Mats Wilander: ''Djokovic is better than Nadal and Federer''

[irishnadalfan1983]

So what are you saying? That Nole should take time off from the tour whenever Nadal gets injured to make it more of a level playing field???

Not at all - that is Rafa's business and Djoko can only beat what is in front of him.

Tis very simple what I am saying and I think I've made that clear - "I am just saying Djoko has only really been a better player than Rafa over a year shall we say in 1 year - 2011"

 

[Sirius Black]

Wimbledon
AO
USO
WTFs

Get this crap out of here. The French Open is more important than the World Tour Finals.

 

[Sirius Black]

I knew I'd leave you feeling exasperated eventually. :wink:

You again fail to answer a simple question. Your top four tournaments, please.

 

[okdude1992]

Rod Laver is the best player of the last 48 years overall

:shock: Fuarrrrk Rod Laver is Sick! 48 years huh?? Best player even when not playing? :twisted:

 

[Djokovic2011]

Not at all - that is Rafa's business and Djoko can only beat what is in front of him.

Tis very simple what I am saying and I think I've made that clear - "I am just saying Djoko has only really been a better player than Rafa over a year shall we say in 1 year - 2011"

And 2014. There may even be other years where Nole leads the H2H but I'd need to check that.

 

[Djokovic2011]

You again fail to answer a simple question. Your top four tournaments, please.

I would say the AO, RG, Wimbledon and USO.

 

[Sirius Black]

I would say the AO, RG, Wimbledon and USO.

Good, so you agree that slams won is the most important metric in determining domination/greatness.

 

[Sirius Black]

Rod Laver is the best player of the last 48 years overall

I think you've just settled the goat debate.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Good, so you agree that slams won is the most important metric in determining domination/greatness.

Yes, but by no means the only metric that's worth considering.

 

[RF-18]

Good, so you agree that slams won is the most important metric in determining domination/greatness.

It's truly funny, keep it up.

Yes slams, are ONE of the determining factors, but Weeks at number one is atleast as important, also year end number ones to determine greatness/domination.

 

[irishnadalfan1983]

And 2014. There may even be other years where Nole leads the H2H but I'd need to check that.

I am not talking only about H2H.

Rafa was out most of 2014 or at least injured for a good part shall we say - hence I am saying he wasn't a better player as Rafa wasn't even around like 2012.

He was better overall in 2011 and that's it.

Sure even in 2012 he had a winning H2H....However I am talking about a whole year and not just H2H.

 

[Sirius Black]

It's truly funny, keep it up.

Yes slams, are ONE of the determining factors, but Weeks at number one is atleast as important, also year end number ones to determine greatness/domination.

Weeks at number one I understand. I just wanted Djokovic2011 to acknowledge that slams are, in fact, the most important, contrary to the crap he's been spewing forever about Djokovic having a better year than Nadal in 2013.

Year end number ones are a different issue. I don't see why their so important in the sense that the rankings system doesn't start in January and end in November. Someone could become number one for a short time at the end of the season and walk away with year end number one.

 

[Djokovic2011]

I am not talking only about H2H.

Rafa was out most of 2014 or at least injured for a good part shall we say - hence I am saying he wasn't a better player as Rafa wasn't even around like 2012.

He was better overall in 2011 and that's it.

Sure even in 2012 he had a winning H2H....However I am talking about a whole year and not just H2H.

Lol, Djokovic was better than Nadal those years. You can't say he wasn't just because Nadal failed to stay healthy and play the whole season, that's just whack.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Weeks at number one I understand. I just wanted Djokovic2011 to acknowledge that slams are, in fact, the most important, contrary to the crap he's been spewing forever about Djokovic having a better year than Nadal in 2013.

You just made up a blatant lie as I never once said that Nole had a better 2013 than Nadal, not in this thread or anywhere. Grrrrr, I hate it when people do that. :evil:

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Federer's "decline" coincides with when he wasn't facing Roddick/Hewitt/Safin despite putting up better season stats in 2012 than 2008. What a "coincidence."

2008 was an anomalous year, as was 2012.
But you know that.

2011 = Nadal didn't beat Novak at all
2012 and 2014 = Nadal only beat Novak on clay
2015 = remains to be seen

So we conveniently forget 2013 and only mention the years that favour Novak?
Okay.

Since Novak hit his best form, only in 2013 did Nadal beat Novak consistently and even then Novak still beat Nadal in two hard court finals.

This is true, but Nadal has clearly declined also.

Nadal is more clutch and has more fight (better intangibles)

Definitely.

but Djokovic is capable of producing a higher level of play

Maybe, and I am leaning toward agreeing with this too, of late.

