Novak Domination: is he so good or is it the fedal decline?

[jg153040]

Because 2015 is just THAT weak. Sometimes just fans can't deal with reality either. No one is playing even reasonably good tennis right now for longer than a couple weeks. Berdych is 2 in the race.

Or I could argue all guys are playing equally strong, not equally weak and Djokovic raised his level.

Maybe this is strong era when even lower guys are contenders.

So, nobody challenges Rafa on clay = strong era?
Lower guys challenging top guys = weak era?

The reality is, that people are cherry picking stats to suit their arguments. They use a few isolated examples and small sample size to asses entire era?
Using Berdych one guy as proof for entire era be weaker?

So, two guys declining make entire era weak? Murray and Djoker and Wawrinka and Cilic weren't at their peak before 2010 either, so was that a weak era too?

You can't tell if there is a weak era, because you can't compare it with anything. In order to determine a weak era you have to contrast it with strong era.

And since nobody can demonstrate a strong era. Is 4 guys dominating a strong era, or are they just no goats and are equally bad.

You do know that you can have 1 ultra goat in the toughest era ever and still dominate the most? You can have weakest era ever also when top 4 are dominating. Both is possible at the same time.

Because weak players make era look stronger and strong players make era look weaker.

You do realize that if god played tennis in an era with Fed, Rafa, Nole, Pete, Laver, they would be slamless and they would look weak.

Also if Ferrer played without top 4, he would look goat.

So, how can you determine which is which? Is Federer just like Ferrer who was lucky with a weak era? Or is Ferrer goat who got unlucky with strong era?

Or is Federer god who dominated the toughest era ever? You can dominate the toughest era ever, you are goat. You can also do poorly in weakest era ever, that means you suck even more than people say.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

The reality is that Djokovic is a dominant force in a transitional period. He is definitely not a transitional champion though.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Or I could argue all guys are playing equally strong, not equally weak and Djokovic raised his level.

Maybe this is strong era when even lower guys are contenders.

So, nobody challenges Rafa on clay = strong era?
Lower guys challenging top guys = weak era?

The reality is, that people are cherry picking stats to suit their arguments. They use a few isolated examples and small sample size to asses entire era?
Using Berdych one guy as proof for entire era be weaker?

So, two guys declining make entire era weak? Murray and Djoker and Wawrinka and Cilic weren't at their peak before 2010 either, so was that a weak era too?

You can't tell if there is a weak era, because you can't compare it with anything. In order to determine a weak era you have to contrast it with strong era.

And since nobody can demonstrate a strong era. Is 4 guys dominating a strong era, or are they just no goats and are equally bad.

You do know that you can have 1 ultra goat in the toughest era ever and still dominate the most? You can have weakest era ever also when top 4 are dominating. Both is possible at the same time.

Because weak players make era look stronger and strong players make era look weaker.

You do realize that if god played tennis in an era with Fed, Rafa, Nole, Pete, Laver, they would be slamless and they would look weak.

Also if Ferrer played without top 4, he would look goat.

So, how can you determine which is which? Is Federer just like Ferrer who was lucky with a weak era? Or is Ferrer goat who got unlucky with strong era?

Or is Federer god who dominated the toughest era ever? You can dominate the toughest era ever, you are goat. You can also do poorly in weakest era ever, that means you suck even more than people say.

You're going on and on about some argument that I really don't care about. No one is saying all that. 2015 is weak because it's weak. Had Nadal been #1 right now the fact would still remain, that most of the tour has no balls. If there's a bunch of exciting rivalries, epic matches, and the same guys being consistent, let me know.

 

[beard]

You're going on and on about some argument that I really don't care about. No one is saying all that. 2015 is weak because it's weak. Had Nadal been #1 right now the fact would still remain, that most of the tour has no balls. If there's a bunch of exciting rivalries, epic matches, and the same guys being consistent, let me know.

Great arguments :lol:
Please stop right now

 

[RF-18]

You're going on and on about some argument that I really don't care about. No one is saying all that. 2015 is weak because it's weak. Had Nadal been #1 right now the fact would still remain, that most of the tour has no balls. If there's a bunch of exciting rivalries, epic matches, and the same guys being consistent, let me know.

