History beckons Novak Djokovic
- Thread starter Hitman
- Start date
DSH
Talk Tennis Guru
DSH
Talk Tennis Guru
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
And exactly that's why women's records are also included. The graf record 22 and 373 looked impossible to repeat. Roger Federer was never near it post 2012.
Rafa Nadal was never near the weeks record.
And hence we add Graph when Djokovic was near to her. Before him, it was unnecessary to even consider these records because Federer was too far away. Now even Court's record is going to be toppled. It is surreal but Djokovic being so fit at 36.5 itself is surreal. How he kept staying fit till now, probably will be hard to repeat.
Impressario
Semi-Pro
Wheelchair tennis does not even have the same rules as able-bodied tennis, it's a different sport, and it is ridiculous to bring Kunieda into the conversation
Razer
G.O.A.T.
Then why to even bring WTA into ATP ?
Hingis and Nadal have same weeks at 1, so what ? Are they comparable ? Nadal would triple bagel Hingis daily with his right arm tied behind his back.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Lol good that @Jason Swerve isn't here anymore. He would post some video of Hingis hitting with a ballboy and talk endlessly about how she would destroy Nadal with 'light tennis'.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Bringing Court into it is equally nonsensical. But now that Djoko is running out of records to break the media will come up with all kind of funny stuff.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
22 was not the overall record and Graf had 377 weeks at No.1 not 373.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Suda constantly slaying
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Or we can cry about how the others are not winning, and or cannot win anymore. Pick your poison.
Sudacafan
Bionic Poster
The others are terrible. I prefer to sleep.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Sleep well then.
Despite all the wokeness going on, I think you are right the real reason is they are trying to make some comparison when in reality Djoker is in uncharted territory that belongs only to him
Aussie Darcy
Bionic Poster
Do you hear yourself?
Imagine a world where at their peak, Nadal, Federer, Djokovic or Serena turned up to a slam TWICE in their entire career like Maria Bueno did as you said. BJK just three times. Virginia Wade was winning a US Open and had never even bothered playing the Australian Open. She played just two of the first 20 Aus Opens in her career. Darlene Hard was the same, she won 2 slams the year Court won her first and she played Melbourne just ONCE in her entire career. Evert skipped 10 of the first 11 Australian Opens in her career and you have the audacity to say Court did face the best players? It was a weak tournament only played by Australians most of the time which is evident by quite a few of the draws Court had to win the title lol.
Last edited:
Court did have 3 children between 1972 and 1977. Makes it tough to add to the slam haul.Court won her 24th slam in 1973, over 50 years ago, but retired in 1977. Regardless of her form, she would have always been playing for the 25th until she retired.
Now, 47 years later, another has risen to compete for the elusive 25th slam. History beckons Novak Djokovic every time he will step into a slam from now on.
The last time it was possible, Borg was Wimbledon champion during it's 100 year anniversary.
Djokovic will always now be on the verge of one the most iconic achievements in sporting history. The explosive climax and the final chapter of one of the greatest eras is about to begin. Next time on Dragonball Z.
Hopefully the need for that comparison never arises.
socallefty
G.O.A.T.
How is his wrist?
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
It kind of points to a double standard though, because when we thought women's records couldn't be reached by men the reason was "their field is weaker", now that men can overtake those records it's because the men's game is so unbelievably amazing. It seems there will always be a reason to underrate a specific sex compared to the other, no matter what happens in the history of the sport.
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
Can't really compare across eras like this. More than a dozen of those slams were Court competed were faux slams
Sudacafan
Bionic Poster
As I am a Court hater, this opinion is easier for me to agree with.
D
Deleted member 758560
Guest
oh thats great, thanks systemicanomaly for a new word into vocabulary.. (-faux-)
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
I had considered going with "pseudo-slam event" but thought I'd go with the French "faux" instead.
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
@nolefam_2024
Nope. Fairly certain that MC did not win any FO or USO singles titles where she played 7 rounds.