I don't think there is much difference between Novak and Fed's peak level of play

My vote's with the guy who has bagelled Nadal on clay and Djokovic on HC.
And also won 11/16 slams in one stint.

and Agassi/Sampras/McEnroe and now Wilander say the same so its clearly a valid position.

:lol:, especially at anything said by Mac or Mats being "valid".

I also never understood this logic that Fed could challenge Novak on Plexi when he has won ZERO sets against him on that surface, but Novak can't challenge Fed on Grass when its 1-1 in Wimbledon and only 5-4 sets to Fed.

Means very little.
2008 had exigent circumstances, 2011 was absolute best Novak ever vs. okay but still past-prime Fed (of course Novak is good enough to win in such circumstances), and both Wimbledon matches were well past Fed's prime.

And before people get on about this "declined" garbage. Fed's games won % at Wimbledon 2012 were above 03, 05, 07, 08, and 09 and only surpassed by 04 and 06 and he had a better W/UE ratio (even removing all service winners) in the 2014 match than he did in either of the 07 or 08 Wimbledon finals.

Those numbers don't mean much either.
I could easily say it's just because we're currently in a weak era and Fed's opponents used to be harder, and you would not be able to disprove that.
He has declined enormously since 2007, and it is incredibly obvious, so you should deal with it.

All that said, Novak has the 3rd-4th best level of play in the Open Era IMO, which isn't bad.

 

[Sirius Black]

You just made up a blatant lie as I never once said that Nole had a better 2013 than Nadal, not in this thread or anywhere. Grrrrr, I hate it when people do that. :evil:

You voted for it in a previous thread, probably months ago. Chico and you were the only ones.

 

[mike danny]

Weeks at number one I understand. I just wanted Djokovic2011 to acknowledge that slams are, in fact, the most important, contrary to the crap he's been spewing forever about Djokovic having a better year than Nadal in 2013.

Year end number ones are a different issue. I don't see why their so important in the sense that the rankings system doesn't start in January and end in November. Someone could become number one for a short time at the end of the season and walk away with year end number one.

Exactly. Somebody could be no.1 for the entire period of january- october, but he loses that ranking somehow and another guy gets it and ends the year no.1, despite keeping that position for only 2 weeks vs 40 weeks of the other player.

Weeks at number 1 is the best indicator of dominance. While Pete Sampras has 6 YE no.1's, he wasn't ranked no.1 for 6 years without pause and thus he has 285 weeks while Fed has 302 weeks despite having 1 less YE no.1. So Fed was more dominant than Pete overall

 

[irishnadalfan1983]

Lol, Djokovic was better than Nadal those years. You can't say he wasn't just because Nadal failed to stay healthy and play the whole season, that's just whack.

Yes Djoko was a much better player than Nadal at last years US Open, WTF, etc. and I thought he was a much better player than Nadal in late 2012.

The way he played compared to Nadal in the tournaments Nadal did not play was amazing. I'd imagine he went home after each tournament thinking 'I played much better than Rafa there even though Rafa wasn't here'.

Now that is whack - LOL.

Good night

 

[Djokovic2011]

You voted for it in a previous thread, probably months ago. Chico and you were the only ones.

And then said later that I was wrong to do so. Anyway you intimated that I'd said such a thing in this very thread. Poor form man.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Yes Djoko was a much better player than Nadal at last years US Open, WTF, etc. and I thought he was a much better player than Nadal in late 2012.

The way he played compared to Nadal in the tournaments Nadal did not play was amazing. I'd imagine he went home after each tournament thinking 'I played much better than Rafa there even Rafa wasn't here'.

Now that is whack - LOL.

Good night

Mmm, you've basically just agreed with me so I've no idea why you went to so much trouble writing that post! :?

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Not at all.

I am just saying Djoko has only really been a better player than Rafa over a year shall we say in 1 year - 2011.

He was not a better player in 2012 and 2014 as Rafa was not around. He wasn't a better player than Rafa at the US Open 2014 for example as Rafa was NOT there, etc. Obviously that is Rafa's fault and Djoko can only beat what is in front of him.

Fair enough if he leads the H2H in 2014 - I am not disputing that at all!

Have to disagree here.
That is not Djokovic's fault.
Being absent may as well be a 1R loss as far as I'm concerned.
Even if Nadal was legitimately injured (as I believe he was), Djokovic was still better than him by virtue of, well, not being injured and winning those titles instead.

Djokovic was the superior player in 2012 and 2014 by a fair amount.
And 2011 obviously.