Come on man, what is your argument? You don't have much to say against jgs excellent points, because he is right. ''it's weak because it's weak''.

People said the same when fed was dominating, to diminish his accomplishments. Yes, I know this is about 2015 only, but just saying.
As soon as a player wins so much, or dominates, people think it's a weak era.

There is no weak era.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Come on man, what is your argument? You don't have much to say against jgs excellent points, because he is right. ''it's weak because it's weak''.

People said the same when fed was dominating, to diminish his accomplishments. Yes, I know this is about 2015 only, but just saying.
As soon as a player wins so much, or dominates, people think it's a weak era.

There is no weak era.

Can you agree that Djokovic is a dominant player in a transitional phase of the game?

It would be like replacing Djokovic with Hewitt in 2002; it means that this is a better time than ever for Djokovic to sweep up 2 or 3 slams this season.

 

[RF-18]

Can you agree that Djokovic is a dominant player in a transitional phase of the game?

It would be like replacing Djokovic with Hewitt in 2002; it means that this is a better time than ever for Djokovic to sweep up 2 or 3 slams this season.

Djokovic dominated the field when an ATG was in his peak years and just came from three slam season, and let's not forget Roger who was 29 years old in 2011. Add to that Murray, Tsonga, Berdych and all.

So, Djokovic has proven himself that he can dominate during ATGs reign. Then we have 2012, 2014 and now 2015.

 

[NatF]

Djokovic was #1 in arguably the fiercest year competitively speaking in recent memory (2012). The guy is really good

2014 and 2015 the field has clearly declined since the peak of 2012. But only an all time great could post such high win/loss records, win so many titles etc...across a stretch like this anyway.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Djokovic dominated the field when an ATG was in his peak years and just came from three slam season, and let's not forget Roger who was 29 years old in 2011. Add to that Murray, Tsonga, Berdych and all.

So, Djokovic has proven himself that he can dominate during ATGs reign. Then we have 2012, 2014 and now 2015.

I agree - this is not a slight against Novak at all, he played (peaked in actually) the strongest era of all time (possibly) and still did very well for himself.

What I am talking about is 2015. I just believe the game is in a transitional phase right now, the old 30-something guys are slowly getting worse and the younger guys are breaking through.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Djokovic was #1 in arguably the fiercest year competitively speaking in recent memory (2012). The guy is really good

2014 and 2015 the field has clearly declined since the peak of 2012. But only an all time great could post such high win/loss records, win so many titles etc...across a stretch like this anyway.

Agreed - it is more the field that is in question. I have no doubt in my mind that Novak would have/could have won just as much even if the field was stronger -- it just makes thing less interesting/more boring when the field is in the state it is currently.

 

[NatF]

Djokovic needs another multi slam season. This will silence the doubters.

 

[RF-18]

I agree - this is not a slight against Novak at all, he played (peaked in actually) the strongest era of all time (possibly) and still did very well for himself.

What I am talking about is 2015. I just believe the game is in a transitional phase right now, the old 30-something guys are slowly getting worse and the younger guys are breaking through.

Yea, you are right. It is a time now where the younger guns are finding their way into the top, while older ones are declining. Nadal though is not ''old''. He is in djokovic's age.

But - I could not call it a weak era. Djokovic still has to fight against the #2, #3, #4, #5, #6 (you get the memo) best players in the world.

People really underrate the quality of players that are established world-class players. No matter what name they've got, but they have earned that place by their talent and hard-work. They are there because they have done better than those they fought against. I don't understand why they are treated as mugs, or so low.

Any player that can win the most titles, and be truly the best of the field, should be awarded with alot of praise. That is my view. In my view there is no weak era, only the best players of the world currently. If there is one player that can seperate himself from all this, then that is incredible.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Yea, you are right. It is a time now where the younger guns are finding their way into the top, while older ones are declining. Nadal though is not ''old''. He is in djokovic's age.

But - I could not call it a weak era. Djokovic still has to fight against the #2, #3, #4, #5, #6 (you get the memo) best players in the world.

