Have people finally understood how gigantic the difference between an amazing player and a mediocre generation like this one is?

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I'll be ruing the rest of the year the fact that Daniil put everything he had in that one match and denied another Djokovic vs Raz match.

Even if Medvedev repeats the SF performance it's still a four-set loss unless Djokovic goes wayward after dropping the second set but I don't believe it, sadly.

 

[Rudiiii]

Hypothetically, ff this had been a SF match, Novak may not have the legs to grind in the final against Alcaraz. (let's pretend Medvedev had been on Novak's side of the draw).
Novak would be possibly exhausted similar to 2021 when he was pushed to 5 sets by Zverev in the SF and had little energy for the final against Medvedev.
The reality is that Djokovic received the easiest draw in history here at the USO. All the threats to him were placed on the opposite side. He was in peak form for the final.

This right here. He doesn't need challenges before the final anymore, just an good inform player to push him briefly like Djere did. Had Novak drawn Medvedev and Alcaraz Sinner in Wimbledon SF, IMO Djokovic would have won CYGS. To be honest, had he drawn even Sinner or Zed in SF, who knows what would have happened

 

[insideguy]

I don’t think this is a totally fair comparison IMO, for a few reasons:

1. They lengthened the basepaths in ‘23, which has made stealing much easier than at any point in baseball history. Stealing success rates are higher than they’ve ever been.

2. Most people (myself included) will tell you Novak has definitely lost a step since his 20’s, so I’m not sure why stolen bases were even invoked. You need both instincts and a blazing first step to steal tons of bases (though mind you it’s not strictly a young man’s endeavour: Rickey Henderson stole 66(!) bases at age 40).

3. Tennis is a top-heavy sport unlike most others. You can banish the Top 5 best baseball players from the sport at any given time, and the strength of the field barely budges. You can’t really do that in tennis. Things are more volatile and less likely to “even out”, as it were. Just the nature of following a sport where the strength of the field hinges on the era in question having a couple of generational outliers break through. All of which is to say: “muh 2023 field bad, and it matterz”

Thats all well and good. No one else has 65 steals this year. Acuna Jr does. And he has 36 hrs. And is hitting .336. And has almost 100 rbi. This is from batting leadoff. Its a crazy season.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Thats all well and good. No one else has 65 steals this year. Acuna Jr does. And he has 36 hrs. And is hitting .336. And has almost 100 rbi. This is from batting leadoff. Its a crazy season.

Definitely a year to remember, for that entire team tbh. Best lineup of my lifetime.

 

[insideguy]

Definitely a year to remember, for that entire team tbh. Best lineup of my lifetime.

My point being it makes no sense that Novak is just that good. What makes sense to me is he is a good player but the rest of the field isnt very good.

 

[mike danny]

Yes, not a single new ATG in 15 years (post-Djoko) is unprecedented.

Carlo might be one though, but its 16 years between him and Djoko.

We were spoiled with Big3 born within 6 years, but after them its been quite tragic.

Forget about ATG's. No Murray's and Stan's either in 1989-2002.

 

[mike danny]

I don’t see how this reply follows from what I said/asked, considering I acknowledged:

Fair enough, you are right

 

[insideguy]

Forget about ATG's. No Murray's and Stan's either in 1989-2002.

Yea we aint even talking about an ATG. I mean lets just say pretty good players. Or something cause there isnt anyone except maybe Carlos who might turn into an ATG. The rest of these dudes are just meat for Novak.

 

[insideguy]

I just think its one thing for a 36 year old guy to beat younger dudes. Its completely different that he is smashing the top 10 off the court in 95 percent of his matches.

 

[The Guru]

Not as easy as Med lost at this USO. And it wasn't mid 30's Fed.

Well, maybe because old Djokodal are not as good as prime Fed which gave Med a crucial opening that he wouldn't have got otherwise. And I certainly don't consider AO 2022 a positive for Med which leaves only the one solitary effort at USO 2019 pushing old Djokodal.

How?

Which is to be expected since prime Fed never played as poorly as 2021 Djokovic to give Roddick an opening.

Um more easy. Or exactly as easy if you wanna do it by games won. But whatever doesn't really matter.

Yeah you're right and Med has much more success against Old Djokodal than Roddick did against Fed. Like way way more. So that would make sense if they were similar calibres of player which they obviously are.

