"Novak Djokovic is the greatest tennis player in history" by Simon Barnes (ESPN)

[tennisaddict]

Novak is a great at step child major AO, shunned by past players.

Borg won 6 FO and 5 Wimb which were the tournaments players lived for.

If Cinci is made a major 10 years down the line and some joker wins it 5 times that would not make it comparable to what past players achieved

 

[BlueB]

Cincinnati is already a major in the eyes of deluded Fed fanatics. ..

As much as Borg was my favorite player at the time, I always felt he was a sore looser and quitter, who couldn't stand loosing to one of the greatest junk ballers of all time. It's his problem he quit young and didn't play what was available.
Look at Fed, the real warrior. He got spanked over and over by his one nemesis, and later 2, yet he never even thought of quitting. That's how you became immortal, not by "oh I'm too cool for the school, I might as well quit st 26..."

 

[moonballs]

My English is not good and I always check and change a little what I write. And I changed to a few games, before you gays react and that you can see, when your post alert and when I made a last edit. Thad not change the fact that a many from tennis elite (players, coaches, analytics) think that No1e plays a better tennis than anyone did before.

Those experts probably said the same thing about other players too. I know McEnroe did.

 

[THE FIGHTER]

No it's not if you compare rivals and players who were in those finals.
It's like Novak running with hurdles

while Roger was running without it

2004-2006 Federer would straight set 2013-2015 Federer.
2008-2010 Nadal would straight set 2014-2015 Nadal.

Djokovic is coasting because the top of the game is wide open and the top ten has declined and has no one new. His biggest hurdles for the last couple years a Federer without his ground game, Nadal without his anything, and murray without his back.

 

[NoleFam]

Novak is a great at step child major AO, shunned by past players.

Borg won 6 FO and 5 Wimb which were the tournaments players lived for.

If Cinci is made a major 10 years down the line and some joker wins it 5 times that would not make it comparable to what past players achieved

Who lived for it? It didn't really seem important to McEnroe and Connors and they skipped it many times. 6 and 9 times respectively in their careers while neither one of them missed a US Open, and neither did Borg for that matter. If you really want to be technical, during that time, Wimbledon and the US Open were the most important tournaments and the French was not. None of that matters now since all 4 Grand Slams hold equal weight and players hold them in the same regard. Fact of the matter is, Djokovic will pass Borg once he hits 11 and that's that.

 

[6august]

AO is the only place witnesses both Fed and Nad´s tears when they loses.

Wake up, men.

 

[tennisfan2015]

Cincinnati is already a major in the eyes of deluded Fed fanatics. ..

Lol
Perhaps GS should switch from time to time so I guess it would be nice for Miami, Monte Carlo, Rome, and Montreal/Toronto to become GS for a couple of decades.

 

[frinton]

No need to. It goes without saying, Simon Barnes is an idiot.

Idiots don't read and have nothing to add into a discussion!

I can agree to the article to a certain extent! Djokovic has perfected his play to today's court conditions. I am not so sure he would blast all the former generations greats during their peaks on their "home turf" meaning to say much faster courts for a larger part of the season. Of course he would adapt...but I wonder how he would be doing on super fast courts compared to other players how had perfected their games to that.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

he can hit any shot Federer can hit and then some.

Be honest here - when did you start watching tennis?

It was 2011, wasn't it?

 

[MichaelNadal]

Be honest here - when did you start watching tennis?

It was 2011, wasn't it?

Stop feeding trolls

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Stop feeding trolls

I hate letting the delusion stand though.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Stop feeding trolls

 

[MichaelNadal]

^King

 

[ABCD]

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.

If your measuring stick is tennis under no circumstances his success can be called relative (as he is among top players ever in any tennis parameter measured; the same apply to Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Agassi, Lendl, Connors etc.; maybe someone ranked below 200 can be called relative successful). Thus, you had to use measuring stick beyond tennis, which made me think that you measured him in comparison to yourself so his success doesn't look anything special to you. This led me to believe that you must be incredible successful.

 

[NoleFam]

Be honest here - when did you start watching tennis?

It was 2011, wasn't it?

I've been watching tennis since 1992 so most likely years before you did. Name a shot form the baseline that Federer can hit that Djokovic can't.....You can't.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

If your measuring stick is tennis under no circumstances his success can be called relative (as he is among top players ever in any tennis parameter measured; the same apply to Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Agassi, Lendl, Connors etc.; maybe someone ranked below 200 can be called relative successful). Thus, you had to use measuring stick beyond tennis, which made me think that you measured him in comparison to yourself so his success doesn't look anything special to you. This led me to believe that you must be incredible successful.