 

[Sirius Black]

And then said later that I was wrong to do so. Anyway you intimated that I'd said such a thing in this very thread. Poor form man.

Because by saying that Djokovic has been the best player for the past four years, you certainly imply that notion, correct?

 

[irishnadalfan1983]

Mmm, you've basically just agreed with me so I've no idea why you went to so much trouble writing that post! :?

Sarcasm - the Brits never quite get that

 

[Deleted member 688153]

You voted for it in a previous thread, probably months ago. Chico and you were the only ones.

It was just Chico.
DJ2011 did it by accident.

Only the true Chico would have done that.

 

[mike danny]

So in SpicyCurry's opinion Federer never declines. Others always get better. Roddick got better, Blake got better, Fish got better etc.

He just doesn't wan to admit that Djokovic never faced the best version of Federer once Nole peaked. Sure Fed played some amazing matches but not consistently. The Federer of the last 4 years was not the best version of Federer at all.

I would suggest him to watch Miami 2009 SF. If he thinks Fed was playing at peak level that match then he is delusional. He was downright terrible. Djokovic didn't have to do anything spectacular to win.

 

[Sysyphus]

And then said later that I was wrong to do so. Anyway you intimated that I'd said such a thing in this very thread. Poor form man.

He did no such thing. Poor form from you to accuse him of lying when you're the one to lie "as I never once said that Nole had a better 2013 than Nadal"...

Poor form man..

 

[irishnadalfan1983]

Have to disagree here.
That is not Djokovic's fault.
Being absent may as well be a 1R loss as far as I'm concerned.
Even if Nadal was legitimately injured (as I believe he was), Djokovic was still better than him by virtue of, well, not being injured and winning those titles instead.

Djokovic was the superior player in 2012 and 2014 by a fair amount.
And 2011 obviously.

I didn't say it was Djoko's fault - far from it - nothing to do with him at all really.

A 1R loss is hardly the same as a guy who just can't play. A 1R loss mean you are playing crap - Rafa just couldn't play.

 

[hoodjem]

We've seen it before: Borg in the late 70s, Mac in '84, Lendl in the later 80s, Fed for a few years.

World no. 1 who seemed above the rest of the field, just seemed impervious, unstoppable (and was . . . for a time).

 

[Deleted member 688153]

I didn't say it was Djoko's fault - far from it - nothing to do with him at all really.

A 1R loss is hardly the same as a guy who just can't play. A 1R loss mean you are playing crap - Rafa just couldn't play.

Not being able to play is even worse than losing in the 1R in my view.

Not Rafa's fault obviously (he was injured), but it's still what happened.

 

[AngieB]

Given #NovakDjokovic's #grandslam #tournament totals will #always #pale in #comparison to #RogerFederer, #RafaelNadal, #PeteSampras, #BjornBorg and #RoyEmerson (#All-TimeMensAO Singles Champion), it's probably a good idea to just let #Novak's #vociferous fans have their #4YearPeriodOfGlory.

#PTL #JC4Ever

AngieB​

 

[Djokovic2011]

Because by saying that Djokovic has been the best player for the past four years, you certainly imply that notion, correct?

Nothing wrong at all with what I said, the facts back me up. I never said Djokovic has been the best player every week of the past 4 years, that would be incorrect.

 

[Djokovic2011]

He did no such thing. Poor form from you to accuse him of lying when you're the one to lie "as I never once said that Nole had a better 2013 than Nadal"...

Poor form man..

I never said it in this thread which he implied I did.

 

[irishnadalfan1983]

Not being able to play is even worse than losing in the 1R in my view.

Not Rafa's fault obviously (he was injured), but it's still what happened.

Ummmm.

I'll have to think about that one!!

 

[Sirius Black]

Nothing wrong at all with what I said, the facts back me up. I never said Djokovic has been the best player every week of the past 4 years, that would be incorrect.

No, but for 25 percent of the time, (maybe more if we factor in Federer's stint at number one), he was not.

25 percent is a lot greater than 1.9, no? Sysyphus, would you say that 25 percent would be statistically significant in research studies?

 

[Sysyphus]

I never said it in this thread which he implied I did.

He did not say any such thing, and it wouldn't really matter whether you said it here or in another thread. Once you've uttered an opinion then you should dare to stand for it.

Why is it hard to admit that you accused others of lying in an instance where you were the one lying?

 

[Sirius Black]

I never said it in this thread which he implied I did.

I said, and I quote, "the crap he's been spewing forever." Is "forever" confined to this thread only?