People really underrate the quality of players that are established world-class players. No matter what name they've got, but they have earned that place by their talent and hard-work. They are there because they have done better than those they fought against. I don't understand why they are treated as mugs, or so low.

Any player that can win the most titles, and be truly the best of the field, should be awarded with alot of praise. That is my view. In my view there is no weak era, only the best players of the world currently. If there is one player that can seperate himself from all this, then that is incredible.

Well, it certainly isn't weak. No era is truly "weak". There are just transitional phases (which is what I explained and you agreed with).

I truly hope Novak can win 2 or more majors this year. If anything that will make things more exciting.

Re: Nadal; he is certainly not "old" but he has been on the tour for a long time now (14 years) and has been a top player for almost as long (10 years). With his style of play and genetics (knee issues) I don't see him as a young player either. In contrast, Novak is coming across as a young dominant player right now -- due to his own style of play and different approach to the game.

 

[jg153040]

You're going on and on about some argument that I really don't care about. No one is saying all that. 2015 is weak because it's weak. Had Nadal been #1 right now the fact would still remain, that most of the tour has no balls. If there's a bunch of exciting rivalries, epic matches, and the same guys being consistent, let me know.

No, 2015 is strong because it's strong.

 

[NatF]

Yea, you are right. It is a time now where the younger guns are finding their way into the top, while older ones are declining. Nadal though is not ''old''. He is in djokovic's age.

But - I could not call it a weak era. Djokovic still has to fight against the #2, #3, #4, #5, #6 (you get the memo) best players in the world.

People really underrate the quality of players that are established world-class players. No matter what name they've got, but they have earned that place by their talent and hard-work. They are there because they have done better than those they fought against. I don't understand why they are treated as mugs, or so low.

Any player that can win the most titles, and be truly the best of the field, should be awarded with alot of praise. That is my view. In my view there is no weak era, only the best players of the world currently. If there is one player that can seperate himself from all this, then that is incredible.

A very fair opinion. It's not like Djokovic is scraping by at the moment. In the paraphrased words of Roger Federer: "He has something special."

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Djokovic needs another multi slam season. This will silence the doubters.

It has to happen this season really, otherwise he'll be damned. There's a golden opportunity here for something bigger if Djokovic can squeak out RG against Nadal (don't see any other winner really but this can change post Madrid and Rome).

If Djokovic wins RG, then the Grand Slam should be seriously discussed, as it will be apparent that he's by far and away the best player, and is waaay ahead of the field. The field is as ripe as it's been for a good many years; ripe for a dominant all-time great player to maybe post up something special.

The ball is in Djokovic's court.






Let's see what he makes of it.

 

[jg153040]

The reality is that Djokovic is a dominant force in a transitional period. He is definitely not a transitional champion though.

Ok, then Federer was also a champ in transitional era between Sampras and Djokodal.

You can say that about any player .

Laver and Fed are goats. All the rest are just dominant forces in transitional periods between Laver and Federer.

 

[NatF]

It has to happen this season really, otherwise he'll be damned. There's a golden opportunity here for something bigger if Djokovic can squeak out RG against Nadal (don't see any other winner really but this can change post Madrid and Rome).

If Djokovic wins RG, then the Grand Slam should be seriously discussed, as it will be apparent that he's by far and away the best player, and is waaay ahead of the field.

His confidence will be sky high if he wins the FO, he will be hard to stop in the remaining slams. Though unfortunately for him this will propel TMF to step up and end the streak alla 2011

I'm not sure Djokovic has the will power to match Nadal who we know will leave everything on the court at the FO. Djokovic has to beat Nadal at his own game at the FO, he can't blast him off the court. Over 5 sets I still think Nadal should be the favorite.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Ok, then Federer was also a champ in transitional era between Sampras and Djokodal.

You can say that about any player .

Laver and Fed are goats. All the rest are just dominant forces in transitional periods between Laver and Federer.

I disagree. When Federer was on top, players his own age were very strong contenders.

