The last 7 major finals Djokovic won were played against people who'd never won a major

[Unseeded Player]

I think 2014-2021 was one of the worst period in men's tennis. No up and coming young champions. Alcaraz really saved men's tennis.

If Rune and Sinner don't make huge improvement Alcaraz will also have years of domination.. He is already beating Medvedev, Zverev, Tsitsipas, Ruud, Rublev with a routine, 2 years ago this wasn't the case..

 

[Holmes]

You talk about those players like they're equals, which makes me think you're about 24

At 2003 Wimbledon, SCUD was unseeded...Hewitt was seeded #1. Only a complete fool would try to group them together.



But he didn't go through Fed. That's a blatant lie, par for the course for you unfortunately

He didn't go through Fed for AO 2008? And I'm the 24 year old? Perhaps a quick re-run through wiki is called for.

 

[Unseeded Player]

Joker has definitely benefitted from a weak field the last few years and Rafa got a couple in that time also. But in Feds early days he also had a very weak field to get his first few majors.

All 3 have benefited...In the term of a period, only Nadal was unlucky, he was sandwiched between prime Fed and prime Novak.. In the terms of major competition, Nadal did had some easier slams, even on clay there is no clay specialst born after him.. Novak and Fed as ATG's were good on clay but it was their least favorable surface..

 

[Rosstour]

He didn't go through Fed for AO 2008? And I'm the 24 year old? Perhaps a quick re-run through wiki is called for.

Tbh your phrasing threw me off. You said that Djokovic lost to the same Tsonga who beat Fed on his best turf. So I figured you were speaking chronologically.

The Wimbledon match happened three years later, when Tsonga was seeded in the top15 IIRC...so no, wasn't the same Tsonga.

 

[Holmes]

Tbh your phrasing threw me off. You said that Djokovic lost to the same Tsonga who beat Fed on his best turf. So I figured you were speaking chronologically.

The Wimbledon match happened three years later, when Tsonga was seeded in the top15 IIRC...so no, wasn't the same Tsonga.

There was nothing off about my phrasing, don't try to squirm out of your mistake, which is inconsequential anyways. I wouldn't have even called you out if our discussion didn't hinge on it and you hadn't called me a liar.

Perhaps your reactiveness, as evidenced by your accusation, was at fault for your misunderstanding.

 

[Rosstour]

There was nothing off about my phrasing, don't try to squirm out of your mistake, which is inconsequential anyways. I wouldn't have even called you out if our discussion didn't hinge on it and you hadn't called me a liar.

Perhaps your reactiveness, as evidenced by your accusation, was at fault for your misunderstanding.

Of course it was my mistake lol

But yes, saying Djok faced "the same Tsonga who beat Fed on grass" is disingenuous bc he didn't do that until three years later.

 

[Omega_7000]

It's pretty interesting how certain tribally affiliated people here have said for years Federer had an easy run early in his career.

Yet, of the last 7 major finals Djokovic won ALL were played against people who'd never won a major. 5 of them still haven't.

Federer by contrast... Of his last 7 major wins just 2 were against (then) non slam winners - Andy Murray and Robin Soderling. In that same period his losses were ALL against players who had already won at least 7 majors.

Additional context. Do the same for Nadal and his last 7 major final wins, just 1 was against a (then) slam winner - Djokovic. Two of the non-winners have since gone onto win majors, Thiem and Medvedev.

Yes. Also the first ATG level opponent younger than him in a slam final.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

Of course it was my mistake lol

But yes, saying Djok faced "the same Tsonga who beat Fed on grass" is disingenuous bc he didn't do that until three years later.

Yeah, might as well say it was the same Tsonga that Fed steamrolled two years later on the same actual court lol.

 

[Holmes]

Of course it was my mistake lol

But yes, saying Djok faced "the same Tsonga who beat Fed on grass" is disingenuous bc he didn't do that until three years later.

Nobody said that except for you. Stop repeating your own invention to save face.

 

[Holmes]

Yeah, might as well say it was the same Tsonga that Fed steamrolled two years later on the same actual court lol.

Once again, that is Ross's invention. I never said that.

 

[Rosstour]

Nobody said that except for you. Stop repeating your own invention to save face.

Oh really? You didn't say this?

The same Tsonga who came back from 2 sets down to destroy prime Fed on his best turf?

That's the nice thing about debating you. Even when I make a mistake, you can't stop lying about obvious things and it's only a matter of time.

 

[Holmes]

Oh really? You didn't say this?



That's the nice thing about debating you. Even when I make a mistake, you can't stop lying about obvious things and it's only a matter of time.

You are heading for another embarrassment. My statement is referring to Tsonga as a person. It's the same person. You're trying to say I said they were the same level, which is your misunderstanding.

Misunderstanding aside it really is sad how you have to resort to character attacks to make your point.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Nadal, the best big match player of all time

 

[Omega_7000]

so what do you suggest? should we do a petition to shave off Djokers slam count? And perhaps give some to Federer so that he leads the slam race because of the impact he had on Rolex and Nike commercials?

No but acknowledge how absolutely dog poop three generations of next gens have been for the past 12 or so years.

