans should credit these players, like Novak does himself.
Well said.
 

Fedinkum

Legend
Lopez's final comment:
"...but no one and I mean absolutely no one is as good looking as me ever...not yesterday, or today, or tmr...and that is all I wanted to say."
feli-evergreen-2-feliciano-lopez-26744946-1537-1999.jpg
 
D

Deleted member 688153

Guest
If it is so important for some of you Nole-fans that prime-Nole is better than prime-Federer and prime-Nadal, i have no problem with that (as a Federer-fan ). Sprinters run faster than they did 10 years ago, and alpine-skiers are also faster. Most people also agree that Messi is better than 80s Maradona. Tennis evolves as everything else; equipment, training methods, nutrition, playing style etc etc. But just as you cant say Messi is greater than Maradona, or that Usain Bolt is greater than Carl Lewis, you also have to judge tennis-players by their own era. Nole owns this era, no need to try to take greatness away from the players in the past. Nole is a product of the players he learned from when he was young, you Nole-fans should credit these players, like Novak does himself.
This is the truth.
 

Russeljones

Talk Tennis Guru
The closer you are to the action, the least likely it is that you will have the perspective. I am sure we are all going to cherry-pick our quotes to make our points. This doesn't, however, preclude a debate on the state of affairs. The type of tennis played suits the beneficiary. Those playing alongside him probably don't have the time to take stock and consider the ramifications of the changes made.

The form of the player is comparative. This is also something that needs perspective.

It's not about discarding opinions, it's about scrutinizing the facts. There is no reason for me to agree with what Lopez said re: Novak now being better than Federer/Nadal then. It simply isn't true. Why? Because they played better tennis than Djokovic against better opponents and, particularly in Federer's case, winning a lot more.
 

maupp

Semi-Pro
If it is so important for some of you Nole-fans that prime-Nole is better than prime-Federer and prime-Nadal, i have no problem with that (as a Federer-fan ). Sprinters run faster than they did 10 years ago, and alpine-skiers are also faster. Most people also agree that Messi is better than 80s Maradona. Tennis evolves as everything else; equipment, training methods, nutrition, playing style etc etc. But just as you cant say Messi is greater than Maradona, or that Usain Bolt is greater than Carl Lewis, you also have to judge tennis-players by their own era. Nole owns this era, no need to try to take greatness away from the players in the past. Nole is a product of the players he learned from when he was young, you Nole-fans should credit these players, like Novak does himself.
Very true, especially the bolded.

I never understood when posters bother with debate pitting current best players against players who dominated decades ago and ask whose level is higher. Of course players playing in current condition with improved games compared to past decade will always have a higher level. Comparison can only be made about greatness and such, not level of play which will always favor the latest and most current era given that they've improved from past eras.

So when I see claims such as 2006 peak Federer being the highest level of tennis or any of such claims, it always has me wondering whether people think objectively or just clouded by nostalgia. The most balanced argument about such would be insinuating that someone of Fed talent playing in today's game would adapt and still have some of the highest level or arguably the highest tennis level according to some but bringing his tennis 10 years ago and claim that's the highest seen is totally absurd just for the mere fact that sport in general evolve and the level of the game evolve with time.

These hypothetical match ups against past greats are down right nonsensical from the get go given there is always disparity in level of play with the game evolving as time goes on.

Arguing that Federer(or any past champions) is greater than current champions or even the greatest makes sense and very fair, however trying to argue about their tennis level being higher than the most current ones after the game has evolved is such a wrong take at looking at the game.
 

Russeljones

Talk Tennis Guru
Very true, especially the bolded.

I never understood when posters bother with debate pitting current best players against players who dominated decades ago and ask whose level is higher. Of course players playing in current condition with improved games compared to past decade will always have a higher level. Comparison can only be made about greatness and such, not level of play which will always favor the latest and most current era given that they've improved from past eras.

So when I see claims such as 2006 peak Federer being the highest level of tennis or any of such claims, it always has me wondering whether people think objectively or just clouded by nostalgia. The most balanced argument about such would be insinuating that someone of Fed talent playing in today's game would adapt and still have some of the highest level or arguably the highest tennis level according to some but bringing his tennis 10 years ago and claim that's the highest seen is totally absurd just for the mere fact that sport in general evolve and the level of the game evolve with time.

