Is Novak Djokovic the best ever?

Is Novak Djokovic the best ever?


  • Total voters
    88
This isn't something I dreamed up. It's a pattern going back over a year. Old news dude.
You most certainly did dream it up. The "pattern" is about supporting a comeback. I always support comebacks, because there is nothing more important in life than fighting against adversity and at least beating Father Time for a while. I didn't like Agassi at all as a young player but was amazed at his play in the 2000s. Nadal's comeback in 2013 was epic, and Fed, after losing again and again to Novak in 2014 and 2015, made one of the most amazing returns in sports history in 2017. He deserves every bit of admiration he has received, and as someone who has watched tennis since the time of Laver and Rosewall, we are seeing something in his play we have not seen since Rosewall.

Now Novak has staged a comeback of his own, from hardly winning to two majors and looking really good.

Only in your very limited world does my not hating Novak and being excited about his comeback mean I don't like Fed and don't want him to win another major.
 
Not in Grand Slams, which is more relevant than H2H in Masters 1000. Djokovic has played 14 Grand Slam matches against Nadal. Yet, Nadal leads the H2H over Djokovic 9-5 in Grand Slams (including 2-1 at the US Open).
7 matches at RG, 1 at AO.

In 3 slam out of 4 Djokovic leads 4-3.

Also, Djokovic leads 14-10 in finals, which are more important than other rounds.
 
Last edited:
The guy in the video said 2 things that I have been saying for a while now.

1) Djokovic has played the best tennis we have ever seen, at his peak. For me, early 2015-2016 Djokovic is the greatest level of tennis ever. Both in tennis, and mentality.
2) Gun to the head, if you had to bet your house on it, on all surfaces (apart from Roland Garos), if Djokovic had to play Federer or Nadal, you would pick Djokovic. Even at Roland Garos (not all clay surfaces), Rafa would have to play his absolute best to beat Djokovic.
 
Last edited:
Actually, I'm stubborn about sticking up for people I think are not being treated fairly, and that varies from day to day according to who is being trashed. ;)

Without any doubt Fed, Nadal and Djokovic are clearly head and shoulder above everyone else in this era.

Each time one of them has "gone away", they have fought back: Fed 2008, 2013, weaker years, both times came back, then again in 2017.

Nadal looked almost done in 2012, roared back in 2013, looked like he might have been done after that and then three majors in the last 2 years.

People counted Novak out, and now he has two majors this year.

Not to mention the miracle that was 2011 for Novak.

When I say that I favor Novak in the upcoming AO, it is linked to two things: First, he has been so dominant there, and also (so far) his performance at Shanghai looks awfully impressive; second, age. I have to give the advantage to the 6 years younger guy.

Who would I LIKE to win AO 2019? Frankly, I would lean toward Fed, as a slightly partisan fan. ;)
So I was wrong about you.
Well ok. You all can be Fed fans, but with nice narrative about Nole.
 
The guy in the video said 2 things that I have been saying for a while now.

1) Djokovic has played the best tennis we have ever seen, at his peak. For me, early 2015-2016 Djokovic is the greatest level of tennis ever. Both in tennis, and mentality.
2) Gun to the head, if you had to bet your house on it, on all surfaces (apart from Roland Garos), if Djokovic had to play Federer or Nadal, you would pick Djokovic. Even at Roland Garos (not all clay surfaces), Rafa would have to play his absolute best to beat Djokovic.
When journeyman Stanley Waronka could beat Djokovic '15-'16 in two slam finals, i really think peak Fedal could do the same :oops:
 
2011 Novak is probably the best calendar season ever, considering the competition.

His stretch from FO14 to FO16 is amazingly successful, but it was certainly its own little weak era and he feasted on it, similar to Fed feasting in 2004-07.
 
