Reference thread for Djokovic closing in on key stats and records

[ND-13]

Note that Djokovic has played 5 years less on the tour than Federer but he's beaten more top 5 players and top 10 players, meaning his competition has been relatively tougher.

Beaten more top 5 players and top 10 players - true statement

But conclusion lacks any proof, unless you mean lesser upsets and top player meeting top 5 more often means a more stronger top.

2011-15 was awesome but everyone and their mother know the era after pales in comparison to the period from 2005-15.

 

[zvelf]

Beaten more top 5 players and top 10 players - true statement

But conclusion lacks any proof, unless you mean lesser upsets and top player meeting top 5 more often means a more stronger top.

2011-15 was awesome but everyone and their mother know the era after pales in comparison to the period from 2005-15.

Basically, the quality of a player in any one particular ranking spot, whether #1 or #10, can vary a bit, but the variability across the top 5 players or the top 10 players in aggregate, not so much, and those margins would be very small. So if Djokovic plays 5 fewer years than Federer but encounters the top 5 or top 10 players in total about as much, that means Djokovic meets higher competition at a notably higher rate. In other words, Djokovic has had tougher draws where the higher seeded players were able to go deeper than Federer's draws. Also, I don't know what you mean by saying 2011-15 pales in comparison to 2005-15 when 2011-15 makes up half the period that it itself supposedly pales in comparison to.

 

[TimHenmanATG]

Here's a reference for the set of all Olympic Gold medals which Novak "Nole" Djokovic has won:

 

[zvelf]

Here's a reference for the set of all Olympic Gold medals which Novak "Nole" Djokovic has won:

And yet, Djokovic has a better case for GOAT than players who have won Olympic Gold.

 

[Fiero425]

And yet, Djokovic has a better case for GOAT than players who have won Olympic Gold.

Elevating Olympic Gold just makes no sense to me! I'm one who doesn't particularly care for their participation in what was considered an amateur event!

 

[TimHenmanATG]

And yet, Djokovic has a better case for GOAT than players who have won Olympic Gold.

You're still living in the Marc Rosset days.

Every single tennis athlete knows exactly what the Olympics mean to their legacy.

 

[ND-13]

Basically, the quality of a player in any one particular ranking spot, whether #1 or #10, can vary a bit, but the variability across the top 5 players or the top 10 players in aggregate, not so much, and those margins would be very small. So if Djokovic plays 5 fewer years than Federer but encounters the top 5 or top 10 players in total about as much, that means Djokovic meets higher competition at a notably higher rate. In other words, Djokovic has had tougher draws where the higher seeded players were able to go deeper than Federer's draws. Also, I don't know what you mean by saying 2011-15 pales in comparison to 2005-15 when 2011-15 makes up half the period that it itself supposedly pales in comparison to.

Your conclusions lack proof like i mentioned.

Top players reaching late rounds consistently can mean that the tour is comprised of very weak players outside top 10 OR can mean the top 10 is way better than the rest of the tour. How do we reach the conclusion that it is the latter ?

I said the era after 2015 is weak and I think that is an opinion that is universally shared here and outside.

 

[TimHenmanATG]

Elevating Olympic Gold just makes no sense to me! I'm one who doesn't particularly care for their participation in what was considered an amateur event!

 

[zvelf]

You're still living in the Marc Rosset days.

Every single tennis athlete knows exactly what the Olympics mean to their legacy.

I'm not disputing that Olympic gold doesn't help make a case toward greatness, but in and of itself, it's a minor consideration. Nadal has gold yet he clearly sits behind Djokovic and Federer, who lack gold, in the case for GOAT.

Your conclusions lack proof like i mentioned.

Top players reaching late rounds consistently can mean that the tour is comprised of very weak players outside top 10 OR can mean the top 10 is way better than the rest of the tour. How do we reach the conclusion that it is the latter ?