In the context of the debate I was having with the other poster, I think it was perfectly comprehensible. You willingly misinterpreted, just like the previous poster did. Also, the measurement of success, in my view, is too subjective a theme to merit any discussion (i.e., it doesn't necessarily have to do with collecting capital or gaining power and influence, which seems to be your definition).

 

[NoleFam]

Stop feeding trolls

Dude you're the most deluded Rafa troll on here. LMAO. Well one of the top 3.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Dude you're the most deluded Rafa troll on here. LMAO. Well one of the top 3.

Mmhmm.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

I've been watching tennis since 1992 so most likely years before you did.

Got me there, I was born in 1996 lol (19).
Yet I still don't think Djokovic represents all of tennis history as many folks much older than me seem to...

Name a shot form the baseline that Federer can hit that Djokovic can't.....You can't.

Here's twenty:

Make up whatever names for those that you like.

 

[NoleFam]

Got me there, I was born in 1996 lol (19).
Yet I still don't think Djokovic represents all of tennis history as many folks much older than me seem to...


Here's twenty:

Make up whatever names for those that you like.

1996 (19 ) and you're trying to give me lessons about tennis? LMAO. Dude, I've watched many legends play the game since I was a kid. I've seen some of the best. Sampras, Becker, Edberg, Courier, Agassi, Wilander, Bruguera, etc. You've only see a few players from this generation. Federer has a one-handed backhand and I mean top spin shots from the baseline. Not craft slices, volleys and such since Djokovic has a two-handed backhand and is not as good as a volleyer. Djokovic doesn't represent all of tennis history but he is at the top of the ladder for me as far as baseliners go. He is amazing and very rare because he doesn't have a weakness.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

1996 (19 ) and you're trying to give me lessons about tennis? LMAO. Dude, I've watched many legends play the game since I was a kid. I've seen some of the best. Sampras, Becker, Edberg, Courier, Agassi, Wilander, Bruguera, etc. You've only see a few players from this generation. Federer has a one-handed backhand and I mean top spin shots from the baseline. Not craft slices and such since Djokovic has a two-handed backhand. Djokovic doesn't represent all of tennis history but he is at the top of the ladder for me as far as baseliners go. He is amazing and very rare because he doesn't have a weakness.

 

[borg number one]

Marketing...

 

[Deleted member 688153]

1996 (19 ) and you're trying to give me lessons about tennis? LMAO. Dude, I've watched many legends play the game since I was a kid. I've seen some of the best. Sampras, Becker, Edberg, Courier, Agassi, Wilander, Bruguera, etc. You've only see a few players from this generation. Federer has a one-handed backhand and I mean top spin shots from the baseline. Not craft slices, volleys and such since Djokovic has a two-handed backhand and is not as good as a volleyer. Djokovic doesn't represent all of tennis history but he is at the top of the ladder for me as far as baseliners go. He is amazing and very rare because he doesn't have a weakness.

You're lucky to have seen all those players.
We do have YouTube though.

Several of those shots were topspin baseline shots too.

Novak is amazing for sure, I'm just saying we shouldn't go overboard.
He's getting on towards Tier 1 now I think, but I can't look past the sheer skill of many players from the 80's, 90's, and 00's.

Agree to disagree I guess.

 

[ABCD]

In the context of the debate I was having with the other poster, I think it was perfectly comprehensible. You willingly misinterpreted, just like the previous poster did. Also, the measurement of success, in my view, is too subjective a theme to merit any discussion (i.e., it doesn't necessarily have to do with collecting capital or gaining power and influence, which seems to be your definition).

For measuring success everyone has his/her own stick including Simon. If you think that the measurement of success should not be discussed, then just don't.

 

[NoleFam]

You're lucky to have seen all those players.
We do have YouTube though.

Several of those shots were topspin baseline shots too.

Novak is amazing for sure, I'm just saying we shouldn't go overboard.
He's getting on towards Tier 1 now I think, but I can't look past the sheer skill of many players from the 80's, 90's, and 00's.

Agree to disagree I guess.

Yea Youtube is great and at least you can see something from that generation. Yea I'm pretty lucky that I got to see Sampras and Becker play in a Wimbledon Final or Bruguera in a French Final. Yea he's already pretty much Tier 1 and I don't rank him beyond where I feel he deserves, but he's earned his place among the best.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

For measuring success everyone has his/her own stick including Simon. If you think that the measurement of success should not be discussed, then just don't.