2014-16 Wawrinka won more grand slam matches than any of Federer's 2004-06 opponents:

14-16 Wawrinka 50
04-06 Hewitt 45
04-06 Roddick/Nalbandian 38
04-06 Nadal 33
Wawrinka on his day is a great player but he is not Nadal or Federer at their best. The fact that Djokovic lost to Stan in 3 Slam matches in the period you mention shows that betting your house on Djokovic to beat Federer and Nadal on all surfaces bar RG is a sure way to become homeless.
 
Wawrinka a journeyman. Whatever you say man.

I wonder what you have to say about Federer's slams against Bagdhatis, Roddick and the like.
I'm Stan's biggest fan, yet I find it hard to believe he beat Djokovic in the last 3 meetings in slams. 3/3! And all 3 in Novak's reign... I don't think Stan could do that against peak Fedal, and I don't think it has much to do with Baggy, Kandy or anyone else.

Roddick is underrated. World #1, 32 titles.
 
Wawrinka on his day is a great player but he is not Nadal or Federer at their best. The fact that Djokovic lost to Stan in 3 Slam matches in the period you mention shows that betting your house on Djokovic to beat Federer and Nadal on all surfaces bar RG is a sure way to become homeless.
Djokovic had a 10-0 streak in slams against big4, I would sure bet on him.
 
Djokovic had a 10-0 streak in slams against big4, I would sure bet on him.
First of all, why big4? Talking about Federer and Nadal here.
Second, this streak is against the worst version of Nadal in some years and Federer being far from his best top level in Slams, excluding the Wimby 2015 semi.
You could use 2011 for Djokovic and Nadal, although it wasn't exactly the best Nadal in all those finals but we can see the trend. With Federer - no example of such domination. More than that, in almost all of his wins on faster courts Djokovic struggled against Federer big time. Federer didn't have such problem with him.
 
2014-16 Wawrinka won more grand slam matches than any of Federer's 2004-06 opponents:

14-16 Wawrinka 50
04-06 Hewitt 45
04-06 Roddick/Nalbandian 38
04-06 Nadal 33
Wawrinka beat Djokovic three times. Let's say, Djokovic handled Wawrinka like Federer handled his own fare share of mugs.

Djokovic wins the QF AO '14. That means Wawrinka loses 3 wins that Djokovic (in)directly allowed him to have.
Djokovic wins RG F '15. Minus one for Wawrinka.
Djokovic wins USO F '16. Minus one for Wawrinka.

If Djokovic did not lose so regularly against Wawrinka in Slams between 14-16, then Wawrinka would have been Hewitt level.

14-16 Wawrinka 45
04-06 Hewitt 45
04-06 Roddick/Nalbandian 38
04-06 Nadal 33

Goes to show that Federer is the most immune player ever to mug losses in his peak.
 
Wawrinka beat Djokovic three times. Let's say, Djokovic handled Wawrinka like Federer handled his own fare share of mugs.

Djokovic wins the QF AO '14. That means Wawrinka loses 3 wins that Djokovic (in)directly allowed him to have.
Djokovic wins RG F '15. Minus one for Wawrinka.
Djokovic wins USO F '16. Minus one for Wawrinka.

If Djokovic did not lose so regularly against Wawrinka in Slams between 14-16, then Wawrinka would have been Hewitt level.

14-16 Wawrinka 45
04-06 Hewitt 45
04-06 Roddick/Nalbandian 38
04-06 Nadal 33

Goes to show that Federer is the most immune player ever to mug losses in his peak.
Most gs wins in 04-06 or 14-16:

1) 04-06 Federer 73
2) 14-16 Djokovic 70
3) 14-16 Murray 59 wins
4) 14-16 Wawrinka 50
5) 14-16 Federer 49

6) 04-06 Hewitt 45
7) 14-16 Berdych 42
8) 04-06 Roddick/Nalbandian 38
10) 14-16 Raonic 37
11) 14-16 Tsonga 36
12) 14-16 Nishikori 35
13) 14-16 Cilic 34


Any excuses here?
 