You're just unbelievably salty and will use any excuse to trash this era and it's players and bolster the players of old. You choose Roddick's closest match as the example of how he performs in general and choose a straight set loss as an example of Med performs in general even though that couldn't be farther from the truth. I wouldn't even be surprised if Med has more sets vs Djokovic already than Roddick does vs Fed even though he has like half the matches. I actually would bet that he does. Even in this post you show it with listing only USO 19 as a pushing effort and not AO 19. If Roddick had a match like that vs Fed you would certainly count it as him pushing him.

 

[The Guru]

Forget about ATG's. No Murray's and Stan's either in 1989-2002.

Kinda like the period between 72-85 with the exception of a certain someone

 

[Dominic & Andrey]

It's nice that Raul remains gentlemanly - I appreciate- but it's not like metsmate insulted his person, only dismissed the post. And frankly every possible argument has been rehashed and regurgitated many times by now, to the point that it's no wonder we're just tired of djokophilic arguments... or that they are tired of the opposite except only one set is correct.

Fair enough, in the end though no one is going to drastically change their opinion anyway in these kind of threads, whether those are the ones supporting the weak era claims or those denying it, as like you say almost everything has already been said, posters most likely keep getting involved in those for the pleasure of arguing and developing their thoughts in details more than anything.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Um more easy. Or exactly as easy if you wanna do it by games won. But whatever doesn't really matter.

Yeah you're right and Med has much more success against Old Djokodal than Roddick did against Fed. Like way way more. So that would make sense if they were similar calibres of player which they obviously are.

You're just unbelievably salty and will use any excuse to trash this era and it's players and bolster the players of old. You choose Roddick's closest match as the example of how he performs in general and choose a straight set loss as an example of Med performs in general even though that couldn't be farther from the truth. I wouldn't even be surprised if Med has more sets vs Djokovic already than Roddick does vs Fed even though he has like half the matches. I actually would bet that he does. Even in this post you show it with listing only USO 19 as a pushing effort and not AO 19. If Roddick had a match like that vs Fed you would certainly count it as him pushing him.

Take way the 2021 USO fluke (as this year showed, it was indeed a fluke against woatvic) and Medvedev is 1-9 in slam sets against a decent Oldovic, with barely any close sets. Success indeed. 1-5 H2H against Oldal with eking out a win in Ned's worst conditions is also epic success.

 

[Gary Duane]

(This is partly a carryover from the private group chat -- the constant negativity and demeaning of players' achievements (let alone the vitriol on these boards) has me a bit on edge.)

This is exactly where I am regarding these conversations. I have no tact left. I have no patience left. I am sick of the daily arguments about whether chocolate ice cream or vanilla ice cream is better, if you get my drift. People have no idea about the difference between arguing facts and arguing opinions that had nothing to do with facts.

Overall, it wasn't a difficult straight sets match, 2nd set notwithstanding.

I agree. I am just sick of circular conversations. I aim to enjoy tennis as much as I can and just accept it as it is. I wanted Roger Federer to end up in the driver's seat, not Novak Djokovic. But that does not stop me from enjoying the tennis. As to close finals, there have been lots of finals in slams that have been more one sided than this one. Not every final can be a nail biter where you don't know who is going to win until the last point.

 

[mike danny]

Um more easy. Or exactly as easy if you wanna do it by games won. But whatever doesn't really matter.

Two 7-5 sets. Can't see how it's easier.

Yeah you're right and Med has much more success against Old Djokodal than Roddick did against Fed. Like way way more. So that would make sense if they were similar calibres of player which they obviously are.

Way way more is a vast exaggeration considering he's been drubbed in 2 GS finals by old Djokovic and beaten by an old and decrepit Nadal as well. I don't see how that proves they're of the same caliber when Med doesn't have a signature match vs a prime ATG.

You're just unbelievably salty and will use any excuse to trash this era and it's players and bolster the players of old.

I mean, what saving grace does this era even have? The 1989-2002 group have won a combined 2 slams between them, a number that has been equaled by Carlos alone. The stats are there for you to see, it's not me creating excuses.

You choose Roddick's closest match as the example of how he performs in general and choose a straight set loss as an example of Med performs in general even though that couldn't be farther from the truth.