Nope. You made a point out of nowhere about something you thought I said and didn't say. That's all.

 

[jm1980]

Novak is a great at step child major AO, shunned by past players.

Borg won 6 FO and 5 Wimb which were the tournaments players lived for.

If Cinci is made a major 10 years down the line and some joker wins it 5 times that would not make it comparable to what past players achieved

A number of players routinely skipped Wimbledon and an even larger number skipped the FO. The US Open was (and still is) a more prestigious Slam than the FO, unless you're a Nadal fan.

Nobody skips to the AO nowadays. And where was the Slam in which Fed broke down?

 

[TahoeTennis]

Wow, what courage and originality to post a thread about a tennis GOAT, so rare, edgy and new in these forums. Only 99.9% of all threads are like this. Cheers!

 

[Garhi Shot First]

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.

I agree with that. My argument would be that the very basis of it being impossible to say makes this sort of comparison or ranking system of ATGs a mostly futile effort. To veer off topic a bit: I might be looking at this from an anthropological standpoint, given my occupation; it's tempting to say that the more technologically advanced human civilizations get, the better they are, but that doesn't factor in a number of other variables and considerations. The main question is how successful is a given organism in its environment? And I won't ramble on about that, but I guess I look at the GOAT debate from that perspective. There are a lot of ATGs but identifying a single GOAT (even on a sliding scale) is impossible because everything changes, including us. Anyway, that's just my perspective.

 

[bjsnider]

I agree with that. My argument would be that the very basis of it being impossible to say makes this sort of comparison or ranking system of ATGs a mostly futile effort. To veer off topic a bit: I might be looking at this from an anthropological standpoint, given my occupation; it's tempting to say that the more technologically advanced human civilizations get, the better they are, but that doesn't factor in a number of other variables and considerations. The main question is how successful is a given organism in its environment? And I won't ramble on about that, but I guess I look at the GOAT debate from that perspective. There are a lot of ATGs but identifying a single GOAT (even on a sliding scale) is impossible because everything changes, including us. Anyway, that's just my perspective.

I don't think he tried to do that in the article, despite the inflammatory post title. I'm also unclear what you mean by "the better they are..." -- what does "better" mean in that context?

Let's set up the following thought experiment. 2015 Djokovic vs. Nastase in a series of 15 matches. Pick any surface you like. Any equipment you like. Any balls you like. The "Nastase" can be any time frame you like, in other words, it can be the best version of Nastase, when he was hitting the ball the best, winning the most matches, or whatever. The winner has to win at least 8 matches. Do you think Djokovic loses the series? I don't think Nastase is fit enough or fast enough, or that he hits hard enough to hang with Djokovic. Can you imagine what Djokovic would do to Nastase's serve? That's the only point the writer was making.

 

[Garhi Shot First]

I don't think he tried to do that in the article, despite the inflammatory post title. I'm also unclear what you mean by "the better they are..." -- what does "better" mean in that context?

Let's set up the following thought experiment. 2015 Djokovic vs. Nastase in a series of 15 matches. Pick any surface you like. Any equipment you like. Any balls you like. The "Nastase" can be any time frame you like, in other words, it can be the best version of Nastase, when he was hitting the ball the best, winning the most matches, or whatever. The winner has to win at least 8 matches. Do you think Djokovic loses the series? I don't think Nastase is fit enough or fast enough, or that he hits hard enough to hang with Djokovic. Can you imagine what Djokovic would do to Nastase's serve? That's the only point the writer was making.

I might be wrong, but I think that we're essentially arguing from the same point of view. How we define "better" is relative and contextual, and it's ultimately impossible to make any absolute statements across completely different eras.

In the experiment you set up, there are other factors not accounted for. Surface, equipment, and balls are the conditions in the moment itself but not surrounding the moment. You say that I can choose the best version of Nastase and let's say we also choose the best version of Djokovic. I think Djokovic would beat Nastase, given your conditions. But that's like saying, allowing both their best level of education and knowledge, Plato couldn't have kept up with Descartes, or Aristotle with Newton. The problem is treating them as static entities. These two manifestations are still grounded in their own time and space, their own training and experience. Would Nastase today forego modern training, diet, exercise and be no different than he was back then? Possibly, but we can't know it. Would Djokovic back then have the foresight to take modern care of himself and be no different than he is today? Possibly, but we can't know it. Of course, they aren't in each other's eras, but that's my point. We can't know these things; we can only make these comparisons by treating them as static game pieces to pick up and relocate in isolation, and that's not how the human experience operates. Context is crucial, not just in the moment itself but the context of becoming who you are in that moment. That's all I'm saying.