Most gs wins in 04-06 or 14-16:

1) 04-06 Federer 73
2) 14-16 Djokovic 70
3) 14-16 Murray 59 wins
4) 14-16 Wawrinka 50
5) 14-16 Federer 49

6) 04-06 Hewitt 45
7) 14-16 Berdych 42
8) 04-06 Roddick/Nalbandian 38
10) 14-16 Raonic 37
11) 14-16 Tsonga 36
12) 14-16 Nishikori 35
13) 14-16 Cilic 34


Any excuses here?
So, I was right, no? Fed is the most immune to mug losses.

Second, in 14-16 a lot of players were consistent according to the info you provide. That is, the top 10 of 14-16 consistently beat 11-100(?). In 04-06 the top 10 lost more often against number 11-100.

That can mean three things.
1) Top 10 of 14-16 was tougher/stronger than the top 10 of 04-06.
2) Top 11-100 of 04-06 was stronger than top 11-100 of 14-16.
3) It could mean both 1) and 2)

It tells us nothing (not much) about the absolute level of all players in the two mentioned periods. I don't see how a stronger 11-100 implies a weaker field. The field seemed to have more depth back then.

Anyway, it's not like Fed would have trouble beating Murray, Wawrinka, Berdych and the likes in his prime.

F.e. Djokovic lost to Wawrinka at AO '14, Fed beat Wawrinka at Wimbledon '14.
Djokovic beat Wawrinka in 5 sets at AO '15, loses to him at RG '15, Federer beats Wawrinka easily at USO '15 (Wawrinka was in great form given that he pushed Novak to 5 at AO and won at RG).

I don't see how this proves that Federer would have much trouble with Wawrinka in 14-16 or that Fed was not so immune to mug losses (the two points I made in my post). IMO, peak Fed would not have let Wawrinka win a single Slam.
 
I just checked the Official Handbook. It clearly states that a tennis GOAT shall be able to volley at a 4.5 (or better) level and be equally competent (4.5 and above) in the overhead department.

Nyet.
 
I didnt watch that whole video but I completely disagree with the idea of Djokovic being the best when he's at his best, because it completely depends on what criteria you consider. If you only consider the opponents he has beaten, then maybe yes, if we only look at the fact that he has a barely positive record over his rivals Nadal and Federer.

But if you consider other things as well such as participation in DOUBLES (which I think is major) and his ability to draw interest into the sport, he falls behind considerably.

Additionally, his skill set on a tennis court is 100% a post polyester string and scientific revolution in sports playstyle. He slides around the court, contorting himself. He hits dangerous shots with topspin from anywhere on the court, using his flexibility to direct it anywhere, and defending against shots that used to be impossible to defend against at the risk of his limbs. Then, recovering from the wear and tear using new discoveries in sports science.

Nadal and Federer are both traditional in comparison, which suggests an ability to adapt despite the advancement of science. Nadal could be compared to a modern Borg and Federer compared to a modern Sampras. These guys have shown adaptability and supremacy despite the advancement of sports science. This to me demonstrates that they are better in the big picture, that even in the hypothetical scenario that they got supplanted into the 1980s, with different methods and technology of the time they would still be elite. I dont think Djokovic could pull off that stuff with the technology and methods from back then. But Im very tradintionalist do people who love new technologies and such probably wouldnt agree with me from that alone.
 
To be honest with you Gary I don't give a damn what you think. You started with me last week and I moved on and now today you started it again. Not at any point since this began have you said one nice thing to me. I was nice to you twice and told you I respected you. Well that is no longer the case. You have a condescending way about you and you think you know everything. The little thing last week you couldn't let go of and now you're trying to get revenge. Federer is your favorite player my ASS. I'm done with this and I suggest you do the same. Don't tag my name again.
But see, you got it wrong again:
Federer is your favorite player my ASS.
That's the thing, you're so very sure of what you about me know when in fact you know nothing about me. And for someone who is "done with this" you certainly have a lot to say.
 