My proof is simple logic. If you read what I wrote, the point I was making is that the quality of one player in one ranking spot at one moment in time may fluctuate a fair amount, but the quality in aggregate of numerous players do not. Aside from improvement in equipment, diet/nutrition, training techniques, it's simply untenable to say that the aggregate skill/ability of the top 100 players change in any notable amount every 5 or 10 years. That is to say your hypothetical statement of "the tour is comprised of very weak players outside top 10" is never true. Millions play tennis, and you want to describe the top 1% of the top 1% of tennis players on the entire planet as "very weak"? As soon as a top 100 player becomes "very weak," they will drop out of the top 100 and be replaced by a stronger player. Therefore to achieve the top 5 or top 10 in any era for a good length of time means a level of tennis that's unimaginable to the layperson. And if those top 5 or top 10 consistently go deep into slams, that's even more credit to them, not less because you're trying to rationalize a way to diminish them.

 

[ND-13]

I'm not disputing that Olympic gold doesn't help make a case toward greatness, but in and of itself, it's a minor consideration. Nadal has gold yet he clearly sits behind Djokovic and Federer, who lack gold, in the case for GOAT.



My proof is simple logic. If you read what I wrote, the point I was making is that the quality of one player in one ranking spot at one moment in time may fluctuate a fair amount, but the quality in aggregate of numerous players do not. Aside from improvement in equipment, diet/nutrition, training techniques, it's simply untenable to say that the aggregate skill/ability of the top 100 players change in any notable amount every 5 or 10 years. That is to say your hypothetical statement of "the tour is comprised of very weak players outside top 10" is never true. Millions play tennis, and you want to describe the top 1% of the top 1% of tennis players on the entire planet as "very weak"? As soon as a top 100 player becomes "very weak," they will drop out of the top 100 and be replaced by a stronger player. Therefore to achieve the top 5 or top 10 in any era for a good length of time means a level of tennis that's unimaginable to the layperson. And if those top 5 or top 10 consistently go deep into slams, that's even more credit to them, not less because you're trying to rationalize a way to diminish them.

The period from 2015-21 is where old players have feasted like never before and the next rung of players could not do anything . There were at least 2 generation of players who pretty much won nothing of note . (The Dnitrov, Raonic, Nishikori, Delpo, Cilic, Goffin, Thiem ) . Players who prior to 2015 ranked outside top 10 and 20 became top 5 and top 10.

There is not one ATG between Djokovic and the players at the top now . We should have seen at least a couple by now already

 

[NoleFam]

The period from 2015-21 is where old players have feasted like never before and the next rung of players could not do anything . There were at least 2 generation of players who pretty much won nothing of note . (The Dnitrov, Raonic, Nishikori, Delpo, Cilic, Goffin, Thiem ) . Players who prior to 2015 ranked outside top 10 and 20 became top 5 and top 10.

There is not one ATG between Djokovic and the players at the top now . We should have seen at least a couple by now already

What old players feasted in 2015? Djokovic and Wawrinka, who won the Slams, were 28 and 30. That is not old by any means, and Djokovic won almost everything else outside of Slams.

Why should there be a couple of ATGs at the top amongst Medvedev, Zverev or Tsitsipas? That would mean Djokovic wouldn't be winning anything and no longer #1. Why is that plausible when he's still the best player in the world and still playing a high level.

 

[zvelf]

The period from 2015-21 is where old players have feasted like never before and the next rung of players could not do anything . There were at least 2 generation of players who pretty much won nothing of note . (The Dnitrov, Raonic, Nishikori, Delpo, Cilic, Goffin, Thiem ) . Players who prior to 2015 ranked outside top 10 and 20 became top 5 and top 10.

The following generation won nothing outside of Cilic and Thiem, but that's because they followed The Big Three, 3 outlier players who dominated tennis in a way never seen before. On top of that, Nadal/Djokovic's generation also had Berdych, Murray, Tsonga, and Wawrinka to contend with. It wasn't like Cilic, Nishikori, Raonic, and Thiem didn't at least contend. They often went deep in slams. They just couldn't overcome 3 players, all contending to be GOAT, at the same time. Delpo was just unlucky that he was injured half his career and Nishikori and Raonic have also had to deal with extensive injury. It's not that they were "very weak" but that their opposition was very strong. You can't get any stronger than 3 simultaneous potential GOATs. In any case, 2021 has seen a changing of the guard as Medvedev, Zverev, and Tsitsipas have come into their own. Tsitsipas beat Nadal at the Australian Open, Zverev beat Nadal on clay in Madrid, and Medvedev beat Djokovic at the U.S. Open. This generation of players has already been beating Federer more often than not. Now they will go into matches with Nadal as the favorites. Now they will go into matches with Djokovic with even odds.

