Hitman
Bionic Poster
Yep. No one really saw that Djokovic was going to go onto become the greatest of all time in the eyes of the majority. You just never know, and that is why you play out the matches.
If you told me back in 2008 Djoker was gonna be one of the GOATs, I would have called you nuts
- Thread starter TheGoldenEra1990’s
- Start date
GoatNo1
Hall of Fame
"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." 2016
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
Among these players I can only see two guys who have as good defense as Djokovic overall, that would be Nadal and Ferrer.
But if I remove clay, which was their best surface, it would be hard not to put Djokovic right at the top.
But defense without stamina is not good enough. We have Musetti who has incredible defense but does not have stamina yet.
GoatNo1
Hall of Fame
"In 2011, my problem was Djokovic because I was winning against everybody and losing against him in the finals." 2016
Razer
G.O.A.T.
Novak was mortal till 2010 and then suddenly in 2011 he had a S tattooed on his chest and he was now Superman. The transition which he made age 23 onwards is unreal and freakish. 2011 Djokovic was suddenly like 2004 Federer, instantly raised the level high.
Yeah.
At that time JMDP, Nole, Nadal, Murray, Tsonga, Berdych & Soderling were seen as Next gen to Federer, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Blake, Nalby, Davy, however today when have lost any distinction between age groups of 5. 29-30 was seen as real old back then, however that changed with Federer and William Sisters, they set the path for everyone else after that to follow them too. Today 30 is not old, but it was old in 2008-2010. Our perceptions towards what we define generation in tennis changed in 2010s decade, both ATP and WTA saw anomalies in plenty.
Aabye5
G.O.A.T.
This is an interesting take, but I feel like everyone at that time thought that Pete's record was nigh impossible to break. To expect three players do it within 5-6 years of each other would have been unfathomable.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
In 2010, the discussions were about whether Djokovic would win a second major in his career. I think the majority said yes, but plenty of people thought not.
Certainly nobody saw 2011 Djokovic coming.
Winners or Errors
Legend
...and yet, Djokovic did just that.
NYTennisfan
Hall of Fame
Nobody saw 2011 Djokovic coming who was one of the best players ever but the talent was very evident from 2008 on, he just hit differently than every player other than Fedal. It was always about the conditioning and mental with him which led to his relative struggles in 2009-2010.
kevaninho
Hall of Fame
He did. Obviously a freak of nature.
Razer
G.O.A.T.
It is the other way round, Djokovic+Murray are below Federer if performance till 31st birthday is seen.
Slams
Fed - 17
Nadal - 14
Sampras - 13
Djokovic - 12
.
.
.
.
.
Murray - 3
Federer (17) > Djokovic+Murray (12+3 = 15)
90s gen losers helped Djokovic cross Federer.
TearTheRoofOff
G.O.A.T.
Explained by egg and no soldiers.
JoJoHackshow
Rookie
This lol. If not for the CIE he'd be sitting on 14-16 slams
Pheasant
Legend
Hindsight is always 20/20. I honestly thought that Soderling would bag a few slam titles. Nope. Mono took him out. Going way back, everybody called Lendl a major choker. He was getting his butt kicked until he was 24 year old. By then, he should have had a bunch of slam titles. Nope. Zippo. Having 0 on your 24th birthday was a terrible sign back then, especially when guys like Wilander(4+ years younger than Lendl) already bagged 2 slam titles before Lendl bagged one.
But then, you have guys like Agassi. He lost about 18 months of his peak, due to meth and the downtime that the meth use caused. There was no way that he was getting to 8 slam titles, given the fact that he had fallen outside of the top-100 at age 27. Wrong again!
There are too many times where guys with immense talent fall short. But then, you get some guys that really step up. Looking back, Agassi's comeback from the ashes of death is one of the best stories out there. Lendl's and especially Djoker's improvement after they both fixed their diets at an old age is quite impressive as well. After the 1985 FO, the 20 3/4 year old Wilander had 4 slam titles. 25 1/4 year old Lendl had 1. And yet, Lendl passed him while setting a new record for weeks at #1. Djoker shattered every big record out there.
As I said, hindsight is always 20/20.
But then, you have guys like Agassi. He lost about 18 months of his peak, due to meth and the downtime that the meth use caused. There was no way that he was getting to 8 slam titles, given the fact that he had fallen outside of the top-100 at age 27. Wrong again!
