Is Djokovic an all-time great?

[Steve0904]

He won the other 3 that year and was one set away from the last, the closest anyone has come since Laver, those are the facts, Mac's an all time great, "you know that, come on now".

By rights, if I was really strict in my placing, and said for example that only tier 1 players are "all time greats" then my list wouldn't even include Connors and maybe not even Lendl. That's as far as I would ever cut it though. Although I can imagine the ****storm that would create. Vero lost it last time after all. It depends on how you define "all time great." I'd say I've said that at least 3 times in this thread. Close is only good in horseshoes and hand grenades.

 

[5555]

No

Is it a fact?

We sure haven't. And as you're stating something (positive), the burden of proof is on you, so get cracking.

Can you provide reasoning as to why my argumentation on 12-26-2012 was wrong?

Still not.

Is it a fact?

BTW, despite the fact that you started this thread, you still haven't given *your* opinion on the matter. Is it because you don't have one? Or because you're afraid you can't back it up with facts?

I think Djokovic is an all-time great. He won 5 slams (fact) and was No. 1 for 2011 and 2012 (fact).

I don't need to, remember? Burden of proof is on you, yadda, yadda, so can you prove he was serious and sober at that time?

Laver is innocent until proven guilty. Can you can prove that he was not sober or serious at that time?

(Oh, and BTW, notice I wrote "serious", not "honest". Did you misquote me on purpose, the way you did with Agassi, or is it just something you can't help?)
Which leads us to:
The quote above shows that you also misquoted me, so these "rare occasions" don't seem to be that "rare" after all, do they?

You found 2 such posts, but I've made 720 posts. That's less than 1% which is rare indeed.

Unless you can prove that you didn't do this on purpose, I'll go wiOckham's razor, here--the path of least resistance is that you did it on purpose both times. Which is consistent with your trolling behaviour.

I'm innocent until proven guilty. Can you prove that I did it on purpose?

Is this an opinion or a fact?

Fact.

 

[Fiji]

Yes he is. At least 8 slams are possible and the likes of Lendl, Agassi and Connors are all time greats.

 

[5555]

We sure haven't. And as you're stating something (positive), the burden of proof is on you, so get cracking.

Can you provide reasoning as to why my argumentation on 12-26-2012 was wrong?

Also, can you provide argument as to why my reasoning on 01-05-2015 was wrong?

 

[merlinpinpin]

I think Djokovic is an all-time great. He won 5 slams (fact) and was No. 1 for 2011 and 2012 (fact).

Can you prove that these two "facts" are enough to be an all-time great?

Oh, and only the first one is a fact, btw. The second is partly a flight of fancy, as he was #1 for parts of 2011 and 2012 "only". Once again, what you're stating as "fact" is nothing but an exageration of the truth (which is better than misquoting people on purpose, I'll grant you that, so some might think you are on the right track).

 

[merlinpinpin]

Can you provide reasoning as to why my argumentation on 12-26-2012 was wrong?

Also, can you provide argument as to why my reasoning on 01-05-2015 was wrong?

Prove what you said first, and then we'll see.

 

[merlinpinpin]

Laver is innocent until proven guilty.

Innocent/guilty of what? Not being serious? As if that was a crime? You CANNOT be serious.

Can you can prove that he was not sober or serious at that time?

You still can't understand what you're harping all the time, do you? You've got the negative view, time to troll yourself.

 

[TMF]

I'm curious how many times posters have posted on this useless thread.


1. 5555 36
2. merlinpinpin 29
3. Steve0904 21
4. jokinla 17
5. NadalAgassi 15
6. Povl Carstensen 14
7. Sabratha 12
8. Apun94 12
9. The-Champ 12
10. DropShotArtist 10


BTW, these numbers are FACT, so don't ask me to prove anything.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

That they are fact is just your opinion.

 

[TMF]

That they are fact is just your opinion.

Have you been taking lesson from 5555 ?

 

[5555]

No

Is it a fact?

Can you prove that these two "facts" are enough to be an all-time great?

I do not have to prove it, because my statement is just a opinion. I would have put burden of proof on myself if I made allegation of fact but it's not the case here.

Oh, and only the first one is a fact, btw. The second is partly a flight of fancy, as he was #1 for parts of 2011 and 2012 "only". Once again, what you're stating as "fact" is nothing but an exageration of the truth (which is better than misquoting people on purpose, I'll grant you that, so some might think you are on the right track).

I did not say that Novak was No. 1 continuously from the beginning of 2011 until the end of 2012. I said he was No. 1 for 2011 and 2012 http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2012/11/Features/Djokovic-To-Finish-Year-End-World-No-1.aspx

Do not put words in my mouth.