 

[Rosstour]

You are heading for another embarrassment. My statement is referring to Tsonga as a person.

So you did say that. Thank you.

Nadal, the best big match player of all time

Remind us who Tsonga beat on the way to losing to Novak in the match we're discussing? lol

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

You are heading for another embarrassment. My statement is referring to Tsonga as a person. It's the same person. You're trying to say I said they were the same level, which is your misunderstanding.

Misunderstanding aside it really is sad how you have to resort to character attacks to make your point.

Why didn't you explain that straight away? Now it just looks like a retroactive semantic loophole.

 

[Holmes]

So you did say that. Thank you.



Remind us who Tsonga beat on the way to losing to Novak in the match we're discussing? lol

You mean Nadal?

Perhaps one day you'll see how silly the resort to ad hominem is, particularly against someone who has never resorted to it against you.

 

[Holmes]

Why didn't you explain that straight away? Now it just looks like a retroactive semantic loophole.

Don't be silly, I don't have to explain to someone's misunderstanding, particularly someone who calls me a liar.

 

[Rosstour]

Don't be silly, I don't have to explain to someone's misunderstanding, particularly someone who calls me a liar.

I repeated your words back to you and you said you hadn't said that.

 

[MichaelNadal]

So you did say that. Thank you.



Remind us who Tsonga beat on the way to losing to Novak in the match we're discussing? lol

Nadal is the best big match player of all time.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

Don't be silly, I don't have to explain to someone's misunderstanding, particularly someone who calls me a liar.

Now now, don't be obtuse. You were clearly denying flat out just saying the thing and not the aspect of it being termed disingenuous, which you now claim to be a misunderstanding - whether that's to be believed or not. You can squirm your way out of having the obligation to have made the alternative clear all you want, it still stinks of a semantic loophole after the fact, which corroborates with the distinct lack of relevance your point would even make in the context of appraisal were it made purely based on the entity and without consideration of the incarnations' then capabilities. To top it off, you've played the classic tried and true tactic of gunning for the high ground by doubling down on the cries of ad hominem just because someone called you out on your bullsh1t. Ever the slippery snake, Herald.

 

[Holmes]

Now now, don't be obtuse. You were clearly denying flat out just saying the thing and not the aspect of it being termed disingenuous, which you now claim to be a misunderstanding - whether that's to be believed or not. You can squirm your way out of having the obligation to have made the alternative clear all you want, it still stinks of a semantic loophole after the fact, which corroborates with the distinct lack of relevance your point would even make in the context of appraisal were it made purely based on the entity and without consideration of the incarnations' then capabilities. To top it off, you've played the classic tried and true tactic of gunning for the high ground by doubling down on the cries of ad hominem just because someone called you out on your bullsh1t. Ever the slippery snake, Herald.

My point was clear, and he did resort to ad hominem unprovoked. When else am I supposed to call someone out on that?

Sad that you've wasted your time writing up this word salad to try to obfuscate a simple, obvious point. I guess my fanbase is rather devout at this point.

 

[Prokne]

Yep. Had Federer lost a couple of early finals those players would then have been major champions when he beat them later so they would look like stronger wins.

That's the logic here. Sounds silly the other way around huh? Yet Djokovic fanboys want the shoe to only ever be on the foot they choose.

His first final was against Phillipousis, who he didn't play against in a final again. Then he played 5 against previous GS champions (some multiple champions) and then Bagdhatis, who also didn't show up again. So 5 out of his first 7 finals.

Then he lost to Nadal at RG and beat him at Wimbledon, but then you would have to go beyond the 7 that this thread cherry picks.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Buddy, Tsonga isn't much better than SCUD, and was also unseeded in the 2008 AO just like SCUD was in 2003. Djok got a nice duck for his maiden Slam too.

I think this is why they call it "breaking your duck" in the UK...

Yes, Philippousis is better than Tsonga and he reached an extra slam final and did it in the PETE era.

However, Djokovic had to beat FEDERER, who hadn't lost at a slam outside RG in three years, in the semis.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

If Rune and Sinner don't make huge improvement Alcaraz will also have years of domination.. He is already beating Medvedev, Zverev, Tsitsipas, Ruud, Rublev with a routine, 2 years ago this wasn't the case..

Zverev played a great match against Alcaraz in RG last year. It would be a good matchup to see if the former gets back into form after the injury, which he hasn't done so far.

 

[Prokne]

Lmao no, it’s hard to face a slam champion when at one point there was only like 4 of them that exist. Also your point was embarrassing because in two of the slams Djokovic faced and beat a slam champ en route to the final which you so cutely omitted.

That would be a better gauge of quality opponents. Sometimes the final is easier than the earlier matches.

 

[Third Serve]

Nadal, the best big match player of all time

Is that a vulture? lol

 

[Unseeded Player]

Zverev played a great match against Alcaraz in RG last year. It would be a good matchup to see if the former gets back into form after the injury, which he hasn't done so far.

Yes but this year Alcaraz is beating that gen on piece of cake diffculty..They met in Madrid.. 6-1, 6-2 for Carlos...

 

[TheNachoMan]

Is that a vulture? lol

Freudian slip. lol

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Yes but this year Alcaraz is beating that gen on piece of cake diffculty..They met in Madrid.. 6-1, 6-2 for Carlos...

Hence the "if he returns to form". If he doesn't, it will be easy for Alcaraz for sure.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Is that a vulture? lol

You better slay

 

[Third Serve]

The same Tsonga who came back from 2 sets down to destroy prime Fed on his best turf?

The same Tsonga who got ROFLMAO'd by Roddick in the previous edition of the tournament? The same Tsonga whom Federer himself blew off the very same court just two years later?

You shouldn't need to refer to a match that happened three and a half years after the fact to make your point. Otherwise, we'd see a lot more people hyping up wins against Verdasco just by tying those matches to that famous AO 2009 semifinal.

Players can improve quite a lot in three years, a concept you might be familiar with if you've ever peddled the "Baby Nadal" argument.

You'd be much better off drawing our attention to that AO 2008 SF against Nadal (as that was just one round earlier as opposed to three years removed), but I see the temptation to take an implicit jab at Federer may have distracted you from crafting a more compelling argument.

 

[Holmes]

The same Tsonga who got ROFLMAO'd by Roddick in the previous edition of the tournament? The same Tsonga whom Federer himself blew off the very same court just two years later?

You shouldn't need to refer to a match that happened three and a half years after the fact to make your point. Otherwise, we'd see a lot more people hyping up wins against Verdasco just by tying those matches to that famous AO 2009 semifinal.

Players can improve quite a lot in three years, a concept you might be familiar with if you've ever peddled the "Baby Nadal" argument.

You'd be much better off drawing our attention to that AO 2008 SF against Nadal (as that was just one round earlier as opposed to three years removed), but I see the temptation to take an implicit jab at Federer may have distracted you from crafting a more compelling argument.

I did. Reading is fundamental.

Good lord, my fanbase's desires to converse with me has caused you all to skip over parts of the discussion you're trying so desperately to enter. Managing 2 adoring fans wasn't enough apparently. Now I have to manage 3 of you.

 

[Third Serve]

I did. Reading is fundamental.

Good lord, my fanbase's desires to converse with me has caused you all to skip over parts of the discussion you're trying so desperately to enter. Managing 2 adoring fans wasn't enough apparently. Now I have to manage 3 of you.

Acknowledging the posts you made after the fact actually makes it even worse for your argument so you might as well thank me for not bringing those up.

 

[Holmes]

Acknowledging the posts you made after the fact actually makes it even worse for your argument so you might as well thank me for not bringing those up.

How so? I brought up the point you're mentioning about Nadal when I thought it became relevant, which still counts as bringing it up.

Is your interest now to dissect the *rest* of the argument too?

 

[Sudacafan]

The last 7 major finals Djokovic won were played against people who'd never won a major​

Djokovic made that even worse for beating them, didn’t he?

 

[chjtennis]

If Rune and Sinner don't make huge improvement Alcaraz will also have years of domination.. He is already beating Medvedev, Zverev, Tsitsipas, Ruud, Rublev with a routine, 2 years ago this wasn't the case..

Too early for this talk, don't you think?

 

[Unseeded Player]

Too early for this talk, don't you think?

Maybe but the results have turned around in only 2 years... I would say that at this moment he is a class above everyone else.. Except Novak...

 

[fafa]

And what about Tiny? He's been vulturing weeks at no.1 and GS since he's 19. First against Ruud and now against an Old Windovic.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Lmao no, it’s hard to face a slam champion when at one point there was only like 4 of them that exist. Also your point was embarrassing because in two of the slams Djokovic faced and beat a slam champ en route to the final which you so cutely omitted.

Federer beat 3 slam winners and 3 former world #1s on his path to winning the 2004 Aussie Open.

He then beat 3 slam winners and 2 former #1s to win the 2004 Wimbledon.

He then beat 3 slam winners and 2 world #1s on his way to the 2004 US Open.

He then lost to a slam winner when he failed to defend the Aussie Open in 2005....

Yet you guys are still out here saying he was playing mugs. The revisionism is quite unbelievable when compared to the chump runs Djokovic has been enjoying.

 

[Holmes]

I feel very sad about this but it really does look like we’ll have to take 7 Slams away from Djokovic.

But then justice dictates taking 16 from Federer, leaving him as a roughly Murray level player without the fortunes of a weak era to elevate.

 

[Dan Lobb]

It's pretty interesting how certain tribally affiliated people here have said for years Federer had an easy run early in his career.

Yet, of the last 7 major finals Djokovic won ALL were played against people who'd never won a major. 5 of them still haven't.

Federer by contrast... Of his last 7 major wins just 2 were against (then) non slam winners - Andy Murray and Robin Soderling. In that same period his losses were ALL against players who had already won at least 7 majors.

Additional context. Do the same for Nadal and his last 7 major final wins, just 1 was against a (then) slam winner - Djokovic. Two of the non-winners have since gone onto win majors, Thiem and Medvedev.

This proves the point.