Really? Because it's not just one match that I choose for Med. He's been a consistent disappointment and this match further reaffirms it. Roddick besides Wimb 2009 also has Wimb 2004 and even USO 2006 was a better effort from him than Med's against Djokovic at AO 2021 and USO 2023.

I wouldn't even be surprised if Med has more sets vs Djokovic already than Roddick does vs Fed even though he has like half the matches.

And he's a decade younger than Djokovic and never played his prime self, not sure what you're trying to prove here other than reaffirm that Roddick faced by far superior competition. He has only 2 more wins over an old Djokovic than Roddick did vs Fed. Big shoop.

I actually would bet that he does. Even in this post you show it with listing only USO 19 as a pushing effort and not AO 19. If Roddick had a match like that vs Fed you would certainly count it as him pushing him.

AO 2019 is irrelevant because Med was a nobody at that time so obviously Djokovic wasn't gonna give it his all vs him. AO 2021 was a much more relevant match and we saw how that went.

 

[RS]

Why don't people talk about Nalbandian's record vs Fed more to talk up that era? He did way better than Roddick and he isn't even regarded top 5 in that era.

Even Fed fans don't use it as much to protect Fed's era other than maybe AO 04. And he lead in RG 06 before cramping up and made Rome 06 very very competitive too and beat a good Federer twice in 2007.

 

[Dominic & Andrey]

Who are you to be lecturing anyone here?

You think people are just going to forget some of the garbage you've posted?

Every single user who posts in GPPD is a troll — the trollery just takes different forms. Drop the ego trip. Yawn.

I am not lecturing anyone, why are you offended by such a harmless post of mine? I forgot about the garbage I've posted actually, could you remind me of some? Thanks. I never referred to any poster in this thread as a troll, so I don't know why you are bringing this up.

 

[mike danny]

I agree. I am just sick of circular conversations. I aim to enjoy tennis as much as I can and just accept it as it is. I wanted Roger Federer to end up in the driver's seat, not Novak Djokovic. But that does not stop me from enjoying the tennis. As to close finals, there have been lots of finals in slams that have been more one sided than this one. Not every final can be a nail biter where you don't know who is going to win until the last point.

But we haven't had that kind of final when Djokovic contests it in a long time.

 

[Kralingen]

Djokovic is still a great player who is quite difficult to defeat, and deserves respect for continuing his fitness and commitment to improving and finetuning his game.

We also have the weakest generation in tennis history as his main competition, which has allowed him to get away with performances that better players from previous generations wouldn’t.

How much each of the two factors contribute to the current situation is essentially the central debate of this thread and tennis at large. I do wish we could actually see a match between him and a 2013 Murray or something, to put this entire thing to bed.

 

[NatF]

Why don't people talk about Nalbandian's record vs Fed more to talk up that era? He did way better than Roddick and he isn't even regarded top 5 in that era.

Even Fed fans don't use it as much to protect Fed's era other than maybe AO 04. And he lead in RG 06 before cramping up and made Rome 06 very very competitive too and beat a good Federer twice in 2007.

Second tier players in Federer's era were as good as the best of the present #Crapgen.

 

[mike danny]

Kinda like the period between 72-85 with the exception of a certain someone

LOL, what? Roddick, Hewitt, Ferroro, Safin, Kuerten, that's already great talent without even mentioning Federer.

And I like how you try to pretend like that lone exception doesn't already destroy your argument.

 

[RS]

That's honestly massive credit to Nalby lol. Other than Nadal and Djokovic he could easily be debated to be Fed's next most difficult opponent with a good sample of matches.

 

[Biotic]

Why don't people talk about Nalbandian's record vs Fed more to talk up that era?

ROFLMAO

 

[ffw2]

I am not lecturing anyone, why are you offended by such a harmless post of mine? I forgot about the garbage I've posted actually, could you remind me of some? Thanks. I never referred to any poster in this thread as trolls, so I don't know why you are bringing this up.

Um. Perhaps because the user that you're going out of your way to defend is a condescending narcissist?

At any rate, perhaps take this a bit less seriously...? It's a trolling website.

All the best!

 

[RS]

ROFLMAO

 

[Kralingen]

That's honestly massive credit to Nalby lol. Other than Nadal and Djokovic he could easily be debated to be Fed's next most difficult opponent with a good sample of matches.

Andre >>>

Safin >>>

 

[NatF]

That's honestly massive credit to Nalby lol. Other than Nadal and Djokovic he could easily be debated to be Fed's next most difficult opponent with a good sample of matches.