Prove what you said first, and then we'll see.

Can you provide reasoning as to why my argumentation on 12-26-2012 was wrong?

Also, can you provide argument as to why my reasoning on 01-05-2013 was wrong?

Innocent/guilty of what? Not being serious? As if that was a crime? You CANNOT be serious.

If someone is guilty of something, it does not mean they commited a criminal offense. There are different types of offenses (see Collins dictionary for the definition of words "guilty" and "offense" http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/guilty?showCookiePolicy=true http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/offense?showCookiePolicy=true). If Laver was not serious when he made that list, he said something that is a lie because he said something he does not believe. If he lied, it's a offense ie breach of a custom (good manners).

So, can you prove that Laver is guilty?

You still can't understand what you're harping all the time, do you? You've got the negative view, time to troll yourself.

You stated that Laver is guilty. That's a positive view.

 

[TMF]

Do me a favor. When the AO get started on Monday, could you please let this thread die. I mean pretty please....

 

[FlamEnemY]

Such a bunch of useless philosophers you guys are.

 

[zagor]

Such a bunch of useless philosophers you guys are.

Is that a fact? Or merely your opinion?

 

[5555]

merlinpinpin, were the posts on 01-07-2013 your last-ditch defense?

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

merlinpinpin, were the posts on 01-07-2013 your last-ditch defense?

Is that a question or a rhetorical?

 

[5555]

merlinpinpin, I'm going to ask you just one more time: were the posts on 01-07-2013 your last-ditch defense?

Is that a question or a rhetorical?

Question.

 

[5555]

That's it. merlinpinpin lost yet another argument.

 

[FlamEnemY]

Is that a fact? Or merely your opinion?

Both.

Ten Schrödinger's cats.

 

[merlinpinpin]

That's it. merlinpinpin lost yet another argument.

Prove it.

 

[5555]

Prove it.

Can you provide reasoning as to why my argumentation on 01-05-2013 and 01-11-2013 was wrong?

 

[BeHappy]

Can you provide reasoning as to why my argumentation on 01-05-2013 and 01-11-2013 was wrong?

The first of May 2013? The first of November 2013? Doc, we've gone back to the future!

 

[5555]

The first of May 2013? The first of November 2013? Doc, we've gone back to the future!

Month-Day-Year sequence is used in the United States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_date

 

[5555]

The first of May 2013? The first of November 2013? Doc, we've gone back to the future!

Month-Day-Year sequence is used in the United States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_date

BeHappy, can you provide counterargument?

 

[The-Champ]

5555 is basically saying that greatness is a matter of opinion, because of the fact that "experts" disagree on what constitute greatness. Therefore it is a valid argument to say that Donald Young is as great as Andre Agassi according to 5555's impenetrable logic.

 

[Surecatch]

Yes. To me it is obvious that he is at least one of the best players of all-time, career achievements aside. And by the time he's done, he's going to have several more slam victories, most likely...probably between 9-12 if not more. As much as I dislike him, he's that good.

 

[5555]

The-Champ claims that greatness in not a matter of opinion. According to him it's a fact that Ivan Lendl is greater player than Pancho Gonzales or vice versa.

 

[5555]

BeHappy, I'm going to ask you just one more time: can you provide counterargument?

 

[tennis_pro]

Wow, 5555, 5 years since you registered on TW and you still can't tell the difference between a fact and opinion.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

He is the only multi slam winner at the moment (Murray could join him) whilst Federer and Nadal started their dominance. Just to be able to take them on and beat them both in 3 out of the 4 slams makes him an all time great in my eyes. My opinion, of course!

 

[Deleted member 3771]

No, because he hasn't won enough slams yet and because he has only been great for a few years. He has to be great for more than a couple of years to be an all time great. In a few years time we will be in a better position to re-asses.

 

[xan]

He is the only multi slam winner at the moment (Murray could join him) whilst Federer and Nadal started their dominance. Just to be able to take them on and beat them both in 3 out of the 4 slams makes him an all time great in my eyes. My opinion, of course!

is your opinion a fact, or opinion??

 

[Povl Carstensen]

It is a fact that many people have the opinion that it is unpleasant when some people go overboard and act unreasonable.

 

[TMF]

This thread can only die when Nole loses, otherwise the nonsense will persist.

 

[above bored]

Can someone name me one thing that agassi does clearly better than djokovic apart from maybe hitting half volleys from the baseline?

I want something that is clear as night and day. So don't come back with return or backhand cos those are debatable.

I can point to djokovic's movement which is on a different planet to agassi.

So, please bring forth your opinions.

To answer the original question. Djokovic is definitely an all time great. Not a GOAT candidate though. You dont pawn Nadal across 3 surfaces and 7 finals consecutively at his peak without being an all time great. Add to that, his game play when down is stuff of legends.

What the Djoker has shown is that his peak is as good as anyone. he lacks longevity but hopefully that will come.

Agassi was a more aggressive and better ball striker than Djokovic, off both wings.

What separates Djokovic as a player is his consistency, movement and defensive ability. His ball striking is not as good as Agassi's.

 

[above bored]

Results wise, yes Nole is not one of the all time great, bt thats only becuz his career path is not finished yet. He is considered one of the all time greats simply becz of the level he has been able to play at consistently over the past two years. If he plays his best this man does not have a real weakness. And he has shown that he can play his best consistently. We all know the he is a better version of agassi. Anyone who can thrash prime nadal and does get the better of murray and fed on most occasions is definitely one of the best of all time. No one from the previous eras has come even close to this guy

You cannot really judge level of play objectively across eras because different eras restrict the level achievable. No player today would be playing as they do if they were playing 10 or 20 years ago. Each era always benefits from the ground work laid down prior to their own time.

You can only really compare level based on the degree to which each player has been able to separate themselves from their peers within their own time.

 

[The-Champ]

5555 needs to explain why Dolgopolov is as great as Federer.

If 5555 cannot explain this, then he has lost this debate.

 

[merlinpinpin]

No, because he hasn't won enough slams yet and because he has only been great for a few years. He has to be great for more than a couple of years to be an all time great. In a few years time we will be in a better position to re-asses.

Is this a factual opinion, or an opinionated fact?

 

[ruariatp]

Not yet...once he has the french. but im not convinced his stamina is totally natural..

 

[5555]

1. BeHappy lost the argument.

2. The-Champ will lose the argument too if he does not explain why tennis experts disagree who is greater between Ivan Lendl and Pancho Gonzales if the criteria for greatness is not a matter of opinion.

Wow, 5555, 5 years since you registered on TW and you still can't tell the difference between a fact and opinion.

You agree with The-Champ that criteria for greatness is not a matter of opinion?

 

[Phoenix1983]

Djokovic is not an all-time great. This is a fact.

 

[librarysteg]

My answer would be not yet, but he might still become one. We'll have to wait another 5-10 years to know for sure. At this point, I think it could go either way.

 

[NadalAgassi]

This thread can only die when Nole loses, otherwise the nonsense will persist.

It isnt nonsense. What is your definition of an all time great. Since Becker, Edberg, and Wilander are all time greats (and most think they are) then Djokovic should be called one too.

 

[TMF]

It isnt nonsense. What is your definition of an all time great. Since Becker, Edberg, and Wilander are all time greats (and most think they are) then Djokovic should be called one too.

I'm not talking about Nole is either one of all time great or not, but this thread turns out to be an ego contest. Every opinions must provide facts/proven to have any credibility. Rofl

 

[The-Champ]

1. BeHappy lost the argument.

2. The-Champ will lose the argument too if he does not explain why tennis experts disagree who is greater between Ivan Lendl and Pancho Gonzales if the criteria for greatness is not a matter of opinion.



You agree with The-Champ that criteria for greatness is not a matter of opinion?

if it's a matter of opinion then answer this; where are the experts that claim Donald Young is just as great as Federer? If you can't answer this, you have lost the argument.

 

[jokinla]

55555555555555555555 has lost the argument.

 

[beast of mallorca]

5555 can not lose a factual opinion of a fact. He is that opinionated, esp for factual opinions for certain tennis facts.And thjat's my humble opinion for this fact.

 

[5555]

Wow, 5555, 5 years since you registered on TW and you still can't tell the difference between a fact and opinion.

You agree with The-Champ that criteria for greatness is not a matter of opinion?

Djokovic is not an all-time great. This is a fact.

Can you prove it's a fact?

if it's a matter of opinion then answer this; where are the experts that claim Donald Young is just as great as Federer? If you can't answer this, you have lost the argument.

You failed to answer why tennis experts disagree who is greater player between Ivan Lendl and Pancho Gonzales. Tennis experts disagree who is greater between Lendl and Gonzales because they can not agree what should be criteria for greatness. It's logic.

You lost the argument.

55555555555555555555 has lost the argument.

No, I have not.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Can you prove it's a fact?

Can you prove it's not?

 

[jokinla]

You agree with The-Champ that criteria for greatness is not a matter of opinion?



Can you prove it's a fact?



You failed to answer why tennis experts disagree who is greater player between Ivan Lendl and Pancho Gonzales. Tennis experts disagree who is greater between Lendl and Gonzales because they can not agree what should be criteria for greatness. It's logic.

You lost the argument.



No, I have not.

Is that a fact or your opinion.