I understand that you are saying that we can only judge the data that actually exists, and I agree. But that data doesn't lend itself to being applied across eras. That's why I think the underlying argument in the original article is somewhat flawed; I think he was trying to define "greatness" as a necessarily progressive quality.

 

[veroniquem]

I don't understand why people need to come up with those dramatic statements while a player is still active. For sure, all of Nadal, Fed and Djoko will rank among the greatest players ever. In what order, we'll only know for sure once they all retire. Can't we just enjoy the ride instead of jumping to premature eulogies?

 

[Deleted member 688153]

I don't understand why people need to come up with those dramatic statements while a player is still active. For sure, all of Nadal, Fed and Djoko will rank among the greatest players ever. In what order, we'll only know for sure once they all retire. Can't we just enjoy the ride instead of jumping to premature eulogies?

Clickbait and trolling, of course!

 

[metsman]

I don't think he tried to do that in the article, despite the inflammatory post title. I'm also unclear what you mean by "the better they are..." -- what does "better" mean in that context?

Let's set up the following thought experiment. 2015 Djokovic vs. Nastase in a series of 15 matches. Pick any surface you like. Any equipment you like. Any balls you like. The "Nastase" can be any time frame you like, in other words, it can be the best version of Nastase, when he was hitting the ball the best, winning the most matches, or whatever. The winner has to win at least 8 matches. Do you think Djokovic loses the series? I don't think Nastase is fit enough or fast enough, or that he hits hard enough to hang with Djokovic. Can you imagine what Djokovic would do to Nastase's serve? That's the only point the writer was making.

That is absolutely irrelevant. The question is what Nastase would do if he was born in 1987 like Novak or had years to adapt to the modern game. It is all relative. Greatness is determined relative to your generation. You cannot compare levels of play across generation.

And are we so sure that if you give Djokovic a wooden racquet on lightning fast courts that he wins that series? Obviously Nastase would likewise lose on modern conditions with 100 sq inch frames but that is the whole point.

 

[metsman]

I haven't even read the article but if the gist is to compare Nastase vs Djokovic then it's absolute garbage clickbait built on a house of cards. No value to it. Only idiots think like that, but I'll give the writer the benefit of the doubt and say he's just stirring s.h.it up.

 

[mattosgrant]

According to this articles logic Berdych should be considered greater than Borg...

The scary thing is there are some johnny latelys who probably believe that. On another forum someone started a thread that Pierce was the best French female player ever saying "her groundstrokes would blow Lenglen off the court". Many agreed with this absurd logic too. A player who I believe holds the all time record for round of 16 losses in slams and is 2-4 in slam finals is greater than someone who lost 1 match in 7 years.

 

[NatF]

The scary thing is there are some johnny latelys who probably believe that. On another forum someone started a thread that Pierce was the best French female player ever saying "her groundstrokes would blow Lenglen off the court". Many agreed with this absurd logic too. A player who I believe holds the all time record for round of 16 losses in slams and is 2-4 in slam finals is greater than someone who lost 1 match in 7 years.

That's moronic. Too much hype for recent tennis, greatness is about what you do in your own era not how many games you'd get versus a guy with vastly superior equipment.

 

[ABCD]

I haven't even read the article but if the gist is to compare Nastase vs Djokovic then it's absolute garbage clickbait built on a house of cards. No value to it. Only idiots think like that, but I'll give the writer the benefit of the doubt and say he's just stirring s.h.it up.

Maybe you were not aware, but sometimes it helps to read the article before commenting about it. This is the reason why I wrote "read and discuss" and not just "discuss".

That's moronic. Too much hype for recent tennis, greatness is about what you do in your own era not how many games you'd get versus a guy with vastly superior equipment.

It is not that simple. Would you agree that Henry VIII is a better tennis player than Federer as he won everything in tennis in his time without losing a single match for ~20 years.

 

[NatF]

It is not that simple. Would you agree that Henry VIII is a better tennis player than Federer as he won everything in tennis in his time without losing a single match for ~20 years.