The Guru
Legend
Ur LeBron worshipping starting to make more sense
My fandom of LeBron isn’t really out of the ordinary I reckon, to me it just means you have functioning eyeballs and an appreciation for elite level basketball. It’s kind of obvious how amazing he is to everyone but his haters
As for Court, she’s not better at anything than Martina except vulturing a few extra AOs which were essentially glorified regional tournaments. I will not accept any Court GOAT stuff lol.
NeutralFan
G.O.A.T.
History or no history Djokovic is a mammoth at AO and very difficult to beat and he could have been stopped only with a tough draw ( at this age) and even then it's not a guarantee. He's not losing AO till he has his movement.
The Guru
Legend
Ah so then you're fan of Curry and MJ then too and every other superstar even Karl Malone because you appreciate elite level basketball with no partiality. If so fine fair enough but don't tell me I enjoy basketball in the wrong way if I don't root for every great player.
As for the motivation behind my comment I know nothing about Court and old time women's tennis and don't care to but that disrespect of 60s athletes is concerningly common amongst those who constantly champion LeBron.
The Guru
Legend
I don't know you're sounding an awful lot like a dreaded Djokovic fan insisting that I like someone just because he's great.
Lol it's possible been a rough few days don't take it personal
OK so to clear up the Court comment — the plumbers thing is a tongue in cheek meme about old time players, simplified basically.
What is not a meme is that she faced essentially solely Australians (and the best players in the world, Bueno and King, skipped almost all of the AOs) from 60-69 in her AO titles. Now she did best Bueno in Australia and has victories over the best players in the world at other Slams during this period, but if you look at the AO fields in years she won it’s hardly a Grand Slam tournament by any designation other than the modern standard calling every AO a “Grand Slam”.
Court was clearly the top player of the 60s by far and very likely a GOAT contender in the same sense that Tilden and Pancho are on the men’s side… she was an insane athlete and expelled in doubles too… but her 24 Slam titles are not what I’d call a true 1:1 representation to, say, Martina and Evert.
As for LeBron, I just think he is by far the best player of the 21st century, the era with the most worldwide talent ever in NBA history, which counts for quite a bit. Importantly, he is the best I’ve ever seen with my own eyes live, a player possessing every tool at a near elite level (except FTs) and the singular best mix of passing and scoring ever.
Not liking LeBron is not some rarified thing of course, it’s the Great American Pasttime, and there are valid reasons especially if you aren’t a fan of his personality. That’s totally fair, I myself dislike great players too, everyone has their biases.
I just view LeBron in a way as above it all, I think he’s basically Boddhisatva, a once in a lifetime gift from the Gods to be appreciated at all times rather than disliked. I had this epiphany around 2009 and have never looked back.
Not liking LeBron is not some rarified thing of course, it’s the Great American Pasttime, and there are valid reasons especially if you aren’t a fan of his personality. That’s totally fair, I myself dislike great players too, everyone has their biases.
I just view LeBron in a way as above it all, I think he’s basically Boddhisatva, a once in a lifetime gift from the Gods to be appreciated at all times rather than disliked. I had this epiphany around 2009 and have never looked back.
The Guru
Legend
Why then do you blast Djokovic at every turn (now more than ever even though like LeBron he's in his twilight which should be the time it's easiest to appreciate him) because he is also obviously a singular talent that we will likely not see more than a couple talents in our lives at this level if any?
a) that’s not fully true, I think in actual match threads I’m very complimentary of his tennis, even at this age, when playing well at least. I think you’ll find I rarely miss one of his matches if he’s playing and I think that’s the greatest sign of respect possible. if I’m low on him at times it’s usually because I think he’s capable of playing much better than he has shown at the moment, but he is obviously a once in a million player
b) because I’m petty and a lot of the discourse around him annoys me. This place has turned into bash Fed and Rafa warehouse and a lot of stuff his fanbase says, namely the “there is no more Big 3, Djokovic stands alone” stuff, really gets under my skin. Perhaps I should bash the fanbase more than Novak directly.