Last edited:
Nadal was already washed up at 25, Federer became a grandpa before turning 30 and has sucked in pretty much all of his career losses, Murray plays like junk for 90% of the time anyway unlike all of the warrior-like competitors from the previous decade, led by his namesake, so Djokovic (who throughout his 12+ seasons has also only faced opponents when it favors him because he hardly ever goes through slumps and declines like them, not to mention has had every single court on the Tour made perfectly for his game) couldn't prove himself against a decent field, and thus shouldn't even be in any ATG conversation, yet alone something higher than that.

Cynical Doc out
TOTAL NONSENSE!
 
Novak has done better against Nadal than Roger has on clay. He also has won more Masters on clay than Roger, therefore, Novak is the better clay court player than Federer.
True but I don’t judge players on “did better vs Nadal”

For peak level it’s arguable 2006 Rome vs 2011 Rome. Consistency clearly to Nole who leads 3-0
MC 2006 vs 2013. Again Nole won more titles there, Federer leads 3-0
Hamburg/Madrid definitely goes to Federer.

RG Fed won their definitive encounter in 2011.

It isn’t as cut and dry as you think. The question is “best ever” rather than who has more accomplishments.
 
I didnt watch that whole video but I completely disagree with the idea of Djokovic being the best when he's at his best, because it completely depends on what criteria you consider. If you only consider the opponents he has beaten, then maybe yes, if we only look at the fact that he has a barely positive record over his rivals Nadal and Federer.

But if you consider other things as well such as participation in DOUBLES (which I think is major) and his ability to draw interest into the sport, he falls behind considerably.

Additionally, his skill set on a tennis court is 100% a post polyester string and scientific revolution in sports playstyle. He slides around the court, contorting himself. He hits dangerous shots with topspin from anywhere on the court, using his flexibility to direct it anywhere, and defending against shots that used to be impossible to defend against at the risk of his limbs. Then, recovering from the wear and tear using new discoveries in sports science.

Nadal and Federer are both traditional in comparison, which suggests an ability to adapt despite the advancement of science. Nadal could be compared to a modern Borg and Federer compared to a modern Sampras. These guys have shown adaptability and supremacy despite the advancement of sports science. This to me demonstrates that they are better in the big picture, that even in the hypothetical scenario that they got supplanted into the 1980s, with different methods and technology of the time they would still be elite. I dont think Djokovic could pull off that stuff with the technology and methods from back then. But Im very tradintionalist do people who love new technologies and such probably wouldnt agree with me from that alone.
i have never seen so much wall of text make absolute 0 sense, and being based purely on subjectivity.
Draw interest to the sport? is somewhat relevant to "best tennis game of all time"
Besides, your wrong in your statement.. he has way more views on Youtube than Federer or Nadal has.

" scientific revolution in sports playstyle"
Wow.. you do know that all players benefit exactly equal to the technology.. you are trying to make it sound like Novak was made in a "lab"

"Then, recovering from the wear and tear using new discoveries in sports science." so whatever these discoveries in sports science Novak uses to "recover", you think Federer can´t access the exact same "discoveries"..


So to put an ending case here to this, what can only be described as an low IQ large text from the amazing poster Enga.
Novak´s flexible talent, mental god, super endurance, deep shots, and greatest return of all time is all thanks to science, which in Enga´s case can only and is only used by Novak and noone else on tour .. "New Science Discoveries"

But apparently, Nadal´s 500000 RPM loopy forehands have no benefit from new "technology"
Also Federers serve botting and inside out forehands are all done with a wooden racquet.

Oh if only Fedal knew about these science discoveries, they might not be in a losing H2H position:eek:
 
He could very well wind up being the best ever. He's in the perfect headspace right now to claim the throne over the next 1-3 seasons. As one example of many, look at recent comments about Federer and Nadal - glowing, but if you look closer, he has totally detached from the idea of being accepted as part of their little fraternity. Now he talks about them as having the wonderful, romantic rivalry - like Evert and Navratilova. Which makes him Steffi Graf.
 