With Novak right now, it is past that point (2012 seems to be Novak's equivalent to Federer's 2005 in terms of the competition's age). Now he seems to be dealing with the generation below him which are now finding their feet and making it deep into a lot of tournaments; although players from his own generation are still fairly good (Murray for example).

Saying he is dominating a transitional era is not a bad thing. It just means that the older players are being replaced by the newer ones and Novak is still on top. It should be a compliment if anything.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

His confidence will be sky high if he wins the FO, he will be hard to stop in the remaining slams. Though unfortunately for him this will propel TMF to step up and end the streak alla 2011

I'm not sure Djokovic has the will power to match Nadal who we know will leave everything on the court at the FO. Djokovic has to beat Nadal at his own game at the FO, he can't blast him off the court. Over 5 sets I still think Nadal should be the favorite.

A lot of this depends on if Djokovic can maintain the type of play that he produced in MC, and if Nadal will let him. Nadal will leave it all out on the court, no doubt, but if his form doesn't improve markedly, Djokovic has the game to wear even Nadal down. The work that Nadal was having to do in MC is unsustainable and a losing strategy. Djokovic's ability to redirect the rallies in that match was simply awesome... against a Nadal trying to find his feet again. Can Djokovic produce similar accuracy when Nadal dials his forehand in?

Nadal cannot afford to work so hard and needs to regain his form in order to regain some authority in the rallies against Djokovic. One or two players could play spoiler, but I don't see it... yet.

Looking forward to seeing how Nishikori continues to progress through the clay season.



He's trying to sneak in...

 

[RF-18]

Well, it certainly isn't weak. No era is truly "weak". There are just transitional phases (which is what I explained and you agreed with).

I truly hope Novak can win 2 or more majors this year. If anything that will make things more exciting.

Re: Nadal; he is certainly not "old" but he has been on the tour for a long time now (14 years) and has been a top player for almost as long (10 years). With his style of play and genetics (knee issues) I don't see him as a young player either. In contrast, Novak is coming across as a young dominant player right now -- due to his own style of play and different approach to the game.

Yep, agree.
-

He needs that multi-slam year, of course. It is his time now to prove the doubters.

 

[jg153040]

I disagree. When Federer was on top, players his own age were very strong contenders.

With Novak right now, it is past that point (2012 seems to be Novak's equivalent to Federer's 2005 in terms of the competition's age). Now he seems to be dealing with the generation below him which are now finding their feet and making it deep into a lot of tournaments; although players from his own generation are still fairly good (Murray for example).

Saying he is dominating a transitional era is not a bad thing. It just means that the older players are being replaced by the newer ones and Novak is still on top. It should be a compliment if anything.

I don't even know what transitional era means. Every period is transitional for some players, since the tour is not static and is always changing.

Every player has to deal with all kinds of generations. In top 100 you have every age and you have to beat all top guys. So, transitional era doesn't even have any meaning.

You have to evaluate players based on current form, not based on stats. Berdych was currently nr.2 on clay therefore at this tournament he was the toughest competition out there. We assume finalists are playing the highest level of tennis int he world. If we don't do that, then we have a fallacy and nothing matters, we can just make stuff up.

 

[jg153040]

A lot of this depends on if Djokovic can maintain the type of play that he produced in MC, and if Nadal will let him. Nadal will leave it all out on the court, no doubt, but if his form doesn't improve markedly, Djokovic has the game to wear even Nadal down. The work that Nadal was having to do in MC is unsustainable and a losing strategy. Djokovic's ability to redirect the rallies in that match was simply awesome... against a Nadal trying to find his feet again. Can Djokovic produce similar accuracy when Nadal dials his forehand in?

Nadal cannot afford to work so hard and needs to regain his form in order to regain some authority in the rallies against Djokovic. One or two players could play spoiler, but I don't see it... yet.

Looking forward to seeing how Nishikori continues to progress through the clay season.



He's trying to sneak in...

I would love for Djokovic do dominate, but I have a bad feeling about this.
It reminds me about Fed's 2010 January. He was on top of the world and people were saying 20 slams minimum, then he barely won 1 slam and was nr.1 in last 5 years.

