Jaitock1991
Hall of Fame
Man! The Fedal decline is creating some serious panic and desperation in the industry.
"Novak Djokovic is the greatest tennis player in history" by Simon Barnes (ESPN)
- Thread starter ABCD
- Start date
smoledman
G.O.A.T.
Right after this article, Fed beat Djokovic. Barnes is an idiot.
He is not the only one. There are more and more idiots like him creeping out. Djokovic seems to be the only top player declining an opportunity to earn easy money (IPTL) indicating that he means business in 2016. What all these idiots will write when Djokovic get more majors, more No1 weeks, more masters and wtfs I can't even imagine.
Last edited:
bjsnider
Hall of Fame
The article isn't just a mini bio of Djokovic, it's also a meditation on the longterm change and progress of tennis at large. Djokovic is currently defining tennis excellence, but someone will surpass him, and that player will be the greatest, for a while.
Barnes may not be responsible for using the word "greatest" in the title. I would think ESPN has clickbait experts coming up with article titles. I think "best" is truer to his intent.
Barnes may not be responsible for using the word "greatest" in the title. I would think ESPN has clickbait experts coming up with article titles. I think "best" is truer to his intent.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Yeah a weaponless pusher who needs fake multiple MTOs in Wimbledon 2014 final against grandfather Fed is the GOAT...sure.
I am a Fed fan first and foremost but I really hope Nadal comes back to even 80% of his best. All this bollocks Djokovic is GOAT talk will end in no time. 80% Nadal wipes the floor with any version of Djokovic...anywhere....except at AO where it goes 6 hours and Nadal takes it if not for a missed sitter
Djokovic just has insane flexibility and incredible stamina. He is neither the pure artistic genius that Roger is nor the insane back-to-the-wall warrior spartan Nadal is. Even in the USO 2011 Federer match, DJokovic had GIVEN UP only for Federer to pathetically choke. Nadal pre-2015 would fight his backside off whether he was MP down or 6-0 up.
Weaponless pusher??...WTF??.
...LOL....One who reduced Federer to size two years in a row on his best surface after Federer had destroyed his competition. Save the age excuses for someone who cares. Once you get to a GS Final, all bets are off. He got dealt with just like he dealt with 34 and 35 year old Agassi. You obviously have no idea about Djokovic's game if you think he doesn't have weapons. He has too many weapons which is why he is the best right now. There is no weakness and nothing to exploit which is why Nadal struggles against him and not Federer. Even if Nadal gets back to 80% of his best, Djokovic would still have the edge at this point in their rivalry.From the baseline, he can hit any shot Federer can hit and then some. Nadal has power but anytime he plays Djokovic he is not the aggressor and Djokovic always has more winners. Both Nadal and Djokovic made the game about will and fitness and both are great shotmakers. You can say I don't like his style but you can't say he isn't a brilliant shotmaker.
In nearly 50 years since the Open Era began in 1968, only 5 men have gotten 10 or more Slams and you think Djokovic will be forgotten or not still in the top 10? Good luck with that. So much bias is clouding your judgement. Djokovic is not the GOAT and I'm not really sure if a GOAT exists, but he is sure as hell has an opportunity to garner more records. Fedal fans are so threatened and salty and it's almost amusing. You sound like whiny kids who didn't get their way.
xFedal
Legend
Hey Nole has dominated Rafa like no one has before.Yeah a weaponless pusher who needs fake multiple MTOs in Wimbledon 2014 final against grandfather Fed is the GOAT...sure.
I am a Fed fan first and foremost but I really hope Nadal comes back to even 80% of his best. All this bollocks Djokovic is GOAT talk will end in no time. 80% Nadal wipes the floor with any version of Djokovic...anywhere....except at AO where it goes 6 hours and Nadal takes it if not for a missed sitter
Djokovic just has insane flexibility and incredible stamina. He is neither the pure artistic genius that Roger is nor the insane back-to-the-wall warrior spartan Nadal is. Even in the USO 2011 Federer match, DJokovic had GIVEN UP only for Federer to pathetically choke. Nadal pre-2015 would fight his backside off whether he was MP down or 6-0 up.
I think I may not have explained myself as well as I would have liked to.
Djokovic is a brilliant shotmaker. The kinds of shots I am talking about are half volley 1-2 winners that Federer is arguably the best at in the history of the game. He also comes up with these seemingly impossible touch shots. The ones where you see Djokovic, Murray and Nadal look to the sky and say "are you kidding me?"
