Pete Sampras: Djokovic is the "complete package" mentally/physically, could reach 16, 17 slams..

abmk

Bionic Poster
This. Nadal was resurgent in 2013, and Djokovic still managed to keep the h2h for that year even iirc. The RG match in 2015 broke Nadal's spirit for good, it seems.
oh yeah, those wins in masters and YEC ...while losing in both slam encounters ...
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
I feel Safin was a better player than Wawrinka though (not the 2004 final but the 2005 SF and F). Wawrinka's best playing period coincided with Djokovic more than Safin with Federer, but it's undeniable IMO.

I also feel Murray is slightly better than Hewitt, but not enough to say he's great competition. They are roughly the same in terms of level of play - and that is not enough to take out Djokovic or any 1st tier ATG at their peak.


I've seen a lot of Thiem and I think he is a good player, but I don't think he is good enough to be challenging Djokovic. I also don't see the hype around Zverev, his brother posted similar results to him a few years ago (and was touted as a big player) so we'll need to wait and see.

Kyrgios is talented but he doesn't have it all there in the head to challenge the big guys either.

And I do acknowledge Murray has improved on clay, but this "Clayray" talk is very premature. I like Murray but I can still see clay is his least favorite surface and against the likes of Djokovic (who had an easier draw) makes his path (Djokovic's) very weak/easy.
You are too kind to Murray vis a vis Hewitt, but Murray may yet prove himself.

Murray in his career has gone from 70% first serve points won on clay to above 75% in the last two years. That is the numbers behind the myth and he's actually increased his first serve percentage which makes it even better. I must admit I was disgusted with his FO final especially after winning the first set! His serve fell off a cliff especially in the 4th set. Hopefully with Lendl on board the nonsense will stop. The two five set matches at the start of the French show that Murray has issues still and were a big disappointment after the great run in Rome. I believe its back issues that have plagued him his whole career, but perhaps Lendl will somehow give Murray some backbone.;) I believe Murray is overrated on hard courts and at this point the French Open and Wimbledon are the only majors he can challenge Djokovic.

Kyrgios hopefully will transition his improved return game to grass (2nd serve return only which is precisely what is needed most on grass.) The Kyrgios serve was nothing short of spectacular and miraculous in Marseille earlier this year. The hunchback of Canberra has back issues and with luck he'll grow out of those, but with luck he'll be on song with the serve at Wimbledon. He had not return last year, so with that serve and a return on grass he'll be very dangerous. Definitely watch the Kyrgios vs Raonic match in Queens 1st round! Kyrgios has owned Raonic recently; a Raonic likely to be top 5 by the end of the year. If he does it again on grass he may well win Queens and make Australia proud. If his return game still blows on grass then he is done no matter how well he might serve.

Zverev is early and if you look at his hard courts stats despite some nice matches he's not even close. He has really produced on clay and I expect his serve and relentless ground strokes will make him hard to break on grass. The Zverev return was quite good on clay, again this will be the question mark on grass. Taylor Fritz had an awesome match with Fed and is another youngster that isn't quite over the line with weapons, but on grass its enough for him to hold serve much easier. They are both in Halle this week with Thiem with very interesting draws, so they'll have a chance to make a move on grass. Fritz was very surprising in Stuttgart and I expect Zverev to do really show some potential this week too. Patience with Zverev, his backhand and forehand impress but aren't major weapons. I expect with some physical development he'll very much be a big serving Djokovic type player though he will never have that kind of mobility. Fritz has the best hands tennis has ever seen and on grass those quick adjustments seem to make him very resilient. I did not expect this from Fritz and remain guarded in my optimism.

Thiem is an offensive Juaggernaut! I cannot believe my eyes on the grass and he's around 87% first serve points won in Stuttgart which matches Sampras at his best and Thiem's first serve is actually off. Despite only going to a tiebreaker yesterday in the first set of the final with Kohly, Thiem looks like an animal at this point. Against Fed he did not quite have this look, stature and level, but it is amazing. He has won 100% of his first serve points so far in the Stuttgart final (sadly 44% first serve.:confused:) Kohly owns him in the head to head and has played his way nicely out of trouble to make the tiebreaker. The Thiem groundstrokes are lethal on grass! Kohly was a rock in this tournament, but he's shedding UEs off the Thiem power much worse than Fed. If Thiem gets a full swing at a ball on grass the point is basically over. This is immense pressure on his opponents. The frightening thing is that Thiem in Acapulco served 75% first serves over the weekend culminating in 78% first serves in the final with 22 aces and 1 DF! If somehow the week off before Wimbledon allows him to recover and he gives a facsimile of that serving performance he will be devestating. His return game is up to the task on grass. If you've not seen the Goffin vs Thiem FO QF catch some highlights on youtube. Thiem is magnificient in his comeback from 5-3 down in the 2nd against Goffin at his best. That match shows that Thiem already has intangibles that have taken Djokovic his entire career to develop. Ignore the FO SF with Djokovic. Thiem will have his day and soon. If not in a major at first, he will blow the Djoko doors off before too long. The beast is emerging!
 