 

[Texas Tennis Fan]

The following generation won nothing outside of Cilic and Thiem, but that's because they followed The Big Three, 3 outlier players who dominated tennis in a way never seen before. On top of that, Nadal/Djokovic's generation also had Berdych, Murray, Tsonga, and Wawrinka to contend with. It wasn't like Cilic, Nishikori, Raonic, and Thiem didn't at least contend. They often went deep in slams. They just couldn't overcome 3 players, all contending to be GOAT, at the same time. Delpo was just unlucky that he was injured half his career and Nishikori and Raonic have also had to deal with extensive injury. It's not that they were "very weak" but that their opposition was very strong. You can't get any stronger than 3 simultaneous potential GOATs. In any case, 2021 has seen a changing of the guard as Medvedev, Zverev, and Tsitsipas have come into their own. Tsitsipas beat Nadal at the Australian Open, Zverev beat Nadal on clay in Madrid, and Medvedev beat Djokovic at the U.S. Open. This generation of players has already been beating Federer more often than not. Now they will go into matches with Nadal as the favorites. Now they will go into matches with Djokovic with even odds.

Good write-up, but I'd suggest your last sentence should be amended to say except at RG for Nadal and all the slams for Djokovic. It may be that Medvedev starts beating Djokovic regularly at slams, but that is still to be seen. The one win at a unique circumstance where Djokovic had a lot of pressure may not mean that the guard has changed at slams yet.

 

[ND-13]

The following generation won nothing outside of Cilic and Thiem, but that's because they followed The Big Three, 3 outlier players who dominated tennis in a way never seen before. On top of that, Nadal/Djokovic's generation also had Berdych, Murray, Tsonga, and Wawrinka to contend with. It wasn't like Cilic, Nishikori, Raonic, and Thiem didn't at least contend. They often went deep in slams. They just couldn't overcome 3 players, all contending to be GOAT, at the same time. Delpo was just unlucky that he was injured half his career and Nishikori and Raonic have also had to deal with extensive injury. It's not that they were "very weak" but that their opposition was very strong. You can't get any stronger than 3 simultaneous potential GOATs. In any case, 2021 has seen a changing of the guard as Medvedev, Zverev, and Tsitsipas have come into their own. Tsitsipas beat Nadal at the Australian Open, Zverev beat Nadal on clay in Madrid, and Medvedev beat Djokovic at the U.S. Open. This generation of players has already been beating Federer more often than not. Now they will go into matches with Nadal as the favorites. Now they will go into matches with Djokovic with even odds.

With Novak at age 35, Nadal at 36, Roger at 40 - we have waited for so long - that no one really cares anymore of the next generation. And let us not forget the way Tsitsipas laid an egg after winning 2 sets in a major final . Zverev is still to win a match against top 10 in majors. Medvedev is the only one who has got some respectability.

And there has never been a 6 year period in tennis where no single ATG rose into prominence. Actually i am kind by saying 6, it is probably close to 10.

 

[BGod]

By beating Hurkacz, Novak will be guaranteed YE though technically via tiebreak situation if Medvedev won Paris as theoretically if Novak checked out and Medvedev swept WTF he'd be tied but Novak has Slam tiebreaker.

So beat Hurkacz and we can officially stamp 7th YE.

 

[zvelf]

With Novak at age 35, Nadal at 36, Roger at 40 - we have waited for so long - that no one really cares anymore of the next generation. And let us not forget the way Tsitsipas laid an egg after winning 2 sets in a major final . Zverev is still to win a match against top 10 in majors. Medvedev is the only one who has got some respectability.