Not even going to get in to the net aspect of the game and how people vastly over rate the players of the past who dealt with almost no spin and way less pace than the absolute monster shots the players today deal with. The trajectory is way more complicated to analyze because of the spin as well on half volleys.
Djokovic is a brilliant shotmaker. The kinds of shots I am talking about are half volley 1-2 winners that Federer is arguably the best at in the history of the game. He also comes up with these seemingly impossible touch shots. The ones where you see Djokovic, Murray and Nadal look to the sky and say "are you kidding me?"
Not even going to get in to the net aspect of the game and how people vastly over rate the players of the past who dealt with almost no spin and way less pace than the absolute monster shots the players today deal with. The trajectory is way more complicated to analyze because of the spin as well on half volleys.
metsman
Talk Tennis Guru
Weaponless pusher??...WTF??.
From the baseline, he can hit any shot Federer can hit and then some. Nadal has power but anytime he plays Djokovic he is not the aggressor and Djokovic always has more winners. Both Nadal and Djokovic made the game about will and fitness and both are great shotmakers. You can say I don't like his style but you can't say he isn't a brilliant shotmaker.
In nearly 50 years since the Open Era began in 1968, only 5 men have gotten 10 or more Slams and you think Djokovic will be forgotten or not still in the top 10? Good luck with that. So much bias is clouding your judgement. Djokovic is not the GOAT and I'm not really sure if a GOAT exists, but he is sure as hell has an opportunity to garner more records. Fedal fans are so threatened and salty and it's almost amusing. You sound like whiny kids who didn't get their way.
fed at his peak hit multiple shots a match that Novak could only dream of. One handed backhand flicks, carved up droppers and drop volleys, deep wrong footing volleys, not even mentioning the forehand. Djokovic throws up lobs on shots Nadal and Federer would pass you on routinely.
Only way Djokovic is a brilliant shotmaker because the game today has been diluted down so far that shotmaking doesn't matter. Things that would have been routine winners 10 years ago are now "shotmaking". Call him the best grinder ever, the most consistent ever, both are well deserved but don't insult generations of players by calling him a shotmaker that can hit any shot from the baseline.
I can't believe that you are serous although you could be as it is not easy to state something so ridiculous knowing how ridiculous is. Djokovic's matches are very attractive to watch and are routinely amongst top matches of the season. There is not a single match with him without brilliant shot-making. Even here on TTW polls his matches are usually at the top for the match of the season.
talicnitom
Rookie
Borg has one more GS than No1e but he is to far behind in other staff like YE#1 (-2), WTF (-3), masters (-9), ITF champ titles (-2) and weeks as no1 (-71).
Last edited:
xFedal
Legend
Will winning a 6th AO take him to tier 1 in your opinion.
Thats why some people have trouble putting Borg over Nole.
xFedal
Legend
Amateur slams don't count.
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
See, this is the problem with reading things partially. And not understanding where I'm coming from. Let me inform you, then. First of all, as many people already know (some of which are Djokovic fans), I tend to criticize all the current top players (and sometimes compliment them, but on rare occasions) because I don't feel any kind of special affinity with Nadal, Murray, Djokovic or Federer. You will not find any bias on my part when it comes to these four players, so we can immediately exclude your attempt at projecting your own bias (favorable to Djokovic, in your case) on me, because I don't represent any kind of bias - I'm indifferent to all of them.
Second, I think you either misread or partially skimmed through my post without actually processing the ideas contained in it. I was saying that if Djokovic is going to be remembered for anything - and I'm sure he will be remembered in the future (please don't put words in my mouth) - it's for his achievements (exactly what you said: his titles, his resumé) and not for his level of play, which is what the poster I quoted was talking about. He was trying to hype Djokovic as the greatest player ever based on the assumption that players are getting better with time, which would make Djokovic the greatest ever so far. I explained that it's not a very good way of thinking about Djokovic's legacy, because if that very same principle is applied to future players, then Djokovic will no doubt be overtaken - as he has overtaken those in the past - by every top player in the future, who will necessarily be better than the Serb (I was just following the other poster's reasoning). It is therefore better to think of him as someone who has had relative success in the game (though not as much as a few others) than as someone who is "playing the greatest level of all time" (if such a thing can be proved).