There are too many times where guys with immense talent fall short. But then, you get some guys that really step up. Looking back, Agassi's comeback from the ashes of death is one of the best stories out there. Lendl's and especially Djoker's improvement after they both fixed their diets at an old age is quite impressive as well. After the 1985 FO, the 20 3/4 year old Wilander had 4 slam titles. 25 1/4 year old Lendl had 1. And yet, Lendl passed him while setting a new record for weeks at #1. Djoker shattered every big record out there.
As I said, hindsight is always 20/20.
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
Which makes sense since there is no way to predict outcomes that haven’t happened
that’s why we play the match, as they say
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
hi clueless
Aabye5
G.O.A.T.
Still...if you weigh Lendl's obvious talent + late start, he comes out ahead of Wilander. Not a surprise?
Agassi => off-court shenanigans + Pete + obvious talent, ends up in the Lendl category.
Then you have players like Wawrinka and Monfils...if you were to look at these two players early on, who would most people have tapped to win 3 majors? I think it's a bit of a surprise that Stan was as successful as was, especially given the level of competition.
Neptune
Hall of Fame
| vs Top5 | T5 Weight | vs Top10 | T10 Weight | vs T11+ | T11+ Weight | vs All | Slam |
Mac | 131 (64-67) 48.85% | 12.66% | 214 (125-89) 58.41% | 20.68% | 821 (727-94) 88.55% | 79.32% | 1035 (852-183) 82.32% | 7 |
Lendl | 158 (95-63) 60.13% | 12.05% | 257 (164-93) 63.81% | 19.60% | 1054 (905-149) 85.86% | 80.40% | 1311 (1069-242) 81.54% | 8 |
Wilander | 68 (29-39) 42.65% | 8.59% | 128 (64-64) 50.00% | 16.16% | 664 (505-159) 76.05% | 83.84% | 792 (569-223) 71.84% | 7 |
Edberg | 122 (49-73) 40.16% | 11.35% | 212 (99-113) 46.70% | 19.72% | 863 (705-158) 81.69% | 80.28% | 1075 (804-271) 74.79% | 6 |
Becker | 110 (68-42) 61.82% | 11.87% | 187 (121-66) 64.71% | 20.17% | 740 (592-148) 80.00% | 79.83% | 927 (713-214) 76.91% | 6 |
Agassi | 118 (63-55) 53.39% | 10.31% | 199 (109-90) 54.77% | 17.40% | 945 (761-184) 80.53% | 82.60% | 1144 (870-274) 76.05% | 8 |
Murray | 124 (53-71) 42.74% | 12.39% | 201 (105-96) 52.24% | 20.08% | 800 (634-166) 79.25% | 79.92% | 1001 (739-262) 73.83% | 3 |
You see, Wilander contrasts everyone else on the list, especially vs Murray.
If he knew about the incoming weak era, you might as well ask him for the numbers to the next powerball
Neptune
Hall of Fame
Pheasant
Legend
I was p***ed off that Lendl came back as strong as he did in 1985. But he even looked different. He was now quite cut and more muscular. But at age 25 back then, we didn't figure that he'd add 7 slam titles to his resume. That was sick. He became the male version of compatriot Martina when he arrived in 1985.
That's a nice call on Monfils. I would have bet that the 21 year old Monfils would break through before Stan. At the 2008 FO, Monfils took out #5 Ferrer in the QF, then pushed Fed hard in the semis. He hit hard and ran like the wind. But he never panned out.
Pheasant
Legend
Wow.. 29 top-5 wins for a guy that won 7 slam titles is ridiculous. That explains why he only had 20 weeks at world #1. And those happened during the same year that Lendl had a truck loan of injuries. I saw an interview with him at the end of that year(1988). He was asked about how it felt to be #1. He said it felt great, but that everybody knows who the real #1 is. He actually said that.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Mats Wilander often struggled for motivation in smaller events. That was no secret. Only in 1983 did he seem dialled in for an entire calendar year. 1983 was a year when it was hard to determine who was the best player between Wilander, Lendl, McEnroe and Connors. Even in 1988, Wilander tended to underachieve in the smaller events, while winning the Australian Open, the Lipton at Key Biscayne, the French Open and the US Open. He also won Cincinnati in 1988. Despite his 1988 success, Wilander won 6 titles in 1988, compared to 9 titles in 1983 as an 18-19 year old.