Tenez101

Hall of Fame
oh yeah, those wins in masters and YEC ...while losing in both slam encounters ...
Don't Federer fans prop up WTF as some kind of quasi-slam? Have to shake off 10-23 somehow, right? Oh wait, Nadal beat him there too...and Djokovic also for the last three years, plus 2 Wimbledons and USO....
 
For what it is worth I am pretty sure Sabratha is a pretty big Murray fan and wants him to prove him wrong about just being around Hewitt's level and win some more big titles, and also turn the tables on Djokovic more (he has started to a bit more lately, especialy beating him in the Rome final, but he still has a ways to go to make it a true bonafide rivalry again). He is an even bigger Hewitt fan, I am pretty sure Hewitt is his all time favorite player, but obviously Hewitt isnt going to raise any from what he retired as, he is whatever he is. Murray can still raise further so he and others who like Murray would like to see him do just that, even if it means leaving Hewitt in his dust, but he had better do it soon since he is approaching 30.

Hopefully Murray reuniting with Lendl will be just what he needs, and given that his game was rising again even before reuniting with Lendl, hopefully he can now reach an even higher level of tennis than he did in 2012-2013 and reach a new peak for himself, regardless what that gets him vs Djokovic.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Don't Federer fans prop up WTF as some kind of quasi-slam? Have to shake off 10-23 somehow, right? Oh wait, Nadal beat him there too...and Djokovic also for the last three years, plus 2 Wimbledons and USO....
will wait for you here when djokovic is 32+ ..oh wait, you would've disappeared from here by then ...

YEC is the 5th biggest event. but a win there doesn't come remotely close to off-setting 2 losses in majors ...
 

Tenez101

Hall of Fame
For what it is worth I am pretty sure Sabratha is a pretty big Murray fan and wants him to prove him wrong about just being around Hewitt's level and win some more big titles, and also turn the tables on Djokovic more (he has started to a bit more lately, especialy beating him in the Rome final, but he still has a ways to go to make it a true bonafide rivalry again). He is an even bigger Hewitt fan, I am pretty sure Hewitt is his all time favorite player, but obviously Hewitt isnt going to raise any from what he retired as, he is whatever he is. Murray can still raise further so he and others who like Murray would like to see him do just that, even if it means leaving Hewitt in his dust, but he had better do it soon since he is approaching 30.

Hopefully Murray reuniting with Lendl will be just what he needs, and given that his game was rising again even before reuniting with Lendl, hopefully he can now reach an even higher level of tennis than he did in 2012-2013 and reach a new peak for himself, regardless what that gets him vs Djokovic.
I am rooting for Murray to step up once again and become a real rival for Djokovic, if nothing but for the sport's sake. IMOMurray is leagues above Hewitt, the guy reached 10 slam finals and was just stopped by GOAT candidates. He is the unluckiest multi-slam-level player in Open Era history because of this. Plus he won Wimbledon in front of his home crowd, also breaking one of the biggest curses in the history of the sport. If he gets even 2-3 more slams I think he can retire with few regrets.
 

Tenez101

Hall of Fame
will wait for you here when djokovic is 32+ ..oh wait, you would've disappeared from here by then ...

YEC is the 5th biggest event. but a win there doesn't come remotely close to off-setting 2 losses in majors ...
Federer knows very well that WTF doesn't offset major losses (though Djokovic still won a major that year). Djoker did at 29 what Federer couldn't do his entire career. How many slams did Fed win after 29? How many GS finals did he win against Djokovic after then? Yes, let's see how Fed's records hold up in a few years...

Fed fans are the ones who seem to cling to WTF as a big deal (the one thing Fed still really has over Nadal). But looks like Djokovic is going for that record too...
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Federer knows very well that WTF doesn't offset major losses (though Djokovic still won a major that year). Djoker did at 29 what Federer couldn't do his entire career. How many slams did Fed win after 29? How many GS finals did he win against Djokovic after then? Yes, let's see how Fed's records hold up in a few years...

Fed fans are the ones who seem to cling to WTF as a big deal (the one thing Fed still really has over Nadal). But looks like Djokovic is going for that record too...
federer won 2 slam encounters vs djokovic at 29/30 ...

wait, YEC is the only one that fed really has over nadal

how about 7 wimbledons to 2 ?
5 USOs to 2 ?
4 AOs to 1 ?

300+ weeks at #1 compared to some 100 weeks at #1 ?
5 years at #1 compared to 3 years at #1...

yeah, congrats to djoker on accomplishing the CYGS with well past his prime nadal at the FO and getting an easy draw ..pretty sure federer at his peak would've done at as well ......
 
pretty sure federer at his peak would've done at as well ......
That is probably your line for anytime anyone accomplishes that is as good or better than something Fed accomplished. That line gets worns after awhile.

That is no different than the Sampras fans who say he would have easily won 17+ slams with the same competition as Fed; or the Nadal and Djokovic fanatics who say they would have easily matched what Fed did had they peaked in 2004-2007 instead, and more.
 

Tenez101

Hall of Fame
..pretty sure federer at his peak would've done at as well ......
How many *slams* has Federer won after 29, particularly in finals against Djokovic.?

Federer has many Wimbledons against weak fields, but Nadal will always have the fact that he beat Federer during the latter's peak, in the final of Wimbledon, in what many consider to be the greatest grass court match of all time. Also Nadal beat Fed at AO during Fed's peak...