Please think before posting, unless you want to be thought of as a "whiny kid who didn't get their way".
Last edited:
user
Professional
Says who? Even so, second CYGS was open era.
But athletes in track and field aren't better - well not by much. The men's mile record hasn't been bettered in 16 years. The marathon record has only been improved by less than 5% in 47 years! Ed Moses in the 1980's 400 metre record has only been beaten 1 time since then. The amount of improvement of athletes is always assumed but the facts don't back it up at all.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Borg is on par with Sampras and Rafa. Long way ahead for Shokovich.
talicnitom
Rookie
xFedal
Legend
Yes the CYGS COUNTS otherwise bugde would be greater than Fed cos he has amateur slam as well.
xFedal
Legend
Borg lags behind in YE, WTF, Masters. Novak is more consistent and dominant.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
No one cares about Masters.
Borg won 6 FO. Novak has not won even 1.
Borg's time AO was not even a major. So, Borg's equivalent in today's terms is 14 or 15 majors.
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
But Borg has 0 USOs. And If we throw out the AO and replace it with the next most highly regarded tournament in his time (YEC) he's still only at 13
Djoker also has a pretty substantial lead in weeks at #1 (109 vs 175 and counting) and YE #1 (2 vs 4).
If Djokovic wins two more majors I'll say he's on par with Borg achievements-wise. If one of them is an RG I'll put him slightly ahead.
Last edited:
Garhi Shot First
Hall of Fame
I got the same sense, although the author used some terminology to complicate his underlying stance. One of the big problems I have with this, and many sports articles like it in general, is the perception of talent as static. I think it's central to his theme, but it's a problematic notion. When he writes about Djokovic certainly beating the great players of former generations, he's transferring them as static talents in a vacuum rather than allowing them the full potential of playing and existing in this time period. Same if the greats of this era were transferred back in time to the previous one: this kind of argument presumes that Djokovic, et al., could take all of their present-day tools and conditions with them. People end up arguing, essentially, that newer players are necessarily better because knowledge, conditioning, and technology continue to improve OR that older players would necessarily kick this generation's ass if they had the luxury of modern day technology and that the new generation wouldn't be able to handle the rougher conditions of before. This used to bug me about how Joe Montana (US football) was written about vs the older guard like Johnny Unitas, even though I was a fan of Montana's. How can we know? We don't know how different generations would play with the tools and conditions of other generations, especially when their active periods haven't overlapped at all. This makes it an exercise in failure, at least to me, to try to define a single "greatest ever" player to represent tennis excellence. It's interesting to imagine those rivalries that never existed, but it defies absolute conclusions. I think it's more relevant to look at the greatest players of a generation (however loosely or strictly defined) and the pool of ATGs that those players will form, rather than to dismiss generations wholesale. I think that's what the author was getting at, but he fell into a few of the usual sports-writing traps along the way.
user
Professional
Laver's career is a special case, because his achievements are split between amateur and open era + he was banned from GS for 5 years. It's not fair to Laver to ignore that, and only count 5 Slams he won when he already was 30+.
I totally understand where Simon is coming from. It is the moment when you watch, shake your head and say to yourself "I can't believe that he is playing like that". It could be with anybody in any era, but for me that is with Djokovic. I didn't think like that when I watched Borg, Connors, Lendl, Sampras or Federer. I am in tennis from 1973, but only with Djokovic I had "I can't believe he is playing like that" and with Nadal 5th set 2013FOSF.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
You can put Novak wherever you want. No sane person will place Novak above Borg till he gets about 14 majors.
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
Is McEnroe insane? He was putting Novak above Borg after his Wimbledon win
I bet most sane people will place him above Borg at 12 majors with one RG. This obviously excludes bitter Novak haters like yourself.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
Do you want an honest answer? The truth is that McEnroe says outlandish BS all the time because it gets his name in the press. I agree with your second sentence, but if McEnroe was putting Novak over Borg when it was 11 majors to 9 then he's obviously wrong.
duaneeo
Legend
The article claims that Djokovic "rose to the top in an era dominated by the rivalry between Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer." Actually, by the time Nole rose to the top in 2011, the true era of the Federer/Nadal rivalry was pretty much over. The article also states that "his ascent was their decline". Well, one can say that their decline was his ascent. Only when Nadal (arguably) and Federer (without question) were no longer playing at their peak was Djokovic able to rise to the top. "The king is dead. Long live the new king" Djokovic's mom arrogantly claimed after his 08 Australian Open SF win over Federer. It was a statement 3 years early, and during which time Nadal became the new king.
bjsnider
Hall of Fame
The writer doesn't try to speculate about how good Nastase would be given today's training methods and equipment and so on, because it's impossible to say. The article is an observation on how tennis changes over time. Don't you think there's a least some implied sympathy for older generations in his arguments and observations? It may not be fair that we can only judge him by the player he was, which was the result of the times when he grew up, but it's at least accurate.