I think Djokovic is close to this level and his decline will be very fast. This is how it happens with every great.

If Djokovic wins more than 10 majors, I would be very surprised.

 

[NatF]

A lot of this depends on if Djokovic can maintain the type of play that he produced in MC, and if Nadal will let him. Nadal will leave it all out on the court, no doubt, but if his form doesn't improve markedly, Djokovic has the game to wear even Nadal down. The work that Nadal was having to do in MC is unsustainable and a losing strategy. Djokovic's ability to redirect the rallies in that match was simply awesome... against a Nadal trying to find his feet again. Can Djokovic produce similar accuracy when Nadal dials his forehand in?

Nadal cannot afford to work so hard and needs to regain his form in order to regain some authority in the rallies against Djokovic. One or two players could play spoiler, but I don't see it... yet.

Looking forward to seeing how Nishikori continues to progress through the clay season.



He's trying to sneak in...

I think Nadal will find some form by the time the FO runs around, I guess I am assuming that Nadal will go in with similar form to last season. I agree that what he's shown so far won't' cut it - although Nadal could have extended and perhaps won in MC had things fallen a little differently. You are right about the amount of work he had to put in, but the memories of the 2013 SF 5th set are still fresh to me. Back against the wall Nadal is a monster at the FO.

I was disappointed by Nishikori at the FO last year, I had high hopes. I look forward to future clay meetings with Rafa. He has the game to upset him.

 

[beast of mallorca]

I think Nadal will find some form by the time the FO runs around, I guess I am assuming that Nadal will go in with similar form to last season. I agree that what he's shown so far won't' cut it - although Nadal could have extended and perhaps won in MC had things fallen a little differently. You are right about the amount of work he had to put in, but the memories of the 2013 SF 5th set are still fresh to me. Back against the wall Nadal is a monster at the FO.

I was disappointed by Nishikori at the FO last year, I had high hopes. I look forward to future clay meetings with Rafa. He has the game to upset him.

I agree. And he has the game to upset Federer and Djoker as well, neh neh ? :twisted:
We'll see how it pans out, no ?

 

[Steve0904]

A lot of this depends on if Djokovic can maintain the type of play that he produced in MC, and if Nadal will let him. Nadal will leave it all out on the court, no doubt, but if his form doesn't improve markedly, Djokovic has the game to wear even Nadal down. The work that Nadal was having to do in MC is unsustainable and a losing strategy. Djokovic's ability to redirect the rallies in that match was simply awesome... against a Nadal trying to find his feet again. Can Djokovic produce similar accuracy when Nadal dials his forehand in?

Nadal cannot afford to work so hard and needs to regain his form in order to regain some authority in the rallies against Djokovic. One or two players could play spoiler, but I don't see it... yet.

Looking forward to seeing how Nishikori continues to progress through the clay season.



He's trying to sneak in...

Yeah. I agree. I understand that Nadal will leave it on the court at RG. Blood, sweat, tears, all that stuff, but I think the people that are saying that they're not sure about Djokovic doing the same are missing the point really.

The point is that this year he might not HAVE to do that. That could be the difference between this year and all the others. In years past it was obvious that Djokovic would have to almost leave a piece of himself on court to beat Nadal, but the gap between the 2 is pretty big right now.

 

[NatF]

I agree. And he has the game to upset Federer and Djoker as well, neh neh ? :twisted:
We'll see how it pans out, no ?

Not sure about the Nishi vs Djokovic match up on clay. But he's shown he can beat Federer, that goes without saying. Federer isn't a favorite at this point.

 

[jg153040]

Not sure about the Nishi vs Djokovic match up on clay. But he's shown he can beat Federer, that goes without saying. Federer isn't a favorite at this point.

I would still put Federer as a favorite vs Nishikori at a slam, even on clay.

Slams are different. And until Nishikori proves he can beat Federer at a slam, I would put Federer as a favorite.

 

[NatF]

I would still put Federer as a favorite vs Nishikori at a slam, even on clay.

Slams are different. And until Nishikori proves he can beat Federer at a slam, I would put Federer as a favorite.