The Guru
Legend
I think this second thing is really overblown. The general discourse has gotten more venomous both ways it's hardly one way. It amazes me how everyone seems to be blind to their own sides contributions to the insufferability of the Big 3 debate on TTW. Sure Novak fans say the stuff you're saying but the anti Novak contingent is just as loud and ridiculous regularly claiming stuff like Fed would win 15 more slams than Djokovic if they age swapped or that he's playing Ferrer level tennis and even worse attacking him personally constantly. The anti-Novak crowd is just as large and toxic and it seems to me increasingly you contribute to it.
Trust me I get it when people are acting like jackasses the temptation to be curt with them is very strong and I've definitely succumbed to it but I think what makes things so bad here is the tribalism around we're always good and they're bad and the lack of self awareness about how people consistently contribute to the deterioration of discourse here.
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
@Neptune @nolefam_2024
In 1991, 2nd-seed, Stefi Graf prevailed over top-seed, Monica Seles in the final of the Citizen Cup (56-player draw) in Hamburg. Stefi beat 5 players to win that title. She would have likely beaten another 1 or 2 lower ranked players if it were a 64-player or 128-player draw.
So, what the heck. Let's just consider this as equivalent to a slam event since she woulda probably won against the additional lower ranked players anyway. The draw for that Citizen Cup event was (at least) as strong or stronger than the AO (AC) singles events where Court titled.
There are plenty of other 5-round titles won by Stefi, Serena and MC, where they prevailed over a top opponent. If the AC/AO of Court's era was worthy of slam status, certainly these other comparable (or stronger) events should be included in the respective slam counts
Last edited:
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Double checked it and you are right. Wiki for some reason lists the quarter-final twice for RG, USO 70,73. My bad. Does not change the fact that one round more against low ranked opponents would hardly have made a difference.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Don't know what wokeness has to do with this one, i simply think that media needs something to write about. Chasing records is a good thing because it let's fans think they are witnessing history, same as it is important for track and field records to get broken to hold interest alive.
Unfortunately now Djoko has already broken next to all records, so they are running out of options and expand it to women's or pre-OE records.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Due to the bo3 nature of slams on the women's side you will find countless examples anyways where other tournaments were arguably harder to win than slams that does not only hold true for Court. Steffi won two YEC with bo5 finals. My point is, people here pretend that Court just feasted on lower competition as if stronger players were banned or something a la Emerson. Truth is she dominated everyone everywhere and if we assume all her AO had had 7 rounds and all top players playing every year I can still not see her winning less than 8. If we consider that she retired twice at the peak of her powers she would next to certain still hold the slam record under modern career path/priorities.
If you want to throw in other tournaments: Court holds the record for most tournaments won as well as having the highest winning % in the OE.
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
You kinda missed the point.
No argument here that MC was, indeed a very talented & dominant player in her time. My real point was that her “record” of 24 singles slam titles is pretty meaningless. Almost half of those so-called slams cannot be compared to the modern slam events since the mid/late 80s.
The AC/AO of Court’s era was primarily a local Aussie championship that is not at all comparable to the slam events of the past several decades. It wasn’t even comparable to the other 3 slam events of her own era. Those AC/AO events were closer to the more recent Tier II WTA events.
MC didn’t necessarily play the AC/AO to “feast on lower ranked (local) players” and pick up some easy slam titles. She likely played it because it was her national championships.
As dominant as MC was, she only won 3 of the 12 Wimbledon singles events that she entered. She fared a bit better at RG & the USO with 5 titles each. This is a far cry from the 11 of 14 AC/AO singles events she played — wining more than 95% of her matches there.
Last edited:
Women's tennis has unfortunately always received a lot of criticism throughout my time following the sport, whether there has been dominance by 1, 2 or a handful of players, a great deal of parity, or something in-between. It's true that dominance in men's tennis is more likely to be portrayed as 'great players showcasing their brilliance' while in women's tennis it's more likely to be portrayed as 'predictable monotony'. On the flipside, parity in men's tennis is more likely to be described as showcasing tremendous depth, while parity in women's tennis is more likely to be portrayed as a 'random mess'.