BlueB
Legend
Once Nole gets his 11th, it's buy buy Borg. He's already better in many aspects, so at 11 the discussion ends.
Also, I think that article author was making a point of Djok being the most efficient player ever, not the greatest. He might get the too, though.
talicnitom
Rookie
For me everything counts and not just stats that favor No1es opponent. When we talk about best seasons - points, big titles, h2h with main rivals, succes on all surfaces, top10 wins etc are not important but the only important thing is W/L record. But when we talk about Rafa-No1e-Fed rivalry all that counts are slams and CGS (all surfaces) … and when we compare No1e with Borg - YE#1, OZI, WTF, masters, ITF titles, weeks as no1 are nonsense but RG and W are all that matter..
For me all counts, OZI just like others slams, WTF, masters, YE#1, ITF titles, weeks, top10 meetings, h2h … everything!
For me No1e has already better numbers than Borg and if he win two more slams and Rafa doesn’t win any, No1e will become greater player. Yes I know, Rafa will still has 2 more slams (and CGS if none of No1es additionally slams is RG but No1e maybe take another YE#1) but No1e will be better in YE#1, weeks as no1, WTF and ITF titles top10 wins etc.
For me all counts, OZI just like others slams, WTF, masters, YE#1, ITF titles, weeks, top10 meetings, h2h … everything!
For me No1e has already better numbers than Borg and if he win two more slams and Rafa doesn’t win any, No1e will become greater player. Yes I know, Rafa will still has 2 more slams (and CGS if none of No1es additionally slams is RG but No1e maybe take another YE#1) but No1e will be better in YE#1, weeks as no1, WTF and ITF titles top10 wins etc.
Based on your statement "Djokovic has had relative success in the game (though not as much as a few others)" I think I can figure out your identity. How good you must be in what you do when Djokovic earning >20M this year and ~100M by 28 has had (only) relative success? You have to be either 1) Bill Gates, 2) Vladimir Putin, 3) Carlos Slim, 4) Warren Buffett or 5) Amancio Ortega.
Krish872007
Talk Tennis Guru
I would definitely put Novak above Borg if he wins an 11th (more like "when" actually, but you can never be too sure of yourself) - especially if it happens to be the French.
Fedalforever
Semi-Pro
yep 4-9 HTH clearly shows that including 1 win vs 2015dal lol.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
LMAO...You are out of your mind. One more major and he passes Borg. He is already too far ahead in every other aspect.
Fedalforever
Semi-Pro
Borg's era cared bugger all about AO...so their slam totals are actually 11-5 in favour of Borg actually. Big difference.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
And you're not?
Fedalforever
Semi-Pro
And you're not?
Bit rich from someone who claims Hewitt was more talented than Borg lol
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Never said that, Gary6.
xFedal
Legend
13-10 h2h/
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
In what world? It's not Novak's fault that Borg didn't care enough about AO to make the trip. You can't take away Novak's Slams because Borg has no AO's. He also has no UO's either and he never missed that tournament. Slams are Slams and once Novak gets to 11, he will pass Borg.
Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil
Talk Tennis Guru
And Nadal's 5 wins vs pre-2011 Djokovic are much better.
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
Do you know what the word relative means?
I was right and he (the other poster) was clearly wrong in that argument. You're talking about something that's completely unrelated. Don't let your vexation get the best of you.
fundrazer
G.O.A.T.
Wasn't this article already posted here? And like the other poster said, right after this was put out, Fed beat Novak in the round robin of the year end finals. Made me lol.
Also think it's too early making claims such as Novak being a better player than Borg. Achievements might be, but Borg's consistency at French Open and Wimbledon is pretty special.
Also think it's too early making claims such as Novak being a better player than Borg. Achievements might be, but Borg's consistency at French Open and Wimbledon is pretty special.
Similar threads