I meant Federer isn't a favorite generally - so him being vulnerable to Nishikori goes without saying.

 

[Wynter]

Honestly speaking Murray probably has more chance at making the RG final than Fed for me.

If Nadal and Djoko end up on the same half of the draw I genuinely can't see who the other finalist would be at this rate.

 

[Steve0904]

Honestly speaking Murray probably has more chance at making the RG final than Fed for me.

If Nadal and Djoko end up on the same half of the draw I genuinely can't see who the other finalist would be at this rate.

Don't think so. Still not buying that one.

 

[NatF]

Murray has just 1 top 10 win on clay in his entire career - that back in 2009. I don't rate him on clay really.

 

[Wynter]

Don't think so. Still not buying that one.

I think fed's days of making the RG Finals are completely done, Murray has at least made the SF there and has done so multiple times.

 

[MichaelNadal]

I agree - this is not a slight against Novak at all, he played (peaked in actually) the strongest era of all time (possibly) and still did very well for himself.

What I am talking about is 2015. I just believe the game is in a transitional phase right now, the old 30-something guys are slowly getting worse and the younger guys are breaking through.

Every word of this.

 

[jg153040]

Every word of this.

What does Djokovic have to do in your book to equal Nadal?

 

[MichaelNadal]

What does Djokovic have to do in your book to equal Nadal?

The same thing Nadal has to do to equal Federer, I hold everyone by the same standard.

 

[jg153040]

The same thing Nadal has to do to equal Federer, I hold everyone by the same standard.

But what is your standard? I don't know how much you value such things as WTF titles and weeks nr.1 or consistency like consecutive semis and so on.

 

[MichaelNadal]

But what is your standard? I don't know how much you value such things as WTF titles and weeks nr.1 or consistency like consecutive semis and so on.

For me it's slam count that decides who the best ever is. The things you mentioned are worth a valid discussion if the slam count is within 2 imo. I'd have no problem with someone arguing the other way using the other tangibles. 3 or more slams, don't want to hear it.

 

[veroniquem]

What does Djokovic have to do in your book to equal Nadal?

He's passed him in weeks at #1 and also in masters from the logic that 23 masters + 4 WTF is better than 27 master + 0 WTF but he still needs to win more slams of course. All 4 would help too.

 

[jg153040]

For me it's slam count that decides who the best ever is. The things you mentioned are worth a valid discussion if the slam count is within 2 imo. I'd have no problem with someone arguing the other way using the other tangibles. 3 or more slams, don't want to hear it.

Oh, I forgot about slam finals too.

So, you say if 3 or more slams difference, nothing can convince you even if someone has a lot of extra weeks nr.1 and GS finals for example.

You only have to be the best for two weeks to win a slam. To be nr.1 for just one week, you need to be the best last 12 months. So, how come slams are worth so much more? Doesn't make sense, since you only need to be the best for two weeks.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Oh, I forgot about slam finals too.

So, you say if 3 or more slams difference, nothing can convince you even if someone has a lot of extra weeks nr.1 and GS finals for example.

You only have to be the best for two weeks to win a slam. To be nr.1 for just one week, you need to be the best last 12 months. So, how come slams are worth so much more? Doesn't make sense, since you only need to be the best for two weeks.

Because, as I've said before, weeks at #1 don't tell the entire story, as Nadal had weeks at #2 that were higher point totals that many of Sampras's weeks at #1. It doesn't talk about how much you've won, nor the strength of the tour at the time. Just the way I see it.

 

[Earnest One]

Djokovic was #1 in arguably the fiercest year competitively speaking in recent memory (2012). The guy is really good

2014 and 2015 the field has clearly declined since the peak of 2012. But only an all time great could post such high win/loss records, win so many titles etc...across a stretch like this anyway.

This^. He is an all-time great. Period.

 

[jg153040]

Because, as I've said before, weeks at #1 don't tell the entire story, as Nadal had weeks at #2 that were higher point totals that many of Sampras's weeks at #1. It doesn't talk about how much you've won, nor the strength of the tour at the time. Just the way I see it.