It's funny when people have to exaggerate players' ages, apparently because they don't feel their case is strong enough on their own merits. As of today, Djokovic is exactly 34.459 years old and Nadal is 35.425 years old so you can't even round their ages up to 35 and 36. You have to remember that Tsitsipas is the youngest of this generation's major contenders and only turned 23 in August. Zverev never beating a top 10 in majors is an overstated stat. Let's look at his losses once he entered the top 10 himself. There are 7 losses in total. Here are the rankings (not seedings) of his opponents and himself at the time of these matches:

2018 FO: #8 Thiem d. #3 Zverev
2019 FO: #1 Djokovic d. #5 Zverev
2020 AO: #5 Thiem d. #7 Zverev
2020 USO: #2 Thiem d. #5 Zverev
2021 AO: #1 Djokovic d. #7 Zverev
2021 FO: #5 Tsitsipas d. #6 Zverev
2021 USO: #1 Djokovic d. #4 Zverev

So 3 of the 7 are losses to #1 Djokovic and all but one loss is to a player ranked higher than Zverev. The one loss where Zverev was ranked higher was against Thiem who was clearly the better clay-court player at the time. So while Zverev probably should have gotten lucky and won at least one of these, he was the underdog in every one of these matches and losing them is not an embarrassment.

And there has never been a 6 year period in tennis where no single ATG rose into prominence. Actually i am kind by saying 6, it is probably close to 10.

Right and there has never been a period when 3 different players each broke the previous slam record by 6 slams, thus stopping the rise of ATGs.

 

[TMF]

Your conclusions lack proof like i mentioned.

Top players reaching late rounds consistently can mean that the tour is comprised of very weak players outside top 10 OR can mean the top 10 is way better than the rest of the tour. How do we reach the conclusion that it is the latter ?

I said the era after 2015 is weak and I think that is an opinion that is universally shared here and outside.

This is true. The depth and strength of the field ranking between 11-100 dictates the chances of top players reach in later round. The more depth/strength, the greater chance for upset. Just because Djokovic met more top 10 in late round could very be a reason that there's a lack of depth and competition in his era. To conclude Nole had better competition is unproven assertion.

 

[ND-13]

It's funny when people have to exaggerate players' ages, apparently because they don't feel their case is strong enough on their own merits. As of today, Djokovic is exactly 34.459 years old and Nadal is 35.425 years old so you can't even round their ages up to 35 and 36. You have to remember that Tsitsipas is the youngest of this generation's major contenders and only turned 23 in August. Zverev never beating a top 10 in majors is an overstated stat. Let's look at his losses once he entered the top 10 himself. There are 7 losses in total. Here are the rankings (not seedings) of his opponents and himself at the time of these matches:

2018 FO: #8 Thiem d. #3 Zverev
2019 FO: #1 Djokovic d. #5 Zverev
2020 AO: #5 Thiem d. #7 Zverev
2020 USO: #2 Thiem d. #5 Zverev
2021 AO: #1 Djokovic d. #7 Zverev
2021 FO: #5 Tsitsipas d. #6 Zverev
2021 USO: #1 Djokovic d. #4 Zverev

So 3 of the 7 are losses to #1 Djokovic and all but one loss is to a player ranked higher than Zverev. The one loss where Zverev was ranked higher was against Thiem who was clearly the better clay-court player at the time. So while Zverev probably should have gotten lucky and won at least one of these, he was the underdog in every one of these matches and losing them is not an embarrassment.



Right and there has never been a period when 3 different players each broke the previous slam record by 6 slams, thus stopping the rise of ATGs.

Excuses after excuses. Where are all other losses of Zverev in early rounds to unknowns ?

If Zverev at age 23, cannot even get a single top 10 win , how is he going to beat Djokovic in a major ? At 23, i can name dozens of players who won a major. And here we have a bunch that cannot win against 34 year and older players.

Nadal and Federer winning 6 to 8 majors between them in the last 4 years at age 36-37 and 32-33 is the final nail on the coffin of this weak era, We dont need to look at anything else.

The ages that i mentioned are what the big 3 will be next year - when apparently there is the best hope in the last 10 years of seeing a new generation finally winning. You probably need to read others view point better.

 

[zvelf]

This is true. The depth and strength of the field ranking between 11-100 dictates the chances of top players reach in later round. The more depth/strength, the greater chance for upset. Just because Djokovic met more top 10 in late round could very be a reason that there's a lack of depth and competition in his era. To conclude Nole had better competition is unproven assertion.

How likely is it that over a few years time, the skill and ability of the majority of 90 of the world's best tennis players just happened to drop a noticeable amount? That's a ridiculous assertion and just doesn't happen.

 

[zvelf]

If Zverev at age 23, cannot even get a single top 10 win , how is he going to beat Djokovic in a major ? At 23, i can name dozens of players who won a major. And here we have a bunch that cannot win against 34 year and older players.

How many tennis players who are/were 23-years old or younger can you name who have beaten any of the Big Three to win a major other than another of the Big Three? The answer is only one player that young has ever done it, Del Potro. It's easy and misleading to say a bunch of young players have done it. That's like saying Mark Edmondson's won a major so anybody should be able to do it. Well, Edmondson didn't have to play Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic to do it. The players of this generation do.

Nadal and Federer winning 6 to 8 majors between them in the last 4 years at age 36-37 and 32-33 is the final nail on the coffin of this weak era, We dont need to look at anything else.

Federer got lucky at a time when Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka, Raonic, and Nishikori all were playing with injury or went out with injury. Nadal at 32-33 is just that good.

The ages that i mentioned are what the big 3 will be next year - when apparently there is the best hope in the last 10 years of seeing a new generation finally winning. You probably need to read others view point better.

Or you need to learn how to write more clearly because nothing indicated you were referring to next year. If anything, that sentence reads in the present tense.

 

[abmk]

Excuses after excuses. Where are all other losses of Zverev in early rounds to unknowns ?

If Zverev at age 23, cannot even get a single top 10 win , how is he going to beat Djokovic in a major ? At 23, i can name dozens of players who won a major. And here we have a bunch that cannot win against 34 year and older players.

Nadal and Federer winning 6 to 8 majors between them in the last 4 years at age 36-37 and 32-33 is the final nail on the coffin of this weak era, We dont need to look at anything else.

The ages that i mentioned are what the big 3 will be next year - when apparently there is the best hope in the last 10 years of seeing a new generation finally winning. You probably need to read others view point better.

@zvelf has his/her a** so far up Djokovic's a** that he/she will do anything to prop up Djokovic including artificially inflating Djokovic's competition while making a gigantic fool out of himself/herself.

 

[zvelf]

@zvelf has his/her a** so far up Djokovic's a** that he/she will do anything to prop up Djokovic including artificially inflating Djokovic's competition while making a gigantic fool out of himself/herself.

abmk, you're always reliable to go ad hominem when losing an argument.

 

[abmk]

Federer got lucky at a time when Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka, Raonic, and Nishikori all were playing with injury or went out with injury. Nadal at 32-33 is just that good.

Federer beat Nishikori, Wawrinka and Nadal in AO 17
Federer beat Raonic in Wim 17 along with Berdych&Cilic.
Federer beat Berdych and Cilic in AO 18

Djokovic of course avoided getting thrashed by Federer in 17-mid18 which he would have been given his form.
Murray was getting his *** handed to him by fed in their last 5 matches (14-15) - 1 set lost in 5 matches combined. was always dominated by fed in slams anyways - from USO 08 to WIm 15.

Lucky is ********** exploting the weakest period in the open era by far the most : 15-21
Djokovic had only won 8 slams before turning 28 in mid15. Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal all had won 10+ by that time.

Yes, Nadal was that good in USO 17/USO 19 - nothing to do with ridiculously easy draw/fairly easy draw (rolls eyes)
since how long have you been this pityingly pathetic?

 

[Third Serve]

abmk, you're always reliable to go ad hominem when losing an argument.

tbf he does it even when he's handily winning arguments lol

 

[abmk]

abmk, you're always reliable to go ad hominem when losing an argument.

ND-13 already thrashed your arguments to pulp. I hadn't even started arguing with you about Z before making that post. So I couldn't have been losing. But you brain seems to have rotted with your head being so far up ........

I'll add one thing to what he said. Just to expand..
Z had not reached semi of a slam till AO 2020.
He was top 10 from like RG 17 onwards. That's like 11 slams in a weak era.
Early/relatively exits all over the place combined with losing to top 10 twice in that period. And when he did start making slam semis, he'd reliably lose to the first top 10 player he faced.
The top 10 stat is used to illustrate his failings/relative failings in slams in case you didn't get the memo.

 

[NoleFam]

@zvelf has his/her a** so far up Djokovic's a** that he/she will do anything to prop up Djokovic including artificially inflating Djokovic's competition while making a gigantic fool out of himself/herself.

Please don't cause my thread to get deleted because you can't watch your mouth and actually have a civil discussion like everybody else.

 

[abmk]

Please don't cause my thread to get deleted because you can't watch your mouth and actually have a civil discussion like everybody else.

Yeah, because civility takes priority over someone being such a crazy fanatic that he/she loses grip over reality. You got your priorities straight, pal.

 

[NoleFam]

Yeah, because civility takes priority over someone being such a crazy fanatic that he/she loses grip over reality. You got your priorities straight, pal.

It doesn't matter whether they're a fanatic or not, your type of arguing is uncalled for.

 

[abmk]

It doesn't matter whether they're a fanatic or not, your type of arguing is uncalled for.

Actually it needs to be pointed out when that fanatic makes dozens of such nonsense posts. Maybe more politely, but zvelf had it coming.

 

[abmk]

And there has never been a 6 year period in tennis where no single ATG rose into prominence. Actually i am kind by saying 6, it is probably close to 10.

It is 10 years - since Djoko in 11. Two flop gens in slams (starting from Nishi to current young gen so far)

 

[InsideOut900]

And there has never been a 6 year period in tennis where no single ATG rose into prominence. Actually i am kind by saying 6, it is probably close to 10.

Sampras 93 / Agassi 94 until Fed 04?

That's 9-10 years.

 

[Nadal_Django]

It doesn't matter whether they're a fanatic or not, your type of arguing is uncalled for.

Funniest thing is that he from all people is calling someone else a crazy fanatic!?

 

[Red Rick]

when he's handily winning arguments lol

Wait that happens?

 

[RS]

tbf he does it even when he's handily winning arguments lol

Nobody wins arguments on TTW these days

 

[ND-13]

Sampras 93 / Agassi 94 until Fed 04?

That's 9-10 years.

Agassi was not an ATG until end of the decade

 

[InsideOut900]

Agassi was not an ATG until end of the decade

Neither was Djokovic till 2015, but you are counting since 2011.
Hindsight application should be obvious here.

 

[Deleted member 779124]

Neither was Djokovic till 2015, but you are counting since 2011.
Hindsight application should be obvious here.

Not sure if I am misreading the context but I believe Djokovic was a ATG before 2015.

 

[NatF]

Sampras 93 / Agassi 94 until Fed 04?

That's 9-10 years.

Yeah the early 00's would have been very interesting if the gen after PETE had an ATG. Agassi with his later career surge sort of filled the void but not enough as he was obviously slowing down by 2004.

Probably in terms of age what we have now is so far unprecedented?

 

[nolefam_2024]

Not sure if I am misreading the context but I believe Djokovic was a ATG before 2015.

Oh yes, almost 140/150 weeks as number 1 plus 7 slams and 7 finals. There is nothing more needed to be atg. Nole probably had more master's than Agassi already.

 

[ND-13]

How many tennis players who are/were 23-years old or younger can you name who have beaten any of the Big Three to win a major other than another of the Big Three? The answer is only one player that young has ever done it, Del Potro. It's easy and misleading to say a bunch of young players have done it. That's like saying Mark Edmondson's won a major so anybody should be able to do it. Well, Edmondson didn't have to play Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic to do it. The players of this generation do.

Well, you are exactly reinforcing my point. The generation is completely useless that they are unable to beat the big 3 to win majors. To sum up, I dont think the big 3 are clearly that different players from the previous ATG. If Sampras or Lendl or Borg was shown the door at some point, the same should have occurred with the big 3. It is NOT that the big 3 are clearly better players than the prior ATG. The fact that Big 3 keep winning at this old age and clearly performing a level below their best is all we need to see.

Federer got lucky at a time when Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka, Raonic, and Nishikori all were playing with injury or went out with injury. Nadal at 32-33 is just that good.

LOL....The tired argument... Only Federer gets lucky. And Nadal is a warrior when the argument suits yet when it comes to USO performances vis-a-vis Djokovic, Nadal has weak draws.