 

[Djokovic2011]

No, but for 25 percent of the time, (maybe more if we factor in Federer's stint at number one), he was not.

25 percent is a lot greater than 1.9, no? Sysyphus, would you say that 25 percent would be statistically significant in research studies?

75-80% seems pretty good to me. Certainly enough to declare that he's been the best overall.

 

[Sirius Black]

75-80% seems pretty good to me. Certainly enough to declare that he's been the best overall.

Where the hell do you get 80 percent? If anything it's under 75. And by this notion, you should amend your statement and say that for 3 of the past 4 years, Djokovic has been the best.

Again, saying that he's been the best since 2011 implies that he was the best in every single year since 2011.

 

[Djokovic2011]

He did not say any such thing, and it wouldn't really matter whether you said it here or in another thread. Once you've uttered an opinion then you should dare to stand for it.

Why is it hard to admit that you accused others of lying in an instance where you were the one lying?

I've already told you, because he implied that I lied in this thread.

 

[Sirius Black]

I've already told you, because he implied that I lied in this thread.

Please show me where I did this.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Where the hell do you get 80 percent? If anything it's under 75. And by this notion, you should amend your statement and say that for 3 of the past 4 years, Djokovic has been the best.

Again, saying that he's been the best since 2011 implies that he was the best in every single year since 2011.

Oh believe me I've learned my lesson after posting on this thread tonight. :shock: From now on I'll know to always add "overall" before posting any messages.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Please show me where I did this.

Post #412

10c

 

[Sirius Black]

Where did you get 80 percent? Where did I lie in that post? Again, is "forever" confined to only this thread? Please answer all questions asked of you.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

No way would a player like Wawa win a slam in 2007, get real. Davydenko couldn't win a slam back then despite being a better player than Wawa, for example. Back then it was the GOAT and peak Nadal on clay winning the slams. The clowns wouldn't have a chance to win a slam in 2007.

Wawrinka would be more likely to beat 2007 Federer when compared to Cilic. That's all I'm saying.

People using Cilic in a comparison says more about how little depth their era has. He's equal to a Costa or a Gaudio. He's a true weak slam winner.

And lmao at the era being stronger today.. 2014 was probably the weakest year since 2006. Peak Federer would mop up the slams if he was playing today.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Oh believe me I've learned my lesson after posting on this thread tonight. :shock: From now on I'll know to always add "overall" before posting any messages.

Like what? That Federer and Nadal are better than Djokovic? That Hewitt is better than Ferrer? Get used to it, they're facts.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Mats is trolling... YES, currently Djokovic is better than both Nadal and Federer. But it's not a coincidence that his prominence coincides with Fedal's decline. I don't know how you can argue that at their respective best, Djokovic is better than either Fed or Nadal. Fed at 33 STILL gives Djokovic trouble, same with Nadal. So use your head, and imagine if both Fed and Nadal were in their primes, how well they'd match up against Djokovic- it isn't that hard.

No disrespect to Djokovic, he is an all time great in my eyes, but I think we suffer from a bit of revisionist thinking/"what have you done for me lately" thinking. Federer has been declining for more than 5 years, Nadal hasn't really been the same since 2012/2013... It's easy to look at 2011 and Djokovic's recent successes and say that he's better blah blah blah, but looking at the last 10 years, paints a COMPLETELY different story.

Exactly. If we look at the last 10 years, Nadal and Federer will have won the most. Djokovic is still lagging behind at 8 slams.

This would be like if Agassi fans tried arguing he was better than Pete.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Like what? That Federer and Nadal are better than Djokovic? That Hewitt is better than Ferrer? Get used to it, they're facts.

"Like what"? Like what I wrote in the rest of that post. And at least Nole is closer to Fedal than your clapped out hero will ever be to him. :lol:

 

[Sirius Black]

"Like what"? Like what I wrote in the rest of that post. And at least Nole is closer to Fedal than your clapped out hero will ever be to him. :lol:

Djokovic needs 9 more slams to reach Federer. Hewitt needs 7 more to reach Djokovic. This is stupid.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

"Like what"? Like what I wrote in the rest of that post. And at least Nole is closer to Fedal than your clapped out hero will ever be to him. :lol:

Doesn't matter. What I said is a fact.

And Agassi was closer to Sampras than Djokovic is in comparison to Federer and Nadal, basically meaning Agassi was a stronger rival than Djokovic to his competition. Yet another fact.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Djokovic needs 9 more slams to reach Federer. Hewitt needs 7 more to reach Djokovic. This is stupid.

I'm not just talking about the slams though.