These hypothetical match ups against past greats are down right nonsensical from the get go given there is always disparity in level of play with the game evolving as time goes on.

Arguing that Federer(or any past champions) is greater than current champions or even the greatest makes sense and very fair, however trying to argue about their tennis level being higher than the most current ones after the game has evolved is such a wrong take at looking at the game.
How much has the game evolved since Federer's peak? How did your keyboard even fit in there?
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
If it is so important for some of you Nole-fans that prime-Nole is better than prime-Federer and prime-Nadal, i have no problem with that (as a Federer-fan ). Sprinters run faster than they did 10 years ago, and alpine-skiers are also faster. Most people also agree that Messi is better than 80s Maradona. Tennis evolves as everything else; equipment, training methods, nutrition, playing style etc etc. But just as you cant say Messi is greater than Maradona, or that Usain Bolt is greater than Carl Lewis, you also have to judge tennis-players by their own era. Nole owns this era, no need to try to take greatness away from the players in the past. Nole is a product of the players he learned from when he was young, you Nole-fans should credit these players, like Novak does himself.

I think it's more that people underrate Novak and thinks he is an ordinary player benefitting from a weak era. Time and time again we have players, Coaches, ex players underlining Djokovic's greatness and that it is not a coincidence what Novak is doing right now. He is just too good.

Yet some (many) posters on TTW keep thinking they know the best.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
The closer you are to the action, the least likely it is that you will have the perspective. I am sure we are all going to cherry-pick our quotes to make our points. This doesn't, however, preclude a debate on the state of affairs. The type of tennis played suits the beneficiary. Those playing alongside him probably don't have the time to take stock and consider the ramifications of the changes made.

The form of the player is comparative. This is also something that needs perspective.

It's not about discarding opinions, it's about scrutinizing the facts. There is no reason for me to agree with what Lopez said re: Novak now being better than Federer/Nadal then. It simply isn't true. Why? Because they played better tennis than Djokovic against better opponents and, particularly in Federer's case, winning a lot more.

It is not about Djokovic being better than Federer. It is about what an
extraordinary player Djokovic is, and that is the message in those interviews.
 

Russeljones

Talk Tennis Guru
It is not about Djokovic being better than Federer. It is about what an
extraordinary player Djokovic is, and that is the message in those interviews.
I believe this was actually mentioned "When Roger and Rafa were at their best, they weren't as good as Novak (is now)."
It emphasizes the contageous nature of recency bias and the inherent lack of perspective those closest to the action suffer from.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
So game has evolved now more than last decade and somehow Stan, Berdych, Ferrer and Lopez himself all have their career best rankings in their 30's.

Makes total sense.
What makes sense is these guys are paid handsomely for their 'opinion' on this topic. I've said it before and I'll say it again - nobody is going to give these tell-all interviews without a price tag. It's also easier to repeat the "tennis is evolving" mantra to keep the psycho Novak fans happy (who knows what they'd do if one of these tennis idols said today is a weak era -- we already know what they did when Safin said as much) than to be controversial and make the same accusations fans have done (like I mentioned before Safin did, only for fans around the globe to mock his tennis abilities).
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
I believe this was actually mentioned "When Roger and Rafa were at their best, they weren't as good as Novak (is now)."
It emphasizes the contageous nature of recency bias and the inherent lack of perspective those closest to the action suffer from.
You're wasting your breath on this guy, dude. He doesn't want to believe anybody would make a false statement for money -- or that they suffer from recency bias like you suggest. Everyone who earns a 6 figure salary is perfect according to the likes of @RF-18.
 

Noelan

Legend
The closer you are to the action, the least likely it is that you will have the perspective. I am sure we are all going to cherry-pick our quotes to make our points. This doesn't, however, preclude a debate on the state of affairs. The type of tennis played suits the beneficiary. Those playing alongside him probably don't have the time to take stock and consider the ramifications of the changes made.

The form of the player is comparative. This is also something that needs perspective.