John Part in darts is similar to Mats Wilander. In other words, highly intelligent, has to focus hard to play his best, and his cruise game is not as good as that of his rivals, so form could range from the best in the world to pretty average.
Last edited:
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
When an era is week for only in one player that’s an indication the relevant difference is the player
The only reason clueless posters talk of weak eras is because of how good Novak (and the Big 3 in general) were
AO13
Hall of Fame
I have actually never seen before this surname combo and I like it a lot - Murderer.
Lleytonstation
Talk Tennis Guru
I guess it really isn't all talent.
Djoker has to be the least talented farm animal ever, right?
Djoker has to be the least talented farm animal ever, right?
Some people a year and a half ago would've called nuts anyone who said that Sinner will win a slam.
Federer has his part of fault too. If he had won at least 3 more slams against Djokodal (let's say RG11 or USO11, USO15 and W19) and he would've still get surpassed, then yeah, it would've been like 99% fault of next gen. But as the thing stands, his choking played a bigger part than the next gen.
Federer has his part of fault too. If he had won at least 3 more slams against Djokodal (let's say RG11 or USO11, USO15 and W19) and he would've still get surpassed, then yeah, it would've been like 99% fault of next gen. But as the thing stands, his choking played a bigger part than the next gen.
Razer
G.O.A.T.
Federer's chokes were like 10% of the problem, 90% of it was Next Gen problem.
See this
Number of times the year end 1 was a person born in 1950s = 11
Number of times the year end 1 was a person born in 1960s = 7
Number of times the year end 1 was a person born in 1970s = 9
Number of times the year end 1 was a person born in 1980s = 22
Number of times the year end 1 was a person born in 1990s = 0
Number of times the year end 1 was a person born in 2000s = 2 [this number will grow close to 8-10... these boys are just getting started]
1990s gen had the job of protecting Federer's records, they failed. They did not fail against someone of their generation, they failed against an old man in 30s. These stats are not false, the world generation in history of tennis created the inflation in numbers.
Racquet_smash
Professional
I think the most unexpected thing was the 90s generation being this disappointing.
You can call it weak era . You can call it once in a lifetime players. Suit yourself . But the bottom line , never in history of sport there was a generation that was completely hopeless
Nothing out-weak 2003-07
Federer had losing records to many that he had to overcome. Of course these were before some started watching tennis in 2011
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
Leave the hyperbole for politicians
malbaker86
Hall of Fame
Same. It wasn’t like he wasn’t already either beating or losing close important matches to Nadal and Fed, so the talent/potential was ALWAYS there. He just had a fitness and mental block that once he got over in 2011…..here we are
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Adidas chose Murray over Djokovic for clothing sponsorship around 2009.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Ewwww
Aabye5
G.O.A.T.
I don't think so.
When people bring up "weak era", they generally are talking about early 2000s or late 2010s - early 2020s. Yes, Fed was great, and yes, Novak was great, too. But you can also point to specific players who have grossly underachieved - Zed and Stef, for example.
What I said are facts, not hyperboles.
Which generation won how many majors is a factual statement
duaneeo
Legend
Before the Inflation Era, a player in his 30s winning multiple slams was rare.
Aabye5
G.O.A.T.
Wolves aren't farm animals. In fact, they feast on farm animals last time I checked.
Aabye5
G.O.A.T.
Was it still the Inflation Era when Fed was winning majors into his mid 30s?
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
90s gen have nothing to do with Djokovic's numbers. You can switch it around however you like and he still would have ended up on top.
From January 1st 1998 - December 31st 2016, when Djokovic's peak ended, this was the top 6 highest win percentages ranked:
1 - Djokovic- 82.89%
2 - Nadal - 82.24%
3 - Federer - 81.51%
4 - Murray - 78.36%
5 - Agassi - 77.41%
6 - Sampras - 74.28%
This was the top 5 win percentages against the top 10
1 - Djokovic - 68.06%
2 - Federer - 64.92%
3 - Nadal - 64.81%
4 - Rafter - 60.53%
5 - Sampras - 60.00%
He was clearly trending very high and even when he fell off, once he got it back together he picked right up where he left off. He actually left Slams on the table for reasons well known. The idea that it's because of the competition only as the reason he was so successful is false and an unwillingness to accept it for what it really is.