Slam wins don't tell the whole story either. You can win a slam without losing a set or with less dominance. In slams the strength of the tour is not the same either.

So, how is it different to nr.1? You can be more dominant or less dominant nr.1 and you can be nr.1 vs different fields.

The same for winning a slam. You can win a slam with more dominance or with less dominance and you can win vs different fields.

So, how is it any difference?

Even if the tour isn't the same, don't you agree that you have to do a lot more work to be nr.1 than to win a slam?

 

[MichaelNadal]

Slam wins don't tell the whole story either. You can win a slam without losing a set or with less dominance. In slams the strength of the tour is not the same either.

So, how is it different to nr.1? You can be more dominant or less dominant nr.1 and you can be nr.1 vs different fields.

The same for winning a slam. You can win a slam with more dominance or with less dominance and you can win vs different fields.

So, how is it any difference?

Even if the tour isn't the same, don't you agree that you have to do a lot more work to be nr.1 than to win a slam?

Sure, you can win a slam and it be a bit flukey. But not 7-8-14-17 times. It says the world imo. Djokovic is an all time great, like the poster above stated. I think he's one of the best ever, and I love that he pushed my favorite guy to the limit and I got to see some of the most exciting moments in tennis in real time. No one is trying to take anything away from him. ALL I'm saying is right now the competition sucks. I think we can all see that, it's not a knock on Djokovic. Peak Safin could be world #1 right now.

 

[Earnest One]

Djokovic dominated the field when an ATG was in his peak years and just came from three slam season, and let's not forget Roger who was 29 years old in 2011. Add to that Murray, Tsonga, Berdych and all.

So, Djokovic has proven himself that he can dominate during ATGs reign. Then we have 2012, 2014 and now 2015.

Again, this^. Don't blame Djokovic that the field has declined somewhat since he started dominating TWO GOAT CANDIDATES. He has proven himself during arguably a peak period in the history of tennis.

Nadal and Federer are not grown on trees. Alone they appear once every 40 years. Two at once? ALMOST unbelievable. Someone consistently chopping them down? A truly great talent, physically and mentally.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Again, this^. Don't blame Djokovic that the field has declined somewhat since he started dominating TWO GOAT CANDIDATES. He has proven himself during arguably a peak period in the history of tennis.

Nadal and Federer are not grown on trees. Alone they appear once every 40 years. Two at once? ALMOST unbelievable. Someone consistently chopping them down? A truly great talent, physically and mentally.

We're saying the same thing.

 

[6-3 6-0]

Again, this^. Don't blame Djokovic that the field has declined somewhat since he started dominating TWO GOAT CANDIDATES. He has proven himself during arguably a peak period in the history of tennis.

Nadal and Federer are not grown on trees. Alone they appear once every 40 years. Two at once? ALMOST unbelievable. Someone consistently chopping them down? A truly great talent, physically and mentally.

Federer/Nadal aren't the same force they once were...just saying

 

[Steve0904]

I think fed's days of making the RG Finals are completely done, Murray has at least made the SF there and has done so multiple times.

To me, Murray has basically no chance of making a RG final. SF's last year was an overachievement from Murray IMHO.

Federer is still the better player on clay I think.

 

[jg153040]

Sure, you can win a slam and it be a bit flukey. But not 7-8-14-17 times. It says the world imo. Djokovic is an all time great, like the poster above stated. I think he's one of the best ever, and I love that he pushed my favorite guy to the limit and I got to see some of the most exciting moments in tennis in real time. No one is trying to take anything away from him. ALL I'm saying is right now the competition sucks. I think we can all see that, it's not a knock on Djokovic. Peak Safin could be world #1 right now.

You can also be nr.1 with a bit of fluke, but not over 150 weeks. And this says the world too.

Ok, what is this force that makes competition suck? Did they decide for no reason not to challenge Djokovic?

 

[MichaelNadal]

You can also be nr.1 with a bit of fluke, but not over 150 weeks. And this says the world too.

Ok, what is this force that makes competition suck? Did they decide for no reason not to challenge Djokovic?

Oh, trust me, I wish I had both the answer and the solution :twisted: