The numbers behind the King

Lsmkenpo

Hall of Fame
I myself often have a jaundice eye, but you are being rather cynical here! Transition to the top often happens in spurts, especially in individual sports.

Also it is important to note that the ATP tour is going through a small transitionary phase right now with other top players either injured or not in top form.

Lets go thru the entire year and see what happens before making gross accusations. Nole, and Nadal for that matter besides Nole, have not faced much competition for the most part. Again, Nadal's current form would not have taken him to 5 straight Master's finals in previous years!

This is a response from a Djokovic fan I can respect.

Yes, lets wait and see how it pans out. Perhaps some of the hype of recent results has escalated some of the scrutiny.
 

jmverdugo

Hall of Fame
Pretty silly comparison, I don't think there was a single fan of the sport who didn't think Federer was a surefire future #1 player who would go one to win many majors. His talent level was on another scale at the time. Djokovic is no comparison to an Up and coming young Federer.

Djokovic has been at a plateau in skill for years at #3 and suddenly in a few short months is on a record breaking streak not a gradual climb with escalating results over his career.

That is your opinion, my opinion is that Djokovic was always there but was still in development as a professional tennis player, maybe now he reached his peak, i could say the same thing, that anyone could see the potential in Djokovic, it was just a matter of time, it was a gradual thing he was number # 3 in the world, it is not like he was 81 one year and at the end of the next year he was # 5, like Sampras did. My point is that it is not abnormal, every great tennis player has gone for the same thing, of course it is always on the eye of the beholder to decided the reasons behind the improvement, my opinion is that if people like Fed and Sampras (who by the way became # 1 at 22) did it why cant Djokovic do it?
 

Tony48

Legend
Yes, I read the story his team made public to the media for some reason, it is a wonder the man was able to even hold up a racquet before, very touching.

People need to realize this is a world class athlete who was already in peak condition we are talking about, not themselves or their Aunt Ethel.

In sports history there is a large list of athletes we can call the almost-weres, athletes who were close to the top for a long time but never were they strived to be. When one of these perennial almost-weres suddenly becomes the best in their sport virtually over night, a red flag goes up. http://www.slate.com/id/2110902/

History tells us the majority had one thing in common for the sudden boost in performance, unfortunately it wasn't something as simple as a diet change.

If this was something that was common to see in the sport naturally it wouldn't be met with such skepticism.

LOL yeah....Djokovic became the best "overnight". Did you just start watching tennis yesterday or something?
 

tenis1

Banned
This is a response from a Djokovic fan I can respect.

Yes, lets wait and see how it pans out. Perhaps some of the hype of recent results has escalated some of the scrutiny.

Could not care less who and what do you respect. Your blabbering, lies and junk do not deserve a decent response.

You get no respect at all from anyone who has half a brain and does not wear a tin foil hat.
 
Last edited:

DRII

G.O.A.T.
Pretty silly comparison, I don't think there was a single fan of the sport who didn't think Federer was a surefire future #1 player who would go one to win many majors. His talent level was on another scale at the time. Djokovic is no comparison to an Up and coming young Federer.

Djokovic has been at a plateau in skill for years at #3 and suddenly in a few short months is on a record breaking streak not a gradual climb with escalating results over his career.

Yes, but you're omitting one important factor! The drop in form of the other top players at the moment. Nadal is not in 2010 form - his serve is way off, his ground strokes are not as penetrating and he seems a little lethargic. Federer continues to get older and slowing down a couple of steps with less consistency and defense in his game. Murray was seemingly having a melt-down after the AO final. Delpo is struggling with injury as is Roddick and Nalbadian. And where is Daydenko or Verdasco???

The ATP is currently in a trasition, Nole is taking advantage - as well he should given his extremely high level right now...
 

Lsmkenpo

Hall of Fame
That is your opinion, my opinion is that Djokovic was always there but was still in development as a professional tennis player, maybe now he reached his peak, i could say the same thing, that anyone could see the potential in Djokovic, it was just a matter of time, it was a gradual thing he was number # 3 in the world, it is not like he was 81 one year and at the end of the next year he was # 5, like Sampras did. My point is that it is not abnormal, every great tennis player has gone for the same thing, of course it is always on the eye of the beholder to decided the reasons behind the improvement, my opinion is that if people like Fed and Sampras (who by the way became # 1 at 22) did it why cant Djokovic do it?

First of all the facts are wrong in your first post comparing Federer's rise to Djokovic's, you need to go back and look them over. Federer won Wimbledon, 7 ATP titles and the year end masters cup in 2003 alone, and you claim he didn't breakthrough till 2004.:confused: I don't think anyone who followed the sport had any doubt we were watching a future great, well before 2004.

Your entitled to your opinion if you think Djokovic is comparable to Federer and Sampras in talent so be it.:)
 
he is very Serbian (stereotyping).

Been to Serbia have you? Did you really need to bracket the fact you were stereotyping. I wonder if your racist outside of the internet?




Just to the posters who believe Djokovic's rise to the next level because he started his complete dominance in a short space of time: What the hell did Federer do in 2003??? (I'll answer this one). Absolutely nothing compared to the carnage he created in 2004.
 

jmverdugo

Hall of Fame
First of all the facts are wrong in your first post comparing Federer's rise to Djokovic's, you need to go back and look them over. Federer won Wimbledon, 7 ATP titles and the year end masters cup in 2003 alone, and you claim he didn't breakthrough till 2004.:confused: I don't think anyone who followed the sport had any doubt we were watching a future great, well before 2004.

Your entitled to your opinion if you think Djokovic is comparable to Federer and Sampras in talent so be it.:)

My facts are not wrong, I said he became number 1 in 2004 at the age of 23, that is in fact a fact :). I do not think he is as good as Fed or Sampras were on their prime, only time will tell, I am just saying that what he is doing was done by others, it is not impossible to do it and you do not need any "extra" help to do it, unless the others needed it.
 

Lsmkenpo

Hall of Fame
Yes, but you're omitting one important factor! The drop in form of the other top players at the moment. Nadal is not in 2010 form - his serve is way off, his ground strokes are not as penetrating and he seems a little lethargic. Federer continues to get older and slowing down a couple of steps with less consistency and defense in his game. Murray was seemingly having a melt-down after the AO final. Delpo is struggling with injury as is Roddick and Nalbadian. And where is Daydenko or Verdasco???

The ATP is currently in a trasition, Nole is taking advantage - as well he should given his extremely high level right now...

Possibly, I honestly don't see a huge dip in Nadal's form compared to a huge increase in Djokovic's.

What I see in Djokovic is a huge increase physically not mentally, all of a sudden he can consistently out hit the biggest hitters in the sport and out grind the greatest grinder in the history of the game without breaking a sweat. His current form is a level above anything he has shown in his entire career.

No one can honestly say they saw this coming from him,not even his biggest supporters, and to do it in such a short time frame merits some scrutiny.
 

Lsmkenpo

Hall of Fame
My facts are not wrong, I said he became number 1 in 2004 at the age of 23, that is in fact a fact :). I do not think he is as good as Fed or Sampras were on their prime, only time will tell, I am just saying that what he is doing was done by others, it is not impossible to do it and you do not need any "extra" help to do it, unless the others needed it.

#1 yes, but his results leading up to becoming the best were well above Djokovic's and escalated as the years went on, he did not plateau to the point were people were writing him off, as was the case with Djokovic. Honestly I don't see the comparison.
 

Tony48

Legend
Possibly, I honestly don't see a huge dip in Nadal's form compared to a huge increase in Djokovic's.

What I see in Djokovic is a huge increase physically not mentally, all of a sudden he can consistently out hit the biggest hitters in the sport and out grind the greatest grinder in the history of the game without breaking a sweat. His current form is a level above anything he has shown in his entire career.

No one can honestly say they saw this coming from him,not even his biggest supporters, and to do it in such a short time frame merits some scrutiny.

And who is he now magically outhitting? Soderling, who he is 6-1 against? Berdych, who he is also 6-1 against? del Potro, who has yet to even win a set against Djokovic?

Seems to me that you know absolutely nothing about Djokovic and his recent form has you puzzled because you never saw how good he was already.
 

Lsmkenpo

Hall of Fame
Could not care less who and what do you respect. Your blabbering, lies and junk do not deserve a decent response.

You get no respect at all from anyone who has half a brain and does not wear a tin foil hat.

Ok, says the poster who doesn't believe court speeds have been slowed down when I provided page upon page of evidence right from the ITF, ATP and the tournament directors themselves.

I made a fool of you in that debate and you went away:) So, keep trying to discredit my opinions but at least bring something more than weak insults for once.
 
Last edited:

Lsmkenpo

Hall of Fame
And who is he now magically outhitting? Soderling, who he is 6-1 against? Berdych, who he is also 6-1 against? del Potro, who has yet to even win a set against Djokovic?

Seems to me that you know absolutely nothing about Djokovic and his recent form has you puzzled because you never saw how good he was already.

His ground stroke speed has increased, along with his movement, reaction time and stamina, He has outhit everyone he has played at a level of consistency he has never shown before in his career. This is the best tennis he has ever played, not just by my account but from his own mouth.

I would bet I have watched more Djokovic matches than most of his fans posting here, not only match play but many practice sessions in person at many different tournaments. I played the game at a high level and have many friends close to the tour. I will gladly discuss more technically details of his play with anyone who has the knowledge to do so.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
#1 yes, but his results leading up to becoming the best were well above Djokovic's and escalated as the years went on, he did not plateau to the point were people were writing him off, as was the case with Djokovic. Honestly I don't see the comparison.



Actually, Federer was actually failing to meet expectations in 2002 early 2003. He in fact was being written off by many people despite the massive hype behind him. But don't let your hatred go about skewing your objectivity; continue on.


In fact, people tend to forget what happened with Federer in 2003. He had disappointing results for the most part considering the massive hype behind him, and got knocked out in the first round of the FO by Louis Horna. After that, he went on to all of a sudden dominate the entire ATP tour, only to be stifled once or twice along the way. So how do you translate a guy who gets knocked out the first round of the FO, and then goes on to win Wimbledon? Federer certainly was no slouch on clay, even in his earlier days. Was Federer too on PEDs?


Heck, I could honestly care less about Djokovic; I'm just enjoying the fact that he makes Nadal ****s eat their words so often. As a player, he is in fact very boring to watch due to the fact that he is so mechanical and textbook with his play. It's impressive in that he is so consistent, and so good, but it's nothing flashy like Federer or Roddick (when Roddick was unloading his forehand that is).
 
Last edited:

Tony48

Legend
His ground stroke speed has increased, along with his movement, reaction time and stamina, He has outhit everyone he has played at a level of consistency he has never shown before in his career. This is the best tennis he has ever played, not just by my account but from his own mouth.

I would bet I have watched more Djokovic matches than most of his fans posting here, not only match play but many practice sessions in person at many different tournaments. I played the game at a high level and have many friends close to the tour. I will gladly discuss more technically details of his play with anyone who has the knowledge to do so.

He's never displayed this consistency before? How bout when he demolished the field in the 2008 Australian Open losing only 1 set in rout to the title?

Once again, your supposed knowledge of Djokovic's capabilities leaves much to be desired. And you claim to know so much about tennis and yet to refuse to acknowledge how tennis is as much (if not more) a mental sport as it is a physical sport. Confidence can take you a long way, which is part of the reason why Djokovic's game is just flowing right now (and why Murray still doesn't have a slam....because he can't get his brain working right).
 
Last edited:

tenis1

Banned
Ok, says the poster who doesn't believe court speeds have been slowed down when I provided page upon page of evidence right from the ITF, ATP and the tournament directors themselves.

I made a fool of you in that debate and you went away:) So, keep trying to discredit my opinions but at least bring something more than weak insults for once.

His ground stroke speed has increased, along with his movement, reaction time and stamina, He has outhit everyone he has played at a level of consistency he has never shown before in his career. This is the best tennis he has ever played, not just by my account but from his own mouth.

I would bet I have watched more Djokovic matches than most of his fans posting here, not only match play but many practice sessions in person at many different tournaments. I played the game at a high level and have many friends close to the tour. I will gladly discuss more technically details of his play with anyone who has the knowledge to do so.

You are a fool and a liar. Nothing more. How is that for "weak insults".

What is funny is that you do not realize how ridiculous and shallow are your posts to anyone with any knowledge. It is obvious what are you trying to do.
 
Last edited:

Lsmkenpo

Hall of Fame
He's never displayed this consistency before? How bout when he demolished the field in the 2008 Australian Open losing only 1 set in rout to the title?

It was a good run at a tournament, not 5 months of consistent high level hitting. Also look at the date 2008 you need to go back 3 years to find a time when he played at a such a high level that is telling. I can list many players who went on a tear for a tournament and won it or made the finals but it doesn't mean that is the level they will attain as a norm.

Once again, your supposed knowledge of Djokovic's capabilities leaves much to be desired. And you claim to know so much about tennis and yet to refuse to acknowledge how tennis is as much (if not more) a mental sport as it is a physical sport. Confidence can take you a long way, which is part of the reason why Djokovic's game is just flowing right now (and why Murray still doesn't have a slam....because he can't get his brain working right).

It is a mental game, but we are talking about the top players in the world, players who have devoted their entire lives to the sport, confidence isn't as big of a problem as physical differences. Sure, a player can play better once their confidence is high, but it doesn't suddenly make you jump higher, run faster, or increase your stamina. Those are physical changes.

It takes the physical ability and results to build more confidence. This is the precursor than the confidence grows stronger not before. Saying he simply became more confident is false, there was a physical change first.
 

MaiDee

Professional
I dont give a **** what that means in USA, no one cares.

Read up on European history, experience European culture for some years, then get back to me.

If I can help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgrade
Belgrade's wider city area was the birthplace of the largest prehistoric culture of Europe, the Vinča culture, as early as the 6th millennium BC. As a strategic location, the city was battled over in 115 wars and razed to the ground 44 times since the ancient period by countless armies of the East and West.
Apart from the first Christian Emperor of Rome who was born on the territory in modern Serbia – Constantine I known as Constantine the Great – another early Roman Emperor was born in Singidunum (Belgrade): Flavius Iovianus (Jovian), the restorer of Christianity. Atilla the Hun uses the city as a military base for his further penetration into the Balkans.

This is history, this is culture.
This is not my opinion (I am Serb - my opinion is irrelevant). This is from
Wikipedia.
Those are the reasons, why the Serbs are so religious people.

Something that you maybe don't know: Whenever Djokovic win, he raise his
hand with three fingers in the air, and it mean: In the name of God (first finger), Son (second finger) and Wholly Spirit (third finger) ... Amen.
It is not surprise that people from EU and USA don't like this.
 

Lsmkenpo

Hall of Fame
Actually, Federer was actually failing to meet expectations in 2002 early 2003. He in fact was being written off by many people despite the massive hype behind him. But don't let your hatred go about skewing your objectivity; continue on.

Interesting, who was writing off 20 year old Federer at the time, I know I wasn't. Here is a recount of the events of this time frame. http://www.tennistalk.com/en/news/2...art_3:_2001-2002,_Roger_gets_his_act_together


He finished 2001 as the 13th ranked player in the world. 2002 would be his biggest year yet as a 20-year-old Federer took his game to another level.

He kicked off the season with a tournament victory in Sydney, beating Marcelo Rios, Malisse, and Andy Roddick along the way. His Australian Open run went to the fourth round, where he encountered a red hot Tommy Haas, who took him out 8-6 in the fifth. Federer was winning more and more tight sets and matches and his tiebreak record was a solid 10-5 through the first part of the season.

He failed to defend his Milan title, losing to David Sanguinetti in the finals. He then went to Russia and picked up two crucial wins over Marat Safin and Yevgeny Kafelnikov on clay in Russia in Davis Cup. Unfortunately, the rest of the team was unable to do anything and the Russians won the tie 3-2. Another loss to Escude, this time in Rotterdam followed by a second-round loss in Dubai finished his indoor season. His results this year were not nearly as good as results he put up in previous years.

He rebounded in Indian Wells, winning his first two matches there and reaching the third round before surprising everyone and blowing through the field to the finals in Miami. He even beat Hewitt in the semis in a well-played bout. Federer lost in the finals in four sets to Agassi, keeping him from his biggest title yet. His ranking jumped up to 11th after this run and Federer put up his most confusing clay-season result.

After early losses in Monte Carlo and Rome, he blew through the field in Hamburg and took the title, beating Safin in straights in the final. In the quarterfinals, he beat two-time defending Roland Garros champ Gustavo Kuerten, and Federer's French Open hopes were high. He went into the event ranked No. 8, but was beaten easily in the first round by Hicham Arazi; disappointing to say the least.