From January 1st 1998 - December 31st 2016, when Djokovic's peak ended, this was the top 6 highest win percentages ranked:
1 - Djokovic- 82.89%
2 - Nadal - 82.24%
3 - Federer - 81.51%
4 - Murray - 78.36%
5 - Agassi - 77.41%
6 - Sampras - 74.28%
This was the top 5 win percentages against the top 10
1 - Djokovic - 68.06%
2 - Federer - 64.92%
3 - Nadal - 64.81%
4 - Rafter - 60.53%
5 - Sampras - 60.00%
He was clearly trending very high and even when he fell off, once he got it back together he picked right up where he left off. He actually left Slams on the table for reasons well known. The idea that it's because of the competition only as the reason he was so successful is false and an unwillingness to accept it for what it really is.
Aabye5
G.O.A.T.
top10
Semi-Pro
Djokovic had always had this belief in himself. I remember a press conference after one of his retirements against Nadal. Novak said that he doesn’t have to do anything special to beat Nadal.
And everyone laughed. I did not believe it either…
And then comes a year with 7 or 8 consecutive beatings of Nadal, any surface - I believe all finals…
Go figure…
And everyone laughed. I did not believe it either…
And then comes a year with 7 or 8 consecutive beatings of Nadal, any surface - I believe all finals…
Go figure…
messiahrobins
Legend
hesitated to post this as its easy to say after the event, but hopefully you will take this at face value. I did think Djokovic had the ability to be the most complete player when i saw him in the 2010 final v Nadal. Yes he lost, but at times in the 2nd set he seemed unplaybale and the only other time id sat watching a match dumbfounded as to how to beat a player was the 1995 QF Sampras v Courier match in the end of the 4th set where Sampras hit God mode. Obviously Nadal on clay hit those levels numerous times, but in 2010 i did think Djokovic could be an ATG. Boy did he prove me right lol
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
2005-2010 weren't Djokovic's peak years. Even if we ended it at June 2018, when he fallen off and struggling, he still is #2 in win percentage only marginally behind Nadal and still has the #1 win percentage against the top 10.But wouldn't that data include non-peak years for all players outside of Djokovic?
Mainad
Bionic Poster
2011 was certainly the great turning point in Djokovic's career. I still feel amazed by how much he transformed himself in that year and began tearing through the tour winning 3 times as many Slams and the same number of Masters 1000 as he had won from 2007-10. That was certainly the birth of the Big 3.
Neptune
Hall of Fame
Peak | vs Top5 | T5 Weight | vs Top10 | T10 Weight | vs T11+ | T11+ Weight | vs All |
Nole 11-13 | 49 (34-15) 69.39% | 19.92% | 89 (69-20) 77.53% | 36.18% | 157 (150-7) 95.54% | 63.82% | 246 (219-27) 89.02% |
Fed 04-06 | 31 (25-6) 80.65% | 11.83% | 58 (52-6) 89.66% | 22.14% | 204 (195-9) 95.59% | 77.86% | 262 (247-15) 94.27% |
Rafa 08-10 | 34 (23-11) 67.65% | 13.39% | 64 (42-22) 65.63% | 25.20% | 190 (177-13) 93.16% | 74.80% | 254 (219-35) 86.22% |
| | | | | | | |
Peak | vs Top5 | T5 Weight | vs Top10 | T10 Weight | vs T11+ | T11+ Weight | vs All |
Nole 14-16 | 42 (32-10) 76.19% | 18.18% | 85 (71-14) 83.53% | 36.80% | 146 (137-9) 93.84% | 63.20% | 231 (208-23) 90.04% |
Fed 07-09 | 36 (19-17) 52.78% | 15.58% | 63 (39-24) 61.90% | 27.27% | 168 (156-12) 92.86% | 72.73% | 231 (195-36) 84.42% |
Rafa 11-13 | 39 (24-15) 61.54% | 18.22% | 69 (51-18) 73.91% | 32.24% | 145 (135-10) 93.10% | 67.76% | 214 (186-28) 86.92% |
Not hard to understand if IQ>100.
Aabye5
G.O.A.T.
Right, he falls to #2. It's not clear that he would have the record if the next wave of players had stepped up to take the mantle.
I honestly think he would still have won, but I do wonder (and I think a lot of people wonder) if he would have been kept closer to 22 or 23 majors.
Similar threads