Nadal has 9 RG's the most titles at any slam, ever. Federer still has 7 Wimbledons, tied with Sampras (who won those titles against a harder field), and has come close to beating this record but was stopped by somebody in the most recent finals.

Also not at all sure about the peak Fed beating Nadal statement. I'm sure he still would've found a way to lose to Nadal, like he always does when it matters most.
 

sbengte

G.O.A.T.
Ha ha, Djoko is done for.

The master hater/troll/jinxer has spoken with his usual agenda. The same person who also said ridiculous things like Fed will get to 20 slams and 10 wimbledons when it was very clear that he was on the way down.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
That is probably your line for anytime anyone accomplishes that is as good or better than something Fed accomplished. That line gets worns after awhile.

That is no different than the Sampras fans who say he would have easily won 17+ slams with the same competition as Fed; or the Nadal and Djokovic fanatics who say they would have easily matched what Fed did had they peaked in 2004-2007 instead, and more.
no, I don't think federer is better than peak kuerten on clay for instance...
nor do I necessarily think federer could've gone physically like nadal in AO 09/djokovic in AO 12 for instance ..

I don't think even prime fed would've beaten nadal in B2B clay masters like djokovic did in 11 for instance, though he probably would've won one of those 2

but what I said here is true ..

lets know who would've stopped peak federer from winning the NCYGS as djokovic did ? yeah, I didn't think so ...
 
Last edited:

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
Safin won one slam in 2005 and a final in 2004. That's it during the Federer era. Wawrinka has had two lights out slam wins. I'd take Safin's career over Wawa, but Wawa has been greater competition in the Djokovic era than Safin was in the Fed era. Peak Hewitt was greater than Murray it just didn't happen when Fed was a contender and as you say by 2005 the injuries took Hewitt down from anywhere near peak.

We'll see at Wimbledon. Your weak clay field in 2016 had 4 of the top 5 players as eventual French Open champs. Murray's improved clay stats are undeniable the last two years (please wake up on this.) Thiem was a bit gassed for the SF with Djokovic after 4 hard sets with Goffin just the day before. Sorry if French SF is all you've seen of Thiem. Thiem is already surprising post clay season with unbelievable first serving numbers on grass (better than Sampras and way better than Fed) and fine returning. The first serve points won numbers are actually with an off serve to boot. Thiem is a moving target and Kyrgios is exceptionally dangerous too with already great hard court stats in 2016 that include a 2nd serve return. Zverev made a nice move on clay and I'm not sure if his game will take off on grass like it did on clay (hard courts he's not there.) Zverev just turned 19, so he looks like he's going to easily be a strong top ten player who might get the occaisional major. If the kid gets a bit stronger he's going to be the "stretch" on tour.
Hewitt in 2005 was better than Ndal in 2015.

It's only after 2005 that he was a non entity.

Peak Fed still got best Hewitt for 2 years: 2004 and 2005.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
Federer knows very well that WTF doesn't offset major losses (though Djokovic still won a major that year). Djoker did at 29 what Federer couldn't do his entire career. How many slams did Fed win after 29? How many GS finals did he win against Djokovic after then? Yes, let's see how Fed's records hold up in a few years...

Fed fans are the ones who seem to cling to WTF as a big deal (the one thing Fed still really has over Nadal). But looks like Djokovic is going for that record too...
Really? 302 weeks vs 141.

Complete dominance of 2 surfaces vs just 1.

Consistent domination.

And yes WTF is important. It's the 5th biggest event after the 4 slams. You only play against the best players, no weak draws.

The H2H is the only thing Nadal has over Fed. All the other stats are in Fed's favor. Djokovic is closer to Nadal now thn Nadal is to Federer as Djokovic has all other stats superior to Rafa.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
How many *slams* has Federer won after 29, particularly in finals against Djokovic.?

Federer has many Wimbledons against weak fields, but Nadal will always have the fact that he beat Federer during the latter's peak, in the final of Wimbledon, in what many consider to be the greatest grass court match of all time. Also Nadal beat Fed at AO during Fed's peak...

Nadal has 9 RG's the most titles at any slam, ever. Federer still has 7 Wimbledons, tied with Sampras (who won those titles against a harder field), and has come close to beating this record but was stopped by somebody in the most recent finals.

Also not at all sure about the peak Fed beating Nadal statement. I'm sure he still would've found a way to lose to Nadal, like he always does when it matters most.
This is such a lame argument. Of course Federer can't face himself at Wimb sincevhe is the best grass player of this era. That's why Nadal had tougher competition at this slam.

And no, 2008-2009 was not peak Fed. Prome Fed yes, but overall nowhere near peak as peak Fed does not lose as many matches as he did in 2008-2009.

Djokovic won Wimb in weak fields too. 2014 and 2015.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
How many *slams* has Federer won after 29, particularly in finals against Djokovic.?

Federer has many Wimbledons against weak fields, but Nadal will always have the fact that he beat Federer during the latter's peak, in the final of Wimbledon, in what many consider to be the greatest grass court match of all time. Also Nadal beat Fed at AO during Fed's peak...