True but I don’t judge players on “did better vs Nadal”

For peak level it’s arguable 2006 Rome vs 2011 Rome. Consistency clearly to Nole who leads 3-0
MC 2006 vs 2013. Again Nole won more titles there, Federer leads 3-0
Hamburg/Madrid definitely goes to Federer.

RG Fed won their definitive encounter in 2011.

It isn’t as cut and dry as you think. The question is “best ever” rather than who has more accomplishments.
Of course you don't judge Fed's performance based on how he does against Nadal, because that's a huge weakness of his.
 
Had this poll happened at the end of 2010, then likely 0% for yay.
2011-2014, maybe 5% for the 2011 season but stays flat since.
2015, maybe 20% for the best season ever.
2016, maybe 30% for the unprecedented NCYGS in the Open Era.
2017, maybe 25% for what the hell is happening to Novak and his career might be over.
2018, standing at 40% for the comeback, complete 14 big titles, and tie Sampras at 14 GS.
 
Of course you don't judge Fed's performance based on how he does against Nadal, because that's a huge weakness of his.
When comparing him directly with Djokovic? No because it’s pointless and means nothing.

And time will tell. If Nadal surpasses Federer in slams then that weakness will have cost him GOAT title in the eyes of most pundits and observers.

At least Federer lost to an ATG GOAT contender Nadal. Djokovic lost to Murray, Wawrinka, Nishikori, Querrey etc LOL.
 
Last edited:
When comparing him directly with Djokovic? No because it’s pointless and means nothing.

And time will tell. If Nadal surpasses Federer in slams then that weakness will have cost him GOAT title in the eyes of most pundits and observers.

At least Federer lost to an ATG GOAT contender Nadal. Djokovic lost to Murray, Wawrinka, Nishikori, Querrey etc LOL.
Fed has lost to his fair share of nobodies.
 
i have never seen so much wall of text make absolute 0 sense, and being based purely on subjectivity.
Draw interest to the sport? is somewhat relevant to "best tennis game of all time"
Besides, your wrong in your statement.. he has way more views on Youtube than Federer or Nadal has.

" scientific revolution in sports playstyle"
Wow.. you do know that all players benefit exactly equal to the technology.. you are trying to make it sound like Novak was made in a "lab"

"Then, recovering from the wear and tear using new discoveries in sports science." so whatever these discoveries in sports science Novak uses to "recover", you think Federer can´t access the exact same "discoveries"..


So to put an ending case here to this, what can only be described as an low IQ large text from the amazing poster Enga.
Novak´s flexible talent, mental god, super endurance, deep shots, and greatest return of all time is all thanks to science, which in Enga´s case can only and is only used by Novak and noone else on tour .. "New Science Discoveries"

But apparently, Nadal´s 500000 RPM loopy forehands have no benefit from new "technology"
Also Federers serve botting and inside out forehands are all done with a wooden racquet.

Oh if only Fedal knew about these science discoveries, they might not be in a losing H2H position:eek:
So you deny that Novak Djoklvic uses scientific discoveries more than his rivals? Remember, put things in perspective. Hes the younger player, while Nadal and Federer grew up in a transition era, Djokovic 100% grew up in the new polyester era. Not only that, he follows new diets all the time. You also cannot deny that other than his eccentricities, such as elastic flexibility, he is overall a less skilled player than Federer and Nadal.

And yes, I do equate ability to draw interest as a factor in who is the best. The best player makes the sport better for years after he has left. So far all Djokovic has had is coaching and personal life drama.

Im looking at the big picture here... Not cherry picking facts to support my overall claim.

And in regards to my low IQ, I dont doubt it. That said I took one of those free yests for that high IQ society bs and the test said I would likely make it into their club. Convenient, considering I would have to pay to take the real test that determines if I'm high IQ. :oops:
 
Last edited:
So you deny that Novak Djoklvic uses scientific discoveries more than his rivals? Remember, put things in perspective. Hes the younger player, while Nadal and Federer grew up in a transition era, Djokovic 100% grew up in the new polyester era. Not only that, he follows new diets all the time. You also cannot deny that other than his eccentricities, such as elastic flexibility, he is overall a less skilled player than Federer and Nadal.

And yes, I do equate ability to draw interest as a factor in who is the best. The best player makes the sport better for years after he has left. So far all Djokovic has had is coaching and personal life drama.

Im looking at the big picture here... Not cherry picking facts to support my overall claim.
Your overall claim is pure rubbish ... or B.S. if you wish and I don't even know where to begin. Shall I start with your 'scientific discoveries' or 'ability to draw interest' theses, lol. Strings? Growing up in the new polyester era? What's your favorite movie? Hair spray :D?
Sheesh. The stupidest post I've ever read on TTW.

And no, I'm not talking about who is the GOAT or BOAT ... just your pure nonsense.
Do you even know what 'the big picture' actually means? Yeah, I didn't think so.
Also, 'cherry picking' ... check that out too.
'less player', 'following new diets', lolz. Time for you to start some new diet for your brain bud ;):).

Djokovic is a genius. Djokovic proved his mad skills so many times. Fed and Rafa too ... now, on your knees and show some respect to all 3 kings :cool:.
 
Last edited:
Your overall claim is pure rubbish ... or B.S. if you wish and I don't even know where to begin. Shall I start with your 'scientific discoveries' or 'ability to draw interest' theses, lol. Sheesh. The stupidest post I've ever read on TTW.

And no, I'm not talking about who is the GOAT or BOAT ... just your pure nonsense.
Do you even know what 'the big picture' actually means? Yeah, I didn't think so.
Also, 'cherry picking' ... check that out too.
'less player', 'following new diets', lolz. Time for you to start some new diet for your brain bud ;):).
Care to elaborate your side? I will elaborate further if you wish.

What is a player? Its someone who plays a game. How is a players worth determined? Well I would postulate that its about how he plays the game, including his records. A players success has a lot to do with this. For example, a player who makes a lot of friends and plays the game with great skill will inspire awe and admiration in his fellow players, as well as inspiring youths who eventually go on to become pros as well. Not only that, I reckon a great player will strive to improve the game he plays and try to contribute to it positively, such as McEnroe's years of commentating, or Lendl's coaching of younger players.

You guys are too focused on the now and the story of who is the better player that you lose sight of what a player even is, and the game that we're playing. This is tennis, it is a game. Everything from the way that you play it, up to the contributions you make to it later in life matter to me in determining the "best player". H2H's dont matter as much.

I'll also further elaborate my position on scientific stuff. To me, when a sport makes a transformation, while it is technically the same sport, it has in essence changed to be a different sport. Djokovic isnt playing the same game now that McEnroe played 30 years ago. Neither is Federer or Nadal, but theyre a bit closer to the past. If you want to compare players, you would want to conpare them to players of the past, yes? But how do you do that when the game is completely different now? Most of todays players shouldnt be compared to those of the past. But even then, Djokovic especially should not. He shoyld probably only ve conpared to Nadal and Federer, but with that we get away from the discussion of "best".

And thats a whole other story from whether the BOAT discussion is even a discussion worthy of merit or not.

Also keep calling me dumb Djokovic fans. I'm sure I'll believe it some day. :rolleyes:
 
Enga, nothing to elaborate ... you keep digging yourself even a deeper hole. I didn't call you dumb btw, your post is simply childish ... you do have some comprehensions issues and you don't make any sense. If you don't understand it, it's too bad ... there is no point to explain anything to you.
 
Enga, nothing to elaborate ... you keep digging yourself even a deeper hole. I didn't call you dumb btw, your post is simply childish ... you do have some comprehensions issues and you don't make any sense. If you don't understand it, it's too bad ... there is no point to explain anything to you.
Alrighty then. Good talk.
 
Top