Federer's grass season featured the semis in Halle, quarters in the Netherlands, and a shocking first-round exit to Mario Ancic at Wimbledon. Federer looked terribly out of sorts at this point in time. He got revenge on Arazi in Gstaad for the Paris loss, but went on to lose four matches in a row and didn't win again until the US Open.

Federer made the fourth round at the US Open and lost to Max Mirnyi. His ranking had dropped from eighth to 13th and his chances of qualifying for the year-end Masters Cup in Shanghai were still possible, but looking less likely. After the US Open, he got Switzerland back into the World Group of Davis Cup with a win over the Moroccans, once again beating Arazi and making the Roland Garros loss more mysterious.

Federer's indoor season was fantastic as he made a late-season charge for Shanghai. Quarters in Moscow losing to Safin, a win in Vienna, quarterfinals in Madrid, a semi in Basel (beating Roddick and losing a tight one to David Nalbandian in the semis), and a quarterfinal loss to Hewitt in Paris got Roger just enough to qualify for the year-end event. Federer's win in Vienna was huge as his results pushed him to sixth in the world.

In Shanghai, Federer won his first three round-robin matches and made the semis against Hewitt. This match was a very tight three-set win for the Aussie, 7-5, 5-7, 7-5.; a brilliant shot-making encounter from both men, especially Hewitt, who won the event and ended the year ranked No. 1 after holding that position for much of the season.

Federer entered 2003 as a 21-year-old fireball with crisp shots and a blinding effortlessness of play that astounded many who saw him. His consistency still in question, Federer was out to prove he was ready to take the next step.




In fact, people tend to forget what happened with Federer in 2003. He had disappointing results for the most part considering the massive hype behind him, and got knocked out in the first round of the FO by Louis Horna. After that, he went on to all of a sudden dominate the entire ATP tour, only to be stifled once or twice along the way. So how do you translate a guy who gets knocked out the first round of the FO, and then goes on to win Wimbledon? Federer certainly was no slouch on clay, even in his earlier days. Was Federer too on PEDs?


In 2003 he won Wimbledon, 7 titles and the masters cup, yet a first round loss to Horna somehow makes the rest of his results for the year inconsistent? are you serious? You can honestly act as if he did nothing prior to the 2003 FO with a straight face? The kid who beat Sampras on grass in 2002. No one saw a bright future ahead after that?

I can't really argue what your opinion was at the time, your entitled to whatever it may have been, but I don't see any comparison between young Federer and Djokovic they are a league apart in my mind.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
Interesting, who was writing off 20 year old Federer at the time, I know I wasn't. Here is a recount of the events of this time frame. http://www.tennistalk.com/en/news/2...art_3:_2001-2002,_Roger_gets_his_act_together


He finished 2001 as the 13th ranked player in the world. 2002 would be his biggest year yet as a 20-year-old Federer took his game to another level.

He kicked off the season with a tournament victory in Sydney, beating Marcelo Rios, Malisse, and Andy Roddick along the way. His Australian Open run went to the fourth round, where he encountered a red hot Tommy Haas, who took him out 8-6 in the fifth. Federer was winning more and more tight sets and matches and his tiebreak record was a solid 10-5 through the first part of the season.

He failed to defend his Milan title, losing to David Sanguinetti in the finals. He then went to Russia and picked up two crucial wins over Marat Safin and Yevgeny Kafelnikov on clay in Russia in Davis Cup. Unfortunately, the rest of the team was unable to do anything and the Russians won the tie 3-2. Another loss to Escude, this time in Rotterdam followed by a second-round loss in Dubai finished his indoor season. His results this year were not nearly as good as results he put up in previous years.

He rebounded in Indian Wells, winning his first two matches there and reaching the third round before surprising everyone and blowing through the field to the finals in Miami. He even beat Hewitt in the semis in a well-played bout. Federer lost in the finals in four sets to Agassi, keeping him from his biggest title yet. His ranking jumped up to 11th after this run and Federer put up his most confusing clay-season result.

After early losses in Monte Carlo and Rome, he blew through the field in Hamburg and took the title, beating Safin in straights in the final. In the quarterfinals, he beat two-time defending Roland Garros champ Gustavo Kuerten, and Federer's French Open hopes were high. He went into the event ranked No. 8, but was beaten easily in the first round by Hicham Arazi; disappointing to say the least.