Nadal has 9 RG's the most titles at any slam, ever. Federer still has 7 Wimbledons, tied with Sampras (who won those titles against a harder field), and has come close to beating this record but was stopped by somebody in the most recent finals.

Also not at all sure about the peak Fed beating Nadal statement. I'm sure he still would've found a way to lose to Nadal, like he always does when it matters most.
And why does he have to beat Djoko in GS finals after 29? By that logic how many slams did Pete win fter 29 facing Safin or Hewitt in the finals?

Older Fed still did better in the slams against 2011-2012 Nole than peak Nadal himself.

Fed does not need to beat Djoko in a slam final to prove himself. He has already Nole in plenty of big matches. Nole himself has never beaten prime Fed in a slam final.
 

TearTheRoofOff

Hall of Fame
Well IMO Fed game improved over the 2004-2007 period for one simple reason, back then he was on like 80% at most in order to win *except Nadal at FO*. Once he started loosing against Nadal, Djokovic, Del Potro on other surfaces where he was the king he needed to adopt and to improve in certain aspects of hes game. Wimb run in 2015 for Fed, also US15 , AO16 was incredible for hes age and in that Wimb everyone thought he is getting hes 18th there...but every page has 2 sides.

That 2nd side is Novak. He was the one who had a lot of health issues while playing against 2 giants in their prime (Fedal). For many years he was No3 and in order to believe that he can get to hes dream of being No1 he needs to improve even more, push even more, practice and get stronger in every aspect even more. That 2010 Davis Cup win gave him huge confidence boost alongside with hes breathing problem solved (Gluten-free diet). 2011 is the result.

All 3 of ATG's Fed,Nad,Djok pushed each other to the level of tennis that is for everyone else on the Tour way beyond real. When you are speaking about Djokovic playing in (Weak Era) where he has 17k ATP points , can you just say that hes level of tennis is just far above everyone else on the Tour? Yes, and i just explain you why is that the case. He's playing with such an ease that even when he is playing bad he is still wining and reaching finals of 99% of the tournaments in past 2 years.

He's legacy is yet to be written and he will not stop at 17GS,302 weaks or 6 WTF's. He lives for tennis and loves the game.
I can't believe people still believe the gluten free story.
 

user

Professional
That is probably your line for anytime anyone accomplishes that is as good or better than something Fed accomplished. That line gets worns after awhile.

That is no different than the Sampras fans who say he would have easily won 17+ slams with the same competition as Fed; or the Nadal and Djokovic fanatics who say they would have easily matched what Fed did had they peaked in 2004-2007 instead, and more.
What he forgot to add is:

1. No Sampras and Agassi easily does 1999-2000 NCYGS
2. No Djokovic and Nadal easily does 2011-2012 NCYGS, maybe even in 2008-2009 with no Murray at USO
3. No Connors and Borg easily basically does 1978 CYGS, as he didn't even participate at AO
4. No FO ban and peak Connors easily does 1974 CYGS
5. No peak Pat Cash and Lendl easily does CYGS in 1987

......

The reality is there's no IFs, and only one out of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic actually won 4 in a row.
 

Flash O'Groove

Hall of Fame
I am rooting for Murray to step up once again and become a real rival for Djokovic, if nothing but for the sport's sake. IMOMurray is leagues above Hewitt, the guy reached 10 slam finals and was just stopped by GOAT candidates. He is the unluckiest multi-slam-level player in Open Era history because of this. Plus he won Wimbledon in front of his home crowd, also breaking one of the biggest curses in the history of the sport. If he gets even 2-3 more slams I think he can retire with few regrets.
Yeah I agree, but actually I think Hewitt has been quiet unlucky with Fed too. He get a lot of flack because he couldn't sustain his achievements from the early 2000 but it's a bit unfair. Hewitt was 20 years old when he beat Sampras in the US Open to win his first slam. Sampras had been runner-up the year before and would be champion the next year, so he still knew how to play tennis. He also won the master cup in 2001 and 2002, and Wimbledon 2002 in a depleted field. In 2003 he was pretty bad, probably too arrogant in conflict with the ATP, but he got very good again in 2004 in 2005, where he only lost to the eventual slam winner il all 7 tournaments he played (he missed the FO 2005). So he lost to Fed in AO 2004, Wimbledon 2004 and 2005, USO 2004 and 2005, Gaudio in FO 2004, Safin in AO 2005. In 2004 and 2005. He was 23-24 years old in 2004-2005. Then he got injured and his top career was finished.

In comparison, Murray was 20 year old in 2006, he entered in the top 20 (Hewitt at the same age was n°1). He was at the gate of the top 10 in 2007 (Hewitt still n°1). Murray was 23-24 years old in 2009-2010. He was a extremely good at this age but there is no way he would have outperformed Hewitt in the 2004-2005 slam draws. Could have outperformed him in M1000 though.

Hewitt is heavily criticized and often compared to the Ferrer, Nishikori, but it's completely wrong. He was extremely talented very quickly and break through the aging stars of the 90's, then hit a wall with Fed before injuries end it.
 

Odvala

Rookie
If he isn't then who else is?

Certainly not Djokovic as he is still behind in accomplishments.
Federer fans will always point to his unmatched tally of 17 Grand Slams when arguing that he is the GOAT. However, it is certainly arguable that the majority of his titles came in a weaker era of tennis, making his tally somewhat misleading.

Between 2003 and 2007, Federer won 12 slams. Three came against Andy Roddick, who admits he is one of the worst ever players to hold the no.1 ranking.

One came against Lleyton Hewitt, who faded dramatically as tennis evolved into the physical, baseline-dominated game it has become.

Three came against Mark Philippoussis, Marat Safin and Marcos Baghdatis, who were ranked 48th, 86th and 54th in the world respectively when Federer beat them in a final.

He also beat a 35-year-old Andre Agassi in what was his last appearance in a major final, got two wins against an emerging-yet-still-raw Nadal, and beat Djokovic in 2007, when the Serb was an entirely different player to what he is now.

Since 2007, Federer has won just five slams, with another coming against Roddick, while he also clinched his only French Open title against the-then world no.25 Robin Soderling, who prevented the Swiss from having to beat Nadal on clay (something which Djokovic has since managed.)


By comparison, all but one of Djokovic’s major titles have come against Federer, Nadal or Murray. The average rankings of the players Federer and Djokovic have faced in finals also tells a story of its own: Federer’s stands at 16.3, while Djokovic’s is 6.5.

And the book is not closed yet...
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
Federer fans will always point to his unmatched tally of 17 Grand Slams when arguing that he is the GOAT. However, it is certainly arguable that the majority of his titles came in a weaker era of tennis, making his tally somewhat misleading.

Between 2003 and 2007, Federer won 12 slams. Three came against Andy Roddick, who admits he is one of the worst ever players to hold the no.1 ranking.

One came against Lleyton Hewitt, who faded dramatically as tennis evolved into the physical, baseline-dominated game it has become.

Three came against Mark Philippoussis, Marat Safin and Marcos Baghdatis, who were ranked 48th, 86th and 54th in the world respectively when Federer beat them in a final.

He also beat a 35-year-old Andre Agassi in what was his last appearance in a major final, got two wins against an emerging-yet-still-raw Nadal, and beat Djokovic in 2007, when the Serb was an entirely different player to what he is now.

Since 2007, Federer has won just five slams, with another coming against Roddick, while he also clinched his only French Open title against the-then world no.25 Robin Soderling, who prevented the Swiss from having to beat Nadal on clay (something which Djokovic has since managed.)


By comparison, all but one of Djokovic’s major titles have come against Federer, Nadal or Murray. The average rankings of the players Federer and Djokovic have faced in finals also tells a story of its own: Federer’s stands at 16.3, while Djokovic’s is 6.5.

And the book is not closed yet...
So? Djokovic also won half of his slams in a weaker era.

Federer got the tougher opponents in 2009 at FO and Wimb. Delpo and Roddick played better that year than Djokovic and Murray, players whom Fed would have easily beaten in 2009 as they couldn't even beat the weak era players like Roddick, Gonzo and Haas.

Nadal has also won just 3 GS after the season in which he turned 26.

Sampras also won just 4 GS after he turned 26.

How do you explain these 2 not winning as much, because it seems that only Federer gets criticized for it?

Federer would have dominated as much as Djokovic against a 33-34 year old player, heavily declined Nadal, Wawrinka and Murray.
 

Odvala

Rookie
So? Djokovic also won half of his slams in a weaker era.

Federer got the tougher opponents in 2009 at FO and Wimb. Delpo and Roddick played better that year than Djokovic and Murray, players whom Fed would have easily beaten in 2009 as they couldn't even beat the weak era players like Roddick, Gonzo and Haas.

Nadal has also won just 3 GS after the season in which he turned 26.

Sampras also won just 4 GS after he turned 26.

How do you explain these 2 not winning as much, because it seems that only Federer gets criticized for it?

Federer would have dominated as much as Djokovic against a 33-34 year old player, heavily declined Nadal, Wawrinka and Murray.
If we take head-to-head records as one of the main indicators of GOAT worthiness, then Novak is now the undisputed no. 1.

To be the best, you surely have to be able to beat those around you.
For some context, Federer trails Nadal 23-11 in their head-to-head.

Furthermore, since Novak stepped up a gear in 2011, he has recovered from 13-6 down against Roger, winning six of their last eight meetings, and hasn’t lost to him in a Slam since Wimbledon 2012.

It’s widely agreed that the era of the ‘big-four’ is the strongest in tennis history, and if Djokovic sits at the top of that quartet, that makes him the GOAT by default, doesn’t it?

Let us remember that Djokovic is still only 29, yet is already firmly in the ‘best ever’ conversation.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
If we take head-to-head records as one of the main indicators of GOAT worthiness, then Novak is now the undisputed no. 1.

To be the best, you surely have to be able to beat those around you.
For some context, Federer trails Nadal 23-11 in their head-to-head.

Furthermore, since Novak stepped up a gear in 2011, he has recovered from 13-6 down against Roger, winning six of their last eight meetings, and hasn’t lost to him in a Slam since Wimbledon 2012.

It’s widely agreed that the era of the ‘big-four’ is the strongest in tennis history, and if Djokovic sits at the top of that quartet, that makes him the GOAT by default, doesn’t it?