Murray?

 

[RS]

Murray?

I think Nalby has a argument there too

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Why don't people talk about Nalbandian's record vs Fed more to talk up that era? He did way better than Roddick and he isn't even regarded top 5 in that era.

Even Fed fans don't use it as much to protect Fed's era other than maybe AO 04. And he lead in RG 06 before cramping up and made Rome 06 very very competitive too and beat a good Federer twice in 2007.

His slam runs mostly ended in weak-spirited losses. Out of 10 runs to QF and beyond, only USO 03, AO 04 and AO 05 feature a fully respectable loss (and even then he dropped leads thanks to inconsistent serving). Some good non-slam stuff doesn't absolve it.

 

[NatF]

I think Nalby has a argument there too

Murray was dusted easily in slams but I think he still deserves some flowers.

Nadal > Djokovic > the rest really.

Murray, Nalbandian and Hewitt the best of the rest in that order probably.

 

[RaulRamirez]

But we haven't had that kind of final when Djokovic contests it in a long time.

Wimbledon 2023, followed closely by (M1000) Cincinnati. What else could you want from two competitors? (unless I'm missing the gist of your reply here.)

 

[ppma]

WTA fan detected.

WTA suffers of the same baseline grinding sickness, and there is no player there to show them that a more active game style can be used to win.

 

[Technology Ruined Tennis]

It's not a coincidence that Joker and Serena put up 10+ slams in their 30's. Both began their careers in an objectively strong era, had a mid-career lull, ended their careers by cleaning up against an objectively weak era.

And let's not forget the on-court theatrics.

 

[The Guru]

LOL, what? Roddick, Hewitt, Ferroro, Safin, Kuerten, that's already great talent without even mentioning Federer.

And I like how you try to pretend like that lone exception doesn't already destroy your argument.

Not any better really. Point remains the same distance between Fed and closest ATGs is the same as Djokovic's (plus or minus a year or so)

 

[Dominic & Andrey]

Um. Perhaps because the user that you're going out of your way to defend is a condescending narcissist?

At any rate, perhaps take this a bit less seriously...? It's a trolling website.

All the best!

Thanks for the friendly advice

 

[insideguy]

It's not a coincidence that Joker and Serena put up 10+ slams in their 30's. Both began their careers in an objectively strong era, had a mid-career lull, ended their careers by cleaning up against an objectively weak era.

And let's not forget the on-court theatrics.

Sorry but Serena was playing much tougher players in her 30s and she wasn't blowing all of them off the court like this guy. I suppose we will never actually know, as she got pregnant and Novak aint got to worry about it. But Serena was challenged many times during her mid 30s. She wasn't walking onto court and pounding everyone. I mean lets look at even 2015 right? Look at the Aussie open. She dominated she was 34. But she still lost sets to people.

 

[NatF]

Not any better really. Point remains the same distance between Fed and closest ATGs is the same as Djokovic's (plus or minus a year or so)

Lol no, Nadal and Djokovic are 5/6 younger. That's the distance between Fed and the closest ATG's. Fed was too young/not precocious enough to take advantage of the lack of ATG's before him for any great length of time. But even so he was 10 years younger than Agassi, Alcaraz is 16 years younger than Djokovic.

 

[The Guru]

Two 7-5 sets. Can't see how it's easier.

Way way more is a vast exaggeration considering he's been drubbed in 2 GS finals by old Djokovic and beaten by an old and decrepit Nadal as well. I don't see how that proves they're of the same caliber when Med doesn't have a signature match vs a prime ATG.

I mean, what saving grace does this era even have? The 1989-2002 group have won a combined 2 slams between them, a number that has been equaled by Carlos alone. The stats are there for you to see, it's not me creating excuses.

Really? Because it's not just one match that I choose for Med. He's been a consistent disappointment and this match further reaffirms it. Roddick besides Wimb 2009 also has Wimb 2004 and even USO 2006 was a better effort from him than Med's against Djokovic at AO 2021 and USO 2023.

And he's a decade younger than Djokovic and never played his prime self, not sure what you're trying to prove here other than reaffirm that Roddick faced by far superior competition. He has only 2 more wins over an old Djokovic than Roddick did vs Fed. Big shoop.

AO 2019 is irrelevant because Med was a nobody at that time so obviously Djokovic wasn't gonna give it his all vs him. AO 2021 was a much more relevant match and we saw how that went.

Roddick didn't have a BP in either of the 7-5 sets and Med genuinely wrestled over the level in the 2nd and the 09 match was NID the whole time. Med goes down the line on SP and it's a genuine contest AO 09 was never close to being a contest.

No it's not. I checked he's won more sets vs Djokovic in 15 matches than Roddick did vs Fed in 24. He also has more wins in 15 matches of course. That is vastly more success.

Sure and the stats are open to interpretation if it was just stats what would we have to talk about. Djokovic goat by miles if we're doing the wikipedia game.

So were Roddick and Hewitt for that matter. Ok and Med has USO 19/21 and AO 19. I can list 3 solid matches too and his career's still going. And Med has a convincing slam win over an ATG. Roddick's best win is a coinflip match over 09 Murray.

Roddick did face superior competition and he performed worse. Med faced worse competition and performed better. Exactly what you would expect if they're of a similar calibre.

More cherrypicking

 

[The Guru]

Lol no, Nadal and Djokovic are 5/6 younger. That's the distance between Fed and the closest ATG's. Fed was too young/not precocious enough to take advantage of the lack of ATG's before him for any great length of time. But even so he was 10 years younger than Agassi, Alcaraz is 16 years younger than Djokovic.

Ok and Nadal is 1 year younger than Djokovic and 16 years younger than Alcaraz 1+16=17 5+10=15 huge difference.

 

[RaulRamirez]

Alright but you literally can't have a more polite post than RaulRamirez's one, even if he may be wrong he still deserves equally polite answers,how can there be any debate otherwise?

Thanks, but although I don't like it, it comes with this territory. It's hard to be knowledgeable, open-minded and detailed...and civil and respectful...and not have it be appreciated. And even lampooned by people who show their own true colors. I don't need to win arguments...none of this is that important...but I prefer to function in an atmosphere of mutual respect. And honestly, I never claim to be right (as some of this is opinion-based) on several points, but I rarely get cogent rebuttals in return.

One thing is that I have always taken the position (not really a position, it's just honest an realistic) that I don't represent anyone but myself here. I don't represent a typical fan base, although I have made my rooting interests clear at times. At the same time, I can easily distinguish between what I would like to see happen and what has actually happened. I'm also not part of a tribe that needs my player(s) to win, or even myself to win, however that's constituted.

If there's an honest, respectful disagreement, I'm okay with that, and I'd rather have spirited yet respectful conversations, agree or disagree. And yes, it's not even that I take my positions that seriously...I guess I do...but it's more the process of how we treat one another. Even on a tennis message board, as I'd say the same things in my own name and in person.

I happened to read a reply to you just now from one of the very few posters on this forum that I have on ignore -- someone who earned that status many times over. I assume he was referring to me, and nothing can be further from the truth. People like that can't stand it that somebody doesn't bow down to them or agree with them, and he has made all levels of attacks on me...and for what?! I don't think that I've instigated one argument here, but I will stand my ground when things get too out of whack. and it would be nice for all who saw that comment to support me or perhaps, similarly ignore him.

 

[NatF]

Ok and Nadal is 1 year younger than Djokovic and 16 years younger than Alcaraz 1+16=17 5+10=15 huge difference.

Not sure what possessed you to add up the age differences as if it constitutes any sort of point lol.

The point is about timing yes? Federer had an easier window at the beginning, Djokovic is enjoying a longer easier window now (one that is easier in terms of intensity as well). It's not comparable. Nevermind that Nadal's career trajectory has been reasonably different from Djokovic's and they’ve played only 8 times since 2018 when Djokovic returned to form (versus 13 in just 2005-2007 for Fedal).

 

[RS]

His slam runs mostly ended in weak-spirited losses. Out of 10 runs to QF and beyond, only USO 03, AO 04 and AO 05 feature a fully respectable loss (and even then he dropped leads thanks to inconsistent serving). Some good non-slam stuff doesn't absolve it.

The efforts against Fed though.....

I guess for the whole field this makes sense.

 

[The Guru]

Not sure what possessed you to add up the age differences as if it constitutes any sort of point lol.

The point is about timing yes? Federer had an easier window at the beginning, Djokovic is enjoying a longer easier window now (one that is easier in terms of intensity as well). It's not comparable. Nevermind that Nadal's career trajectory has been reasonably different from Djokovic's and they’ve played only 8 times since 2018 when Djokovic returned to form (versus 13 in just 2005-2007 for Fedal).

It (obviously I might add despite your snideness) makes the point of the total distance between each man and the nearest ATGs.

Yes Djokovic has had an extended period with no young ATG competition. But Federer enjoyed having basically no older ATG competition and had no ATG in his generation. Both situations have their pros and cons but you and others rarely acknowledge that.

 

[Djokodal Fan]

Hypothetically, ff this had been a SF match, Novak may not have the legs to grind in the final against Alcaraz. (let's pretend Medvedev had been on Novak's side of the draw).
Novak would be possibly exhausted similar to 2021 when he was pushed to 5 sets by Zverev in the SF and had little energy for the final against Medvedev.
The reality is that Djokovic received the easiest draw in history here at the USO. All the threats to him were placed on the opposite side. He was in peak form for the final.

Sorry, why do you think so? Rune and Tsitsipas was in Djokovic's half. Did you even watch the Paris masters last year when Rune fought tooth and nail? Why simply call this draw as easy just cuz the top players decided to fall off?

It is not Djokovic's fault that they decided to disappear. Even if Medvedev was in Djokovic's half, the match could have been over in 3 sets and Djokovic would still be ready for a final.

But I also agree that he cannot do back to back 5 setters at this age. he is not in 2012 mode anymore unfortunately.

 

[insideguy]

Perhaps so, and 2009 Wim was a memorable final - obviously, much more strongly contested than this one.

Here's the thing: If your supposition and bias is that a 36-year-old can't possibly play as well as a 27-year-old (assuming players of similar stature, like Fed and Novak) - and you don't deviate from that, you'll never lose an argument.
But of course, there are no immutable laws at work here, and many of us have been down this path many times.
The summary of my position is that, yes, most players are better at 26-27 than they are at 36-37, but it's not always the case. What they may lose in sheer physicality, they can make up in other ways -- mentally, tactically and even emphasizing different parts of their game. And perhaps most importantly, older versions of Djokovic and to some extent Roger and Rafa could arrange their schedules to peak in slams. Being 10 years older than their former selves, they weren't necessarily the same beasts week in and week out, playing a fuller schedule. But they can bring it in slams.

So, did Med utterly fail? If you need him to win and Novak to lose, then he did.
I thought Med was absolutely brilliant in defeating Alcaraz in the semis. Either he couldn't bring the same effort in the finals (what Med, himself, described as playing an 11 out of 10) or Novak wouldn't allow him to because of how he executed yesterday.

I rarely focus on draws, but as it turned out - both on paper and with regard to upsets - the top half (Alcaraz, Medvedev) of the draw was much tougher than the bottom (Djokovic. Rune...became Shelton), which helped Novak. In 2021, Novak had the tougher upper half (Zverev, but he was playing very well) than Med (Tsitsipas...became FAA).

Ok please advise me what player has been as good at 37 as 27

 

[NatF]

It (obviously I might add despite your snideness) makes the point of the total distance between each man and the nearest ATGs.

Yes Djokovic has had an extended period with no young ATG competition. But Federer enjoyed having basically no older ATG competition and had no ATG in his generation. Both situations have their pros and cons but you and others rarely acknowledge that.

Total distance is inane, sorry.

Fed hit his stride in 2004, Nadal was blocking him in slams from 2005. If Nadal in 2005 doesn't count then I guess 2023 Alcaraz doesn't either and we're still waiting on Djokovic's end...

 

[RF-18]

Take way the 2021 USO fluke (as this year showed, it was indeed a fluke against woatvic) and Medvedev is 1-9 in slam sets against a decent Oldovic, with barely any close sets. Success indeed. 1-5 H2H against Oldal with eking out a win in Ned's worst conditions is also epic success.

Some level of disrespect to call someone woat with those merits. Do you have any sort of respect for what Djokovic has achieved?

 

[The Guru]

Total distance is inane, sorry.

Fed hit his stride in 2004, Nadal was blocking him in slams from 2005. If Nadal in 2005 doesn't count then I guess 2023 Alcaraz doesn't either and we're still waiting on Djokovic's end...

It's really the obvious way to do this and it's baffling that you don't agree. It's clearly the most logical way to look at this. Why would you only look in one direction there's no possible justification for that I can see?

When did I say that lol? What is this nonsense? You're so desperate to pin me as crazy or an extremist that you say the wildest things.

 

[The Guru]

This is just incredibly straightforward Fed had two generations without ATGs his and the one before. Djokovic also had two the two following him.

 

[RaulRamirez]

My philosophy is simple. If these guys never existed, worse guys would take their place. No matter how bad someone is, their presence there contributes to the tour being better.

So at an individual level no one deserves criticism for being limited or not performing as expected.

The problems arise when people either create expectations on a player or start comparing.

I am a hardcore Novak fan, so I have no reason to downplay Medvedev or Alcaraz, but I simply cannot stand when they get way more credit than I believe they deserve. It's subjective here, but I tend to react when I feel people tend to go off the boil.

I took quite a bit of satisfaction in Carlos's downfall to Novak in RG and Med in USO (well, not the cramping part), because the hype was becoming insufferable.

Yeah, either the hype or the negativity is what kills me.

Novak's match threads breed toxicity, it's unbearable.

Then there is the hype how Carlos is gonna be next 2nd coming on earth.

Then all the endless comparisons and debates done in the moat disingenuous way.

There really is little balance and extremist and fanatism taken to a new high.

I think I will skip the tennis related explanation on this as I have said my piece probably way to many times.

Or perhaps, to keep somewhat concise, the physical decline affects certain things, your legs get slower and less explosive, resulting in less sharp movement, your core explosiveness declines, resulting in a less explosive torso rotation, so a lesser ability to generate weight of shot and also to redirect pace.

These things gradually decline as a player ages and starting from around age 25-26 for those who were fully commitent to their physical game from the get go, especially someone like Djoko, Nadal or Fed.

So there are certain things an older player simply does worse because of...age. And this is inevitable for any player. And they can compensate by improving the technical part, but some things become hard to improve because are tied directly to physical game.

So you go on improving auxiliaries, tactics and maximize your mental game.

But then Novak was so so good in his prime, a 10 years decline is gonna be felt, because it's a drop-off from Mount Everest, still has plently of height to fall from and why he is still so good at his age

I'll be brief...er, anyway, as this could keep going. Well, maybe not.

To generalize, I'm much more accepting of hype (excess positivity and enthusiasm) than I am of derision, which I'm not accusing you of. Of course, if someone is going way overboard, and repeatedly, that is a little hard for me to take. In my opinion, what happens too often is that negativity becomes the order of the day here, and on all social media. I tried participating in 5 or so match threads here, and while there are some very knowledgeable tennis fans...and the occasional incisive comment... the majority of the comments were really out there. I don't mean clever and witty, but things like watching great rallies...perhaps, 20 shots or more with every inch of the court covered by both players, and off a great "get", a forehand whistles inches wide. And you'll read, "Man, his forehand is horrible today." Or a string of comments that are so player-centric. And I can distinguish between player-centric rooting (nothing wrong with that) and player-centric analysis that views the match from such a limited prism.

Again, I can appreciate that in the great majority of cases, there is physical decline at a certain age, although that single age (even for a given sport) is hard to pinpoint. and it varies by players within those sports. I don't closely follow sports like swimming and track (I like both, but don't keep track of records or follow them year-round). What I'm rambling about is that this may be able to be measured much more clearly in track and field or swimming than in a sport like tennis. But even then, prime/peak ages may still differ by event. And tennis is a very different type of sport.

Here's where our opinions diverge. There are outliers in any sport, and I do believe that Novak is an outlier in tennis, and even Roger and Rafa were to some degree. I would agree with you and most that I don't think that, today, he could win the 2012 AO against the same Rafa. I also don't think that he would try to outlast him if playing him today. In track, you can't shorten the 1,500 meters, but in tennis, you can try to shorten points with a beefed-up serve and better, more frequent net play, more drop shots, etc. And in addition to that, Novak can schedule more wisely (harder to judge given Covid, but you get he drift) to peak during slams, and obviously, he (and his two greatest rivals) knows/knew how to peak for slams.

All of these, to me, compensate for any physical decline, and his quickness and flexibility is still top-notch. So no, especially at the slams, I just don't think he's lost much at all. And his aura, if you will, has also become tougher for his opponents to do battle with, which also helps him.