It's not about discarding opinions, it's about scrutinizing the facts. There is no reason for me to agree with what Lopez said re: Novak now being better than Federer/Nadal then. It simply isn't true. Why? Because they played better tennis than Djokovic against better opponents and, particularly in Federer's case, winning a lot more.
1510277_baby-cry1_jpeg31fc60efc2f69b6b700d968df6e61336
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
If it is so important for some of you Nole-fans that prime-Nole is better than prime-Federer and prime-Nadal, i have no problem with that (as a Federer-fan ). Sprinters run faster than they did 10 years ago, and alpine-skiers are also faster. Most people also agree that Messi is better than 80s Maradona. Tennis evolves as everything else; equipment, training methods, nutrition, playing style etc etc. But just as you cant say Messi is greater than Maradona, or that Usain Bolt is greater than Carl Lewis, you also have to judge tennis-players by their own era. Nole owns this era, no need to try to take greatness away from the players in the past. Nole is a product of the players he learned from when he was young, you Nole-fans should credit these players, like Novak does himself.

There haven't been great technological advances in the game that clearly benefit players at least since some point in the 90's in most sports. One can easily see that certain eras are just more athletic or benefited by sports science, hence it's doubtful that Laver would do great on the tour nowadays. But the Chicago Bulls and Dallas Cowboys of the early/mid 90's were 2 of the best teams ever in either sport and most sports historians think they would matchup very favorably to modern day teams. When you go further back than that, and especially in the case of tennis due to the equipment and perhaps a lack of evolution of the game (open stance, topspin etc), you could make an argument that past players could have been equally great (or greater) but just weren't playing at as high of a level due to the evolution of the game you mentioned.

However, this certainly does not apply to Federer/Nadal/Djokovic in any regards. Federer and Djokovic are only 6 years apart and their careers have overlapped greatly. Both use and have used (or at least had access to) the most modern of equipment and there is no athletic or sports science advance that have benefitted Novak. Nadal still uses the original Aeropro drive from 2005. I think most agree Novak is using some sort of a paintjob of the Liquidmetal Radical MP. You could argue that slower courts have favored Novak (and Nadal) but that is entirely a different discussion. If Novak is playing at a higher level, it is because he is a better player. Period.

With that said, I don't think it proves it because Lopez said it. But it is interesting to hear one contemporary's first-hand take and form your own opinions. And while many liked your post, (I did too actually) because it was very well-written and fair in outlook, that certainly took me by surprise because it is a new wrinkle on the whole "best" debate. I've heard plenty more "Weak Era" rather than "Novak is better, but that's due to the evolution of the game" argument. As you can see, Russel (among others) disagrees with you and agrees with me that the game hasn't changed enough in the last few year's to necessitate that the best player now is playing better than at his peak. Of course, it's for the opposite reason and the conclusions drawn are in fact antithetical. Russel thinks that Novak isn't better than Federer period. I think that he is (or could be) but that he should get the credit for it, not the era that he's playing in. (As I think all of Fedalovic have had ample and equal opportunity and belong to the same modern era.)
 

junior74

Bionic Poster
So game has evolved now more than last decade and somehow Stan, Berdych, Ferrer and Lopez himself all have their career best rankings in their 30's.

Makes total sense.

Experience beats lack of experience most of the time. Many older players have high rankings in the later stages of the careers. Berdych, Ferrer and Lopez almost never lose to anyone ranked below 20, but they hardly ever beat anyone ranked within top 10. They're in Tennis Limbo.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
I believe this was actually mentioned "When Roger and Rafa were at their best, they weren't as good as Novak (is now)."
It emphasizes the contageous nature of recency bias and the inherent lack of perspective those closest to the action suffer from.

Yes, I just realized my post was badly formulated. Never mind, I meant to say what Lopez said about djoko and fed isn't what some people on here are annoyed about, they are annoyed at the experts on TTW thinking they know better than players, ex players, Coaches etc and here we have another guy who is top 20 who underlines djokovics quality. Djokovic dominating has much to do with himself, not the others.
 

TheFifthSet

Legend
It's not about discarding opinions, it's about scrutinizing the facts. There is no reason for me to agree with what Lopez said re: Novak now being better than Federer/Nadal then. It simply isn't true. Why? Because they played better tennis than Djokovic against better opponents and, particularly in Federer's case, winning a lot more.

On what basis can you conclude so steadfastly that Nadal was ever better than Djokovic is now (or, say, in 2011) ? Nadal in 2010, like Djokovic of the past few years, had his chance to dominate a depleted field to the best of his abilities. He couldn't do it to the extent that Djokovic is now, yet that year is widely celebrated among Nadal fans and only recently have people attempted to deconstruct the quality of the competition. Not perfectly analogous, but there's one example of people sweeping Nadal's less than fearsome opposition (on one of the few occasions it reared its head) under the rug. Where Nadal holds the high ground is longevity, and by extension, accomplishments. His career has been quantitatively better. However, in a conversation discussing the apex of their careers, Djokovic seems to hold a decent edge. At the very least, people that want to insinuate that the comparison is somehow beneath Nadal need to resort to impressive mental gymnastics to support that view.

Federer is a different case altogether. That four year run of his is beyond reproach and Djokovic hasn't gotten close to replicating it, although that may very well change.
 
Last edited:

dr325i

G.O.A.T.
What makes sense is these guys are paid handsomely for their 'opinion' on this topic. I've said it before and I'll say it again - nobody is going to give these tell-all interviews without a price tag. It's also easier to repeat the "tennis is evolving" mantra to keep the psycho Novak fans happy (who knows what they'd do if one of these tennis idols said today is a weak era -- we already know what they did when Safin said as much) than to be controversial and make the same accusations fans have done (like I mentioned before Safin did, only for fans around the globe to mock his tennis abilities).
Right. They paid Lopez double to say Novak's better than Rafa/RF than if he said it the other way. Must be sponsored by the UNIQLO giant (vs. Nike) or because the whole tennis world demands that Novak remains on top?
 

PinShot

Rookie
What makes sense is these guys are paid handsomely for their 'opinion' on this topic.

Right, they pay them handsomly ... like when they paid Nadal to say the following about Djokovic ...

"I played against a player who did everything perfectly. I don't know anybody who's ever played tennis like this. Since I know this sport I've never seen somebody playing at this level. So I just congratulate him and that's it".

I wonder how much he got for that Line. I am sure you can provide us with some "Insider Knowledge" on that matter ....
 
Last edited:

ZYW

Rookie
What makes sense is these guys are paid handsomely for their 'opinion' on this topic. I've said it before and I'll say it again - nobody is going to give these tell-all interviews without a price tag. It's also easier to repeat the "tennis is evolving" mantra to keep the psycho Novak fans happy (who knows what they'd do if one of these tennis idols said today is a weak era -- we already know what they did when Safin said as much) than to be controversial and make the same accusations fans have done (like I mentioned before Safin did, only for fans around the globe to mock his tennis abilities).
So when safin said something,
What makes sense is these guys are paid handsomely for their 'opinion' on this topic. I've said it before and I'll say it again - nobody is going to give these tell-all interviews without a price tag. It's also easier to repeat the "tennis is evolving" mantra to keep the psycho Novak fans happy (who knows what they'd do if one of these tennis idols said today is a weak era -- we already know what they did when Safin said as much) than to be controversial and make the same accusations fans have done (like I mentioned before Safin did, only for fans around the globe to mock his tennis abilities).
It's clear you believe what you want to believe. Anyone disagree with you is telling a lie or paid to tell the lie. Maybe it's time to look at if these are lies or you just can't handle the truth.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
It's clear you believe what you want to believe. Anyone disagree with you is telling a lie or paid to tell the lie. Maybe it's time to look at if these are lies or you just can't handle the truth.
Just like you believe what you want to believe, that nothing has an ulterior motive behind it. Everything is true and there's no gray areas.

I can handle the 'truth' -- I don't believe what's being stated is the truth however.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I don't find the idea of Djokovic being the best of all time overall strange at all, perhaps he is - although I do think it's clear he's neither the best on clay or grass. In the end what matters is being able to sustain it long enough to win the overall body of achievements that the more celebrated athletes in tennis own. If Novak were to decline this year and not win another slam, one could argue at his best he had highest level of play of all time - but would he really be the best ever when others have maintained similar (if slighty lower) levels for significantly longer? At the end of the day Djokovic will be measured by his Grand Slam success and other records.

* Note I do think Federer at his best was a little better
 

ZYW

Rookie
Just like you believe what you want to believe, that nothing has an ulterior motive behind it. Everything is true and there's no gray areas.

I can handle the 'truth' -- I don't believe what's being stated is the truth however.
If there is ten people telling me what I believe is wrong, I would most likely listen to them.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
If there is ten people telling me what I believe is wrong, I would most likely listen to them.
Not when these 'ten people' are obviously doing what I stated to begin with.

If these 'ten people' were being completely objective, they'd notice the names that are popping up at the end of tournaments.
 

Jonas78

Legend
I think it's more that people underrate Novak and thinks he is an ordinary player benefitting from a weak era. Time and time again we have players, Coaches, ex players underlining Djokovic's greatness and that it is not a coincidence what Novak is doing right now. He is just too good.

Yet some (many) posters on TTW keep thinking they know the best.
As i said, Novak is a top player and he is dominating todays game. I havent said anything about weak or strong eras in my post. Enjoy his game! I just dont get the need some of his fans have to insult the players and their fans pre-Nole domination.
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
I just dont get the need some of his fans have to insult the players and their fans pre-Nole domination.
If you don't, I get it. Djokovic personally ("joke" statement, SARS, anthrax, faker, chokovic etc.) and many of his fans endured years of abuse. Chico was an excellent poster who was driven out from TTW just because he realised how good player is Djokovic earlier than the others. Even now people here speak about him with outmost disrespect. After years of 17>x what do you expect that will happen when/if Djokovic gets to 17-20?
 

Minion

Hall of Fame
The only way to beat Djokovic, is to bring him to the net. His game is pretty much flawless, except that he can't volley or smash. Well, his smashes are better now, at least he hits most them on the strings these days. But he is pretty much unbeatable from the baseline.
 

Jonas78

Legend
There haven't been great technological advances in the game that clearly benefit players at least since some point in the 90's in most sports. One can easily see that certain eras are just more athletic or benefited by sports science, hence it's doubtful that Laver would do great on the tour nowadays. But the Chicago Bulls and Dallas Cowboys of the early/mid 90's were 2 of the best teams ever in either sport and most sports historians think they would matchup very favorably to modern day teams. When you go further back than that, and especially in the case of tennis due to the equipment and perhaps a lack of evolution of the game (open stance, topspin etc), you could make an argument that past players could have been equally great (or greater) but just weren't playing at as high of a level due to the evolution of the game you mentioned.

However, this certainly does not apply to Federer/Nadal/Djokovic in any regards. Federer and Djokovic are only 6 years apart and their careers have overlapped greatly. Both use and have used (or at least had access to) the most modern of equipment and there is no athletic or sports science advance that have benefitted Novak. Nadal still uses the original Aeropro drive from 2005. I think most agree Novak is using some sort of a paintjob of the Liquidmetal Radical MP. You could argue that slower courts have favored Novak (and Nadal) but that is entirely a different discussion. If Novak is playing at a higher level, it is because he is a better player. Period.

With that said, I don't think it proves it because Lopez said it. But it is interesting to hear one contemporary's first-hand take and form your own opinions. And while many liked your post, (I did too actually) because it was very well-written and fair in outlook, that certainly took me by surprise because it is a new wrinkle on the whole "best" debate. I've heard plenty more "Weak Era" rather than "Novak is better, but that's due to the evolution of the game" argument. As you can see, Russel (among others) disagrees with you and agrees with me that the game hasn't changed enough in the last few year's to necessitate that the best player now is playing better than at his peak. Of course, it's for the opposite reason and the conclusions drawn are in fact antithetical. Russel thinks that Novak isn't better than Federer period. I think that he is (or could be) but that he should get the credit for it, not the era that he's playing in. (As I think all of Fedalovic have had ample and equal opportunity and belong to the same modern era.)
I tried to write the post as objectivly as possible, to avoid this being a weak/strong era or who is greatest of Fedalovic discussion (although that is probably impossible:)). Im pretty sure you and Russel will never agree;). And i did not even actually say that prime-Nole is better than prime-Federer and prime-Nadal, i said i didnt have a problem with it. And i did not say if evolution of the game has been a matter for Fedovic or not. It is 12 years sinse Federer started to dominate, so it wouldnt be unlikely if there has been some changes to some of the factors i mentioned in my OP. My job being a physioterapist, there has at least been a lot of research and improvement in 12 years regarding injuries, training and restitution, which are in favor of the younger players. I dont like the Fedalovic discussion, because it is usually motivated by the need to defend your own idol, and take greatness away from the other. There are way too many subjective meanings (biased or not) to agree on this matters. Nole-fans should be the happiest nowadays, and really enjoy tennis. I think its rather meaningless and greedy to put Novak in the time-machine and go back 10, 20 or 30 years ago to talk about how much more he would win. Thats just greedy and insulting;). His fans should hope he stays healthy and keeps on winning slams in the following years. And they should also respect the ones who dominated the worlds biggest individual sport 10, 20 and 30 years ago.
 
Last edited:

Jonas78

Legend
If you don't, I get it. Djokovic personally ("joke" statement, SARS, anthrax, faker, chokovic etc.) and many of his fans endured years of abuse. Chico was an excellent poster who was driven out from TTW just because he realised how good player is Djokovic earlier than the others. Even now people here speak about him with outmost disrespect. After years of 17>x what do you expect that will happen when/if Djokovic gets to 17-20?
If he wins 17+ i expect his fans to be very happy;). Personally i will also have great respect for that achievement. You will certainly have the ones who will say he made it because of weak era, but i guess you can live with that?? ;)
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
If he wins 17+ i expect his fans to be very happy;). Personally i will also have great respect for that achievement. You will certainly have the ones who will say he made it because of weak era, but i guess you can live with that?? ;)
One needs decency when is down, not up. When Djokovic is 11+ it doesn't matter who says what as things are totally obvious. It mattered when he was 0-6. When considering who he played to win his tournaments, anyone who would mention Djokovic and weak era in the same sentence either 1) do not understand tennis at all, 2) or/and is hater or/and 3) is mentally ill.
 

Jonas78

Legend
One needs decency when is down, not up. When Djokovic is 11+ it doesn't matter who says what as things are totally obvious. It mattered when he was 0-6. When considering who he played to win his tournaments, anyone who would mention Djokovic and weak era in the same sentence either 1) do not understand tennis at all, 2) or/and is hater or/and 3) is mentally ill.
Here we go again;). Im sure at least Russeljones and MichaelNadal are willing to take that discussion with you. I wont:cool:
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
I don't find the idea of Djokovic being the best of all time overall strange at all, perhaps he is - although I do think it's clear he's neither the best on clay or grass. In the end what matters is being able to sustain it long enough to win the overall body of achievements that the more celebrated athletes in tennis own. If Novak were to decline this year and not win another slam, one could argue at his best he had highest level of play of all time - but would he really be the best ever when others have maintained similar (if slighty lower) levels for significantly longer? At the end of the day Djokovic will be measured by his Grand Slam success and other records.

* Note I do think Federer at his best was a little better
I throw up every time says weak era. The stats don't show it. Nadal is probably gone now, but just in time the young stars are emerging. Many of those who spout this nonsense generally don't appreciate clay where the tennis is incredibly strong for many years now.

That being said the big servers are better. Sampras was the best at Wimbledon in large part due to much better serve than Federer. Federer is the GOAT because he has a strong service game and play on all surfaces. Big serves win and its why the new Fed is so close right now. Without Djokovic, Fed would have won the last three slams. He is slower and not as elegant or deadly running around his forehand, but the new aggressive game works because its giving Fed great results off of first serve. The new racket has also helped Fed's return and backhand a bit. Early Fed never had quite the first service game, but movement etc nicer to watch. The wiley veteran with huge attacking game is proving how big a deal serve can be. Cilic US Open 2014 the same. Tsonga's break outs have been with hot serve. Roddick only had a serve. In the right conditions and right day, like vs Murray at Wimby, Fed is still an absolute terror because of this new Fedberg attack.

Djokovic is far better now and in 2015 because of his serve than 2011 (great returning). Djokovic is conserving energy with more variety on his first serve now and his first serve points numbers are up this year, but have largely been steady since 2012. Return numbers got back closer to 2011 numbers in 2015 which helped him break out.

Team Djokovic is very much aware of the serve game. Djokovic was lucky to not draw Murray in the Wimby semi. Djokovic's incredibly varied new service game got him 64% of second serve points at Wimby and made up for his average first serve points performance. Murray held his opponents to a great 41% on this same stat, so it would have been quite the clash. In 2016, the Djokovic serve game is getting better on first serve points. He'll need this to keep his stranglehold on majors and Djokovic's weakness may somehow become strong enough to make him the GOAT. His game appears headed in the right direction, but if Murray gets in form like last year, Djokovic will have his hands full off the hard courts. Its GOAT time!
 

jm1980

Talk Tennis Guru
"I've been taught since I was a kid you always have a chance to win, but when you play against Novak now … a lot of things have to happen for you to have any chance. When Roger and Rafa were at their best, they weren't as good as Novak (is now)."

:D
 
Top