We have to make allowances for certain era's where tennis was not Open to many countries or players. But once the Open Era arrived and the boycotts etc...stopped we were left with a competitive climate where the best players from all countries were able to and did compete against one another.

 

[randomtoss]

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.

 

[ABCD]

We have to make allowances for certain era's where tennis was not Open to many countries or players. But once the Open Era arrived and the boycotts etc...stopped we were left with a competitive climate where the best players from all countries were able to and did compete against one another.

True and that is the reason why discussion who is better/greater player Lenglen or Pierce is not that stupid as it looks at first glance. Is it greater success to be 100th out of million or 1st out of 100?

 

[NatF]

True and that is the reason why discussion who is better/greater player Lenglen or Pierce is not that stupid as it looks at first glance. Is it greater success to be 100th out of million or 1st out of 100?

It's better to be first. The likes of Lenglen are hard to rank - like say Tilden. But at some point you just have to look at their dominance and respect that even in a greatly diminished field dominating it to that extent is something not a great many players could achieve.

 

[ABCD]

It's better to be first. The likes of Lenglen are hard to rank - like say Tilden. But at some point you just have to look at their dominance and respect that even in a greatly diminished field dominating it to that extent is something not a great many players could achieve.

My personal view is different, but I respect your opinion and understand your thought process. I wouldn't call your opinion moronic, as I wouldn't use the same adjective for someone who claims that it is more difficult to be 100/1000000 than 1/100.

 

[TheFifthSet]

I don't understand why people need to come up with those dramatic statements while a player is still active. For sure, all of Nadal, Fed and Djoko will rank among the greatest players ever. In what order, we'll only know for sure once they all retire. Can't we just enjoy the ride instead of jumping to premature eulogies?

Is this a facetious post? You've spent years trashing Federer and euologizing his career, often with a hint (being generous) of schadenfreude.

 

[bjsnider]

I think Djokovic would beat Nastase, given your conditions.

Then you agree with Barnes's point. You can criticize him for leaving out the fact that Nasty didn't have Djokovic's modern advantages, but the point of Barnes' article was that over time, the definition of tennis greatness has itself evolved into something much greater and more elite than it was when Nasty defined it. You said, in an earlier post, "it's tempting to say that the more technologically advanced human civilizations get, the better they are, but that doesn't factor in a number of other variables and considerations", but you have to concede that tennis greatness, defined by the top player of a given era, is a moving target that has gotten more elite relative to itself in earlier eras. Either that, it seems to me, or you have to suggest that Nasty might beat Djokovic in that series. And I think I was as fair to Nasty as I possibly could be, short of giving him a crowbar to kneecap Djokovic on the way out to the court.

Now, on the other hand, supporting your argument about "variables and conditions" -- one time back in the 1990s NBC hired Magic Johnson to talk during their NBA games, and at one point someone asked him if the Jordan/Pippen/Rodman et al. Bulls, in other words, the best team of the era that followed Magic's Showtime Lakers, would beat that Lakers team in a series. Magic was effusive in his praise of the Bulls, but scoffed at the notion that the Lakers would lose to them. "Who's going to stop Kareem?" and so forth. This gets to the variables and conditions argument, because by that time there had been a bunch of new expansion teams and the league's talent had been watered down considerably. But hoops thinking on defense and 3 point shooting had advanced, and continues to do so. If those Lakers played today they wouldn't be shooting so many long 2 pointers, they'd be a lot more worried about transition defense, and several of them would be permanently parked behind the arc. They would play differently.

There's always a powerful incentive for upstarts to tear down the establishment. Analyze it, find weaknesses, and exploit them. Lendl was great, but if you can hit a lot harder than he does...Sampras was great, but not fast. If you can outrun him, keep the point going...Federer was great, but if you can make the match more physical than he likes...

 

[talicnitom]

Nick Bollettieri: Djokovic is the most complete player of all time.

 

[Fedalforever]

And Nadal's 5 wins vs pre-2011 Djokovic are much better.

N0le could not beat Nadal in a slam pre-2011 lol...Post 2011 Nadal is 4-4 vs Djokovic. Keep rolling your eyes more pal.

 

[Gazelle]

Never mind.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

oh great, another "<insert current #1> is the greatest stuff in the galaxy, by <insert random unknown bandwagoner>" thread !

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

N0le could not beat Nadal in a slam pre-2011 lol...Post 2011 Nadal is 4-4 vs Djokovic. Keep rolling your eyes more pal.

And the overall H2H since 2011 being 16-7 is really worthy of eye rolling.