 

[RF-18]

Well, you are exactly reinforcing my point. The generation is completely useless that they are unable to beat the big 3 to win majors. To sum up, I dont think the big 3 are clearly that different players from the previous ATG. If Sampras or Lendl or Borg was shown the door at some point, the same should have occurred with the big 3. It is NOT that the big 3 are clearly better players than the prior ATG. The fact that Big 3 keep winning at this old age and clearly performing a level below their best is all we need to see.



LOL....The tired argument... Only Federer gets lucky. And Nadal is a warrior when the argument suits yet when it comes to USO performances vis-a-vis Djokovic, Nadal has weak draws.

There is clearly firm competition you are just not choosing to see it and instead you just focus at age.

 

[Deleted member 779124]

Oh yes, almost 140/150 weeks as number 1 plus 7 slams and 7 finals. There is nothing more needed to be atg. Nole probably had more master's than Agassi already.

I believe after winning AO 2013 is when Djokovic became a ATG.

 

[nolefam_2024]

I believe after AO 2013 is when Djokovic became a ATG.

Probably. He had tons of titles outside of GS before AO13, masters, YEC, 7/9 masters.

 

[Deleted member 779124]

Probably. He had tons of titles outside of GS before AO13, masters, YEC, 7/9 masters.

Djokovic had a slightly less than a Murray like career in non-slam events at that time but with a higher peak and a better slam career as well as more weeks at the top so that fits in.

 

[ND-13]

There is clearly firm competition you are just not choosing to see it and instead you just focus at age.

We are not just talking now at the *** end of 2021. The discussion is more about lack of talent from 2015-2021. I firmly believe this is "vacuum era" and tennis has not seen such a long drought in the open era. What will happen from 2022 does not negate what happened previously.

 

[Red Rick]

Ultimate Tennis Statistics - Most Big Finals (Grand Slam, All Tour Finals, Masters, Olympics)

Most Big Finals (Grand Slam, All Tour Finals, Masters, Olympics) at Ultimate Tennis Statistics

www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com

 

[zvelf]

Well, you are exactly reinforcing my point. The generation is completely useless that they are unable to beat the big 3 to win majors. To sum up, I dont think the big 3 are clearly that different players from the previous ATG. If Sampras or Lendl or Borg was shown the door at some point, the same should have occurred with the big 3. It is NOT that the big 3 are clearly better players than the prior ATG. The fact that Big 3 keep winning at this old age and clearly performing a level below their best is all we need to see.

Except you're wrong that the Big Three are the same as other ATGs. If they were, they wouldn't have broken every record in the books. And one of the most remarkable differences with the Big Three is unlike many ATGs, they have played with greater longevity. They have played with the longevity of a Rosewall but with even better abilities. No, Djokovic and Nadal aren't playing as well as at their peaks, but they are still playing very well. If they are subpar players now, then they could never generate these reactions to their Roland Garros match:

Maria Sharapova: In awe of what we just witnessed for the past 4 hours.
Diego Schwartzman: Are we tennis players playing the same sport as those two?
Feliciano Lopez: The story of the match is that they play a different sport.
Andy Murray: You cannot play better clay court tennis than this. It’s perfect.
Tennys Sandgren: There is no higher level of sport than this.
Andy Roddick: One of the best matches I’ve ever seen.
Darren Cahill: One of the best matches I’ve seen.
Mary Carillo: Maybe the best match I’ve ever seen.
Paul Anacone: This was the best set of tennis, this third set, that I have ever seen in my life.
One of the greatest sets of tennis that I have ever witnessed.
John McEnroe: One of the greatest matches we ever saw and certainly the greatest third set in the history of the men’s game on the clay court.
Chris Evert: The greatest match ever played.

But you know better than these players who have forgotten more tennis than you'll ever know.

And of course the Big Three will be shown the door. It's already happened to Federer and it's happening right now to Nadal and Djokovic. The latter two might win 1 or 2 more majors, but that will likely be it for them.

LOL....The tired argument... Only Federer gets lucky. And Nadal is a warrior when the argument suits yet when it comes to USO performances vis-a-vis Djokovic, Nadal has weak draws.

Nadal did have an extremely weak draw to win the 2017 USO, so yes, Nadal was lucky there too, but that was one tournament. In general, 32-33 year old Nadal played great. In 2018, Nadal won 92% of his matches, losing only 4 matches the whole year. In any case, it's hypocritical of you to say this period was weak but somehow it wasn't weak for Federer and that's where you're agenda becomes all too clear.

 

[thrust]

Elevating Olympic Gold just makes no sense to me! I'm one who doesn't particularly care for their participation in what was considered an amateur event!

A tournament that is only played once every four years should NOT be considered a regular or important ATP event.

 

[ND-13]

Except you're wrong that the Big Three are the same as other ATGs. If they were, they wouldn't have broken every record in the books. And one of the most remarkable differences with the Big Three is unlike many ATGs, they have played with greater longevity. They have played with the longevity of a Rosewall but with even better abilities. No, Djokovic and Nadal aren't playing as well as at their peaks, but they are still playing very well. If they are subpar players now, then they could never generate these reactions to their Roland Garros match:

Maria Sharapova: In awe of what we just witnessed for the past 4 hours.
Diego Schwartzman: Are we tennis players playing the same sport as those two?
Feliciano Lopez: The story of the match is that they play a different sport.
Andy Murray: You cannot play better clay court tennis than this. It’s perfect.
Tennys Sandgren: There is no higher level of sport than this.
Andy Roddick: One of the best matches I’ve ever seen.
Darren Cahill: One of the best matches I’ve seen.
Mary Carillo: Maybe the best match I’ve ever seen.
Paul Anacone: This was the best set of tennis, this third set, that I have ever seen in my life.
One of the greatest sets of tennis that I have ever witnessed.
John McEnroe: One of the greatest matches we ever saw and certainly the greatest third set in the history of the men’s game on the clay court.
Chris Evert: The greatest match ever played.

But you know better than these players who have forgotten more tennis than you'll ever know.

And of course the Big Three will be shown the door. It's already happened to Federer and it's happening right now to Nadal and Djokovic. The latter two might win 1 or 2 more majors, but that will likely be it for them.



Nadal did have an extremely weak draw to win the 2017 USO, so yes, Nadal was lucky there too, but that was one tournament. In general, 32-33 year old Nadal played great. In 2018, Nadal won 92% of his matches, losing only 4 matches the whole year. In any case, it's hypocritical of you to say this period was weak but somehow it wasn't weak for Federer and that's where you're agenda becomes all too clear.

I have watched tennis long enough to understand these hyperboles. The analysts said Borg was the best that ever was and it then became McEnroe, Lendl, Sampras , Federer , Nadal , Djokovic and in future they will say the brand of tennis Medvedev-Zverev-Tsitsipas play is the best the sport has ever seen.

I think there is a fundamental disagreement in that i consider the big 3 as being in the same tier as past ATG like Borg and Sampras. We can agree to disagree,

I dont have any agenda to support Fed here. You were the one to single him out as lucky and i just pointed that out. In fact, I said earlier on my own accord that Nadal and Federer feasted on the weak era to add 3-4 more majors than what they should have ended their career with.

 

[zvelf]

I have watched tennis long enough to understand these hyperboles. The analysts said Borg was the best that ever was and it then became McEnroe, Lendl, Sampras , Federer , Nadal , Djokovic and in future they will say the brand of tennis Medvedev-Zverev-Tsitsipas play is the best the sport has ever seen.

So first of all, half of those reactions weren't those of analysts but tennis players personally posting their reactions on Twitter. Second, I guarantee you that no analyst is going to say Medvedev-Zverev-Tsitsipas play better tennis than Federer-Nadal-Djokovic.

I think there is a fundamental disagreement in that i consider the big 3 as being in the same tier as past ATG like Borg and Sampras. We can agree to disagree,

Yes, agree to disagree, but if you come from that perspective, of course you're going to see all evidence from that point of view. I don't think if you subbed Borg or Sampras in place of Federer or Djokovic, that they would have performed roughly the same. They simply lacked the longevity. For whatever mental reasons, Borg quit at 26 and he could never win the U.S. Open. Sampras' game dipped big time once he turned 29 and he was far weaker on clay than any of the Big Three and he never even got past the semis at the French.

I dont have any agenda to support Fed here. You were the one to single him out as lucky and i just pointed that out. In fact, I said earlier on my own accord that Nadal and Federer feasted on the weak era to add 3-4 more majors than what they should have ended their career with.

Fair enough.