Let us remember that Djokovic is still only 29, yet is already firmly in the ‘best ever’ conversation.
The Big 4 era was at its best in 2011-2012.

Nobody would dominate consistently in that era. The field needs to be weaker for either of them to dominate. 2013-2016 hasn't been the Big 4 era anymore as everytime there was a player who was bad.

Obviously Djokovic has got the upper hand against Fed after 2012. He was supposed to as Fed was only getting older.
 

Odvala

Rookie
2008-2015 Djokovic > 2000-2007 Federer

2008-2015 Nadal > 2001-2007 Nadal

2008-2015 Federer > 2000-2007 Agassi

2008-2015 Murray > 2000-07 Hewitt

2008-2015 Wawrinka > 2000-07 Roddick

2008-2015 Del Potro < 2000-07 Safin

2008-2015 Berdych < 2000-07 Nalbandian

2008-2015 Tsonga > 2000-07 Davydenko

2008-2015 Davydenko > 2000-07 Djokovic


After 2002, Balls and courts were significantly tweaked to cause players to participate in longer rallies, and to kill the over-eagerness of the Great serve-and-volley specialists.

This killed the competition after 2003, as Apex S&V Predator Pete Sampras retired in 2002, while other great S&V specialists like Rafter, Krajicek and Henman were rendered useless on slower surfaces, while Agassi was too old to co-dominate with Federer.

And this Weaker Era Of the Weaker Era (2003-2007) held true till the Big 4 came onto the scene around 2007-08.

This is why there is some credence to the Weak Era Theory and how it hugely benefitted Federer.

Does that mean Federer isn’t great?

Absolutely not.

But it does mean his case for the imaginary ‘GOAT’ title is a lot weaker than most people know, and the cases of Novak and Rafa are stronger than most people believe.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
2008-2015 Djokovic > 2000-2007 Federer

2008-2015 Nadal > 2001-2007 Nadal

2008-2015 Federer > 2000-2007 Agassi

2008-2015 Murray > 2000-07 Hewitt

2008-2015 Wawrinka > 2000-07 Roddick

2008-2015 Del Potro < 2000-07 Safin

2008-2015 Berdych < 2000-07 Nalbandian

2008-2015 Tsonga > 2000-07 Davydenko

2008-2015 Davydenko > 2000-07 Djokovic


After 2002, Balls and courts were significantly tweaked to cause players to participate in longer rallies, and to kill the over-eagerness of the Great serve-and-volley specialists.

This killed the competition after 2003, as Apex S&V Predator Pete Sampras retired in 2002, while other great S&V specialists like Rafter, Krajicek and Henman were rendered useless on slower surfaces, while Agassi was too old to co-dominate with Federer.

And this Weaker Era Of the Weaker Era (2003-2007) held true till the Big 4 came onto the scene around 2007-08.

This is why there is some credence to the Weak Era Theory and how it hugely benefitted Federer.

Does that mean Federer isn’t great?

Absolutely not.

But it does mean his case for the imaginary ‘GOAT’ title is a lot weaker than most people know, and the cases of Novak and Rafa are stronger than most people believe.
This is very subjective. 2007 Djokovic was better than 2010 Djokovic, I see no reason why you should put him in a separate category. 2000-2007 Djokovic LOL.

Djokovic is now dominating a weaker era too. Nobody has ever dominated a fully strong era. Nobody. Both Federer and Djokovic have benefitted from it, not just Federer. Just be objective and admit it. The Big 4 era was long ago extinct. It hasn't been the Big 4 era since 2014.
 

Sabratha

Talk Tennis Guru
Federer fans will always point to his unmatched tally of 17 Grand Slams when arguing that he is the GOAT. However, it is certainly arguable that the majority of his titles came in a weaker era of tennis, making his tally somewhat misleading.

Between 2003 and 2007, Federer won 12 slams. Three came against Andy Roddick, who admits he is one of the worst ever players to hold the no.1 ranking.

One came against Lleyton Hewitt, who faded dramatically as tennis evolved into the physical, baseline-dominated game it has become.

Three came against Mark Philippoussis, Marat Safin and Marcos Baghdatis, who were ranked 48th, 86th and 54th in the world respectively when Federer beat them in a final.

He also beat a 35-year-old Andre Agassi in what was his last appearance in a major final, got two wins against an emerging-yet-still-raw Nadal, and beat Djokovic in 2007, when the Serb was an entirely different player to what he is now.

Since 2007, Federer has won just five slams, with another coming against Roddick, while he also clinched his only French Open title against the-then world no.25 Robin Soderling, who prevented the Swiss from having to beat Nadal on clay (something which Djokovic has since managed.)


By comparison, all but one of Djokovic’s major titles have come against Federer, Nadal or Murray. The average rankings of the players Federer and Djokovic have faced in finals also tells a story of its own: Federer’s stands at 16.3, while Djokovic’s is 6.5.

And the book is not closed yet...
Uh.. Hewitt fell apart because he was riddled with injuries. Not because the sport became "more physical". Did you watch Hewitt? Like, at all? The guy had no problem trading groundstokes with Andre freaking Agassi - yet he fell because of the "rise of Stretch and Murray"? LOL.

And in terms of level of play, no, Murray isn't superior to Hewitt. He is better due to his consistency and all-around resume.

Oh and PS - today is weaker than any time Federer was winning, including 2006. You have to go back to 1998 to see a time tennis has been as weak as it is, so Djokovic will need 18 or 19 slams to surpass Federer due to this fact.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
And why does he have to beat Djoko in GS finals after 29? By that logic how many slams did Pete win fter 29 facing Safin or Hewitt in the finals?

Older Fed still did better in the slams against 2011-2012 Nole than peak Nadal himself.

Fed does not need to beat Djoko in a slam final to prove himself.He has already Nole in plenty of big matches. Nole himself has never beaten prime Fed in a slam final.
Just like Novak doesn't need to beat peak Fed to prove himself but you still hear loads of Fed trolls on here constantly whining about how he's beating up on an old man in GS finals to pad his resume, like even beating a Federer at 80% in a Wimbledon final is such an easy thing to accomplish. :rolleyes:
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
Just like Novak doesn't need to beat peak Fed to prove himself but you still hear loads of Fed trolls on here constantly whining about how he's beating up on an old man in GS finals to pad his resume, like even beating a Federer at 80% in a Wimbledon final is such an easy thing to accomplish. :rolleyes:
I am talking here only to those Djokovic fans who are more Fed haters than Djokovic fans.
 

swordtennis

Legend
And then the trolls on here have the audacity to project onto others that they all have insecurities about weak era and other nonsense trash. They are the ones talking bout it 24 7 lmao
We need a few more exterminations of Fedal by Djokovic on here I always hope that each beating drives fedal closer to retirement.
The question is if after fedal retirement will their trolls still be involved in tennis?
:eek:
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Uh.. Hewitt fell apart because he was riddled with injuries. Not because the sport became "more physical". Did you watch Hewitt? Like, at all? The guy had no problem trading groundstokes with Andre freaking Agassi - yet he fell because of the "rise of Stretch and Murray"? LOL.

And in terms of level of play, no, Murray isn't superior to Hewitt. He is better due to his consistency and all-around resume.

Oh and PS - today is weaker than any time Federer was winning, including 2006. You have to go back to 1998 to see a time tennis has been as weak as it is, so Djokovic will need 18 or 19 slams to surpass Federer due to this fact.
"Fact"? :D:D All I see is the usual BS coming from you Saby. At the end of the day a slam is a slam no matter how strong or weak you think the competition is and if Djokovic reaches 17 I'm pretty sure the vast majority of sane people will regard him as the greatest of the Open Era, perhaps with even less than 17 if he were to accomplish something truly special like the Calendar Grand Slam or the Double Career Slam. I understand you hate Novak but you should't allow that to affect your objectivity as it just makes you look petty and that's never a good look.
 
Last edited:

swordtennis

Legend
At least the majority of them will have fu*ked off to the Former Pro Player forum. :D:D
That would be fantastico!
Get outa here!
How a fan base can complain about Djokovic's opponents and weak era is beyond me when their favs first 7 major finals opponents would get owned by Murray and 30+ year old Federer and even Nadal lmao! is beyond ludicrous pitiful and petty.
and frankly just plain stupid.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
If we were just to compare slam count alone and IF Nole wins 17 slams, the tie-breaker would be the difference in number of Wimbledon. Not all slams are equally prestigious and people valued each one over the others. The consensus is that Wimbledon has always been the holy grail of tennis. I mean just imagine Borg won 5 AO instead of 5 Wimbledon, he wouldn't be placed more in goat argument, less of a sport icon and not as much famous/popular.
 

user

Professional
If we were just to compare slam count alone and IF Nole wins 17 slams, the tie-breaker would be the difference in number of Wimbledon.
No, it would not. There's another much more important criteria that Federer doesn't meet, but Djokovic does. And it is much more than a tie-breaker.

The consensus is that Wimbledon has always been the holy grail of tennis.
You know da*n well what has allways been the Holy Grail of tennis. Your post reeks of insecurity tbh.
 

BrooklynNY

Hall of Fame
If we were just to compare slam count alone and IF Nole wins 17 slams, the tie-breaker would be the difference in number of Wimbledon. Not all slams are equally prestigious and people valued each one over the others. The consensus is that Wimbledon has always been the holy grail of tennis. I mean just imagine Borg won 5 AO instead of 5 Wimbledon, he wouldn't be placed more in goat argument, less of a sport icon and not as much famous/popular.

Haha, if that was the case...I think the Nole Slam holds quite a bit of weight - not sure it's only down to # of wimbeldons
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
If we were just to compare slam count alone and IF Nole wins 17 slams, the tie-breaker would be the difference in number of Wimbledon. Not all slams are equally prestigious and people valued each one over the others. The consensus is that Wimbledon has always been the holy grail of tennis. I mean just imagine Borg won 5 AO instead of 5 Wimbledon, he wouldn't be placed more in goat argument, less of a sport icon and not as much famous/popular.
Starting to get a bit nervous TMF? ;)
 

user

Professional
Starting to get a bit nervous TMF? ;)
Djokovic is still very far away from 17, and chances are slim that he'll ever reach that. And yet, you read this kind of posts every day. Although, when you think of it, if by any chance he does win 5 more, there will be no place to run for Federer. Every career defining streak he has pales in comparison to what Djokovic accomplished on the 5th of June 2016. 10 straight GS finals, 23 straight GS semis...You name it. If he indeed gets to 17 he'll probably reach 300 weeks at #1, too.

But, even if he doesn't, I'd still be happy with what he achieved over the years. Knowing that he's won it all, plus done something really huge, that Federer and Nadal never did. There's a reason Rod Laver is a living legend, and in his case it is not the overall number of Slams he won.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Djokovic is still very far away from 17, and chances are slim that he'll ever reach that. And yet, you read this kind of posts every day. Although, when you think of it, if by any chance he does win 5 more, there will be no place to run for Federer. Every career defining streak he has pales in comparison to what Djokovic accomplished on the 5th of June 2016. 10 straight GS finals, 23 straight GS semis...You name it. If he indeed gets to 17 he'll probably reach 300 weeks at #1, too.

But, even if he doesn't, I'd still be happy with what he achieved over the years. Knowing that he's won it all, plus done something really huge, that Federer and Nadal never did. There's a reason Rod Laver is a living legend, and in his case it is not the overall number of Slams he won.
The thing that makes me laugh about TMF is how badly he doesn't want Nadal, Djokovic or any other player to surpass Federer's records. I get that Roger's his all time favourite player and he wants him to be considered the greatest, there's nothing wrong with that, but the way he tries so hard to discredit other ATG's achievements to make Fed's look better just reeks of desperation to me, like it'd really impact his whole life if some other guy(in this case Novak) has the temerity to break the Slam record. I don't know, I just find it all a bit funny and yet at the same time quite sad.
 

user

Professional
The thing that makes me laugh about TMF is how badly he doesn't want Nadal, Djokovic or any other player to surpass Federer's records. I get that Roger's his all time favourite player and he wants him to be considered the greatest, there's nothing wrong with that, but the way he tries so hard to discredit other ATG's achievements to make Fed's look better just reeks of desperation to me, like it'd really impact his whole life if some other guy(in this case Novak) has the temerity to break the Slam record. I don't know, I just find it all a bit funny and yet at the same time quite sad.
The funniest thing, as I said, is that he is doing it now, along with presenting us some made up criteria to suit his needs. I cannot imagine what he'll be going through if Djokovic gets to that point when he really threatens the record. It was another thing with Nadal, even had he reached 17+, there would still be tons of other important records in Federer's favor. Not the case with Djokovic.
 

Sabratha

Talk Tennis Guru
That would be fantastico!
Get outa here!
How a fan base can complain about Djokovic's opponents and weak era is beyond me when their favs first 7 major finals opponents would get owned by Murray and 30+ year old Federer and even Nadal lmao! is beyond ludicrous pitiful and petty.
and frankly just plain stupid.
Doubt Hewitt or Roddick would get "owned" by Murray - be serious now.
 

Sabratha

Talk Tennis Guru
"Fact"? :D:D All I see is the usual BS coming from you Saby. At the end of the day a slam is a slam no matter how strong or weak you think the competition is and if Djokovic reaches 17 I'm pretty sure the vast majority of sane people will regard him as the greatest of the Open Era, perhaps with even less than 17 if he were to accomplish something truly special like the Calendar Grand Slam or the Double Career Slam. I understand you hate Novak but you should't allow that to affect your objectivity as it just makes you look petty and that's never a good look.
Yes, it's a fact tennis is at its weakest point in 20 years. Accept it and move on.

And no, Stretch will need 18 or 19 slams to surpass Federer - mainly because he's only won 6 slams in a "strong era" (Fed won 5 in one so not a huge difference anyway) so MOST of his majors will come in the weakest era quite possibly ever. You think people are going to say he's better than even Sampras when/if he achieves the CYGS? People will just say it's because he got the chance to play Andy Murray in a RG final/weak opponents all around and that Sampras could do the same himself if given the chance.

Once he gets to 1 or 2 majors ahead of Federer he will be considered better (undisputably) but it's absolutely delusional and wrong to expect people to rate this weak era champ higher than another weak era champ with LESS majors. Makes ZERO sense.
 

Sabratha

Talk Tennis Guru
Problem is is that fedal trolls have driven many to hate federer with their constant drooling and spewing.
Same re: Novak and your horrible crowd of idiots who proclaim him the greatest guy to ever set foot on a tennis court WITH 12 MAJORS.

Honestly, how is that any different to how the Fed fans acted? What a hypocritical statement.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Yes, it's a fact tennis is at its weakest point in 20 years. Accept it and move on.

And no, Stretch will need 18 or 19 slams to surpass Federer - mainly because he's only won 6 slams in a "strong era" (Fed won 5 in one so not a huge difference anyway) so MOST of his majors will come in the weakest era quite possibly ever. You think people are going to say he's better than even Sampras when/if he achieves the CYGS? People will just say it's because he got the chance to play Andy Murray in a RG final/weak opponents all around and that Sampras could do the same himself if given the chance.

Once he gets to 1 or 2 majors ahead of Federer he will be considered better (undisputably) but it's absolutely delusional and wrong to expect people to rate this weak era champ higher than another weak era champ with LESS majors. Makes ZERO sense.
Oh dear. :oops::oops:
 
Top