Even during the late 90s - early 00s, widely considered to be a golden era for women's tennis, with the WTA's revenue closing the gap on and in-fact almost pulling level with the ATP's I believe (a huge success in itself), documentaries covering the WTA tour in the UK and Canada (and I assume other countries as well) etc., there was still criticism about the one-sided nature of the early round matches at Wimbledon in 2003 for example.
During the 80s, there was similatenously plenty of praise for the wonderful Evert-Navratilova rivalry, but also plenty of criticism of the absence of any depth in women's tennis and low standard of early round matches (Evert and Navratilova were regularly asked about that during press conferences). I thought that the praise and criticism there was both entirely justified, though it was inevitable and completedly understandable that women's tennis was not going to have anywhere near the same level of depth compared to men's tennis, as men's tennis had huge head starts when it came to money, recognition, sponsorships, coverage, social attitudes etc. But it meant that the top male players had to worry about navigating their way past dangerous opponents in the early rounds of tournaments, before even setting up appointments against direct rivals in the latter rounds, while on the flipside the top female players could routinely breeze into the latter rounds without breaking into a sweat, where their tournaments then properly started. It also meant that the top female players had the 'luxury' of being able to focus more on strategies vs. their direct rivals, while the top male players couldn't afford to do that anywhere near as much as they had to worry far more about getting far enough to 'potentially' face their rivals first.
And I've said many times that I think that the overall strength of the WTA top 50, 100, 200 etc. nowadays is far stronger than ever before. Nowadays you can have high quality WTA tournaments (often 2 on the same week) without any top 20 players in attendance, which would have been pretty much impossible in previous eras. Also in previous eras there was (correct) talk about how 128 player draw sizes were too big for the women at majors - there is none of that talk nowadays. But of course it's a star driven, individual sport, and many fans (not me) only care about a small number of big name players.
Ultimately, I think that ridiculous cross-gender comparisons between players and their achievements / records, do a disservice to both men's and women's players. I'm stating the obvious here, but analysing men's and women's achievements separately, means that more male and more female players in total receive credit and recognition.
Last edited:
WRONG! Officially, Court won 24 slams. DEAL WITH IT, LIKE IT OR NOT!
Excellent post! The fact is that Evert and Navratilova, overall, had weak competition as did Graf after the Seles stabbing. Combining men and women in rankings, is nonsense and unfair to both.
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
Shouting (CAPS) isn’t going to make your point any more valid.
The world is black & white for you isn’t it? Let’s ignore the details and what the AC/AO events of her era really were — small glorified local events with only a handful of international competitors.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
You can never compare eras so you can render many if not most records/achievements from that time or later as meaningless (Laver's or Connors' tournament wins etc).
The point is, on paper she has the record. You can now say, she did not play full fields and would not have won 24 if she did. But then to be fair one have to take into account that a) there was far less money in the game b) air travel and traveling in general was far less comfortable c) nutrition knowledge, physios, training concepts were far less advanced and careers ended earlier d) Court had to retire twice at the peak of her powers e) She did not play under the aim of winning as many slams as possible and did not have a target to beat. She just set the record as a side effect of being the best player in the world.
f) She played a hell lot of doubles and mixed doubles slams during a time where those were still taken seriously by top players.
We cannot have it only one way and say Court had it easier here and there but ignore all the things where she had it harder. If we discredit Court's record we can do the same with Serena's because there were a lot of aspects where she had it easier.
By the way, my point here is also not that I want to argue about the validity of Court's record but to tackle this laughable canard that Court "cannot be in GOAT conversations". Regardless of the slam record she has next to all numbers on her side, she dominated all her peers in H2H, she won the most tournaments of all times, she won a CYGS and six in a row, has the highest winning % in the OE and a ton of doubles and mixed doubles slams only bested by Nav.
Some posters here (not you as far as I know) are thinking, let's just discredit her slam record and this will automatically exclude her from GWOAT discussions.
pirhaksar
Professional
Thank you, the blinkers of ppl here is amazing to me when it comes to Novak. It’s also funny the reasons I like LBJ and Djokovic and think they are the Goats are exactly the same.
Similar threads