Federer's grass season featured the semis in Halle, quarters in the Netherlands, and a shocking first-round exit to Mario Ancic at Wimbledon. Federer looked terribly out of sorts at this point in time. He got revenge on Arazi in Gstaad for the Paris loss, but went on to lose four matches in a row and didn't win again until the US Open.

Federer made the fourth round at the US Open and lost to Max Mirnyi. His ranking had dropped from eighth to 13th and his chances of qualifying for the year-end Masters Cup in Shanghai were still possible, but looking less likely. After the US Open, he got Switzerland back into the World Group of Davis Cup with a win over the Moroccans, once again beating Arazi and making the Roland Garros loss more mysterious.

Federer's indoor season was fantastic as he made a late-season charge for Shanghai. Quarters in Moscow losing to Safin, a win in Vienna, quarterfinals in Madrid, a semi in Basel (beating Roddick and losing a tight one to David Nalbandian in the semis), and a quarterfinal loss to Hewitt in Paris got Roger just enough to qualify for the year-end event. Federer's win in Vienna was huge as his results pushed him to sixth in the world.

In Shanghai, Federer won his first three round-robin matches and made the semis against Hewitt. This match was a very tight three-set win for the Aussie, 7-5, 5-7, 7-5.; a brilliant shot-making encounter from both men, especially Hewitt, who won the event and ended the year ranked No. 1 after holding that position for much of the season.

Federer entered 2003 as a 21-year-old fireball with crisp shots and a blinding effortlessness of play that astounded many who saw him. His consistency still in question, Federer was out to prove he was ready to take the next step.







In 2003 he won Wimbledon, 7 titles and the masters cup, yet a first round loss to Horna somehow makes the rest of his results for the year inconsistent? are you serious? You can honestly act as if he did nothing prior to the 2003 FO with a straight face? The kid who beat Sampras on grass in 2002. No one saw a bright future ahead after that?

I can't really argue what your opinion was at the time, your entitled to whatever it may have been, but I don't see any comparison between young Federer and Djokovic they are a league apart in my mind.



1) You obviously never watched Federer in 2002 and 2003. Anyone who even remotely followed Federer in those years knew that he was hyped beyond reason despite having wildly inconsistent results at a majority of tournaments. And yes, FO and before, Federer did jack diddly squat in 2003. You're obviously so blinded by your hatred that it is unbelievable. It is the main reason why Andy Roddick ended up as world #1 and Federer didn't, because Federer's first half of the season sucked ass.


Federer's year in 2003 FO and before :

Titles at Dubai, Marsille, Munich, runner up in Rome. 4th round Australian Open, 1st round French Open. 2nd round IW, QF Miami, 3rd round Hamburg. If that's not wildly inconsistent then what the hell is it? Consistently underachieving?



2) You say he won Wimbledon, 7 titles, and a Masters Cup. You seem to love to ignore the fact that most of those titles were small, and the major one came AFTER the FO (mainly the YEC and Wimbledon). Federer beat an oldman Sampras at the Wimbledon 2001 in 5 sets. That is far less impressive than what Djokovic did in 2007, winning Miami while beating good players along the way, beating Federer, Nadal, Roddick in Toronto (#1, #2, #3 respectively), while also making the final of the US Open. Then, he proceeded to win the Australian Open in 2008, win in Indian Wells, and win in Rome.




You're right; there is no ****ing comparison at all. Djokovic was 100x the player Federer was before he ascended to this status as an elite tier player. In fact, according to your logic, it is more likely that Federer with his wildly inconsistent results in both 2002 and 2003 was the one who used/is using PEDs.


Djokovic in 2007/2008 was always on the cusp of overtaking Nadal and Federer, always consistently there, always playing them extremely tough (and occasionally beating them). So yes, it is believable that something as small as a gluten allergy can send him to this level. What is more unbelievable is Federer somehow going from a guy who gets knocked out of tournament after tournament before the 4th round all of a sudden rolling off 16 slams in the span of 7 years.




In fact, there is no way to explain how Federer's results in 2002/2003 went into the results of 2004. He plain out was an average top 10 player in 2002 to 2003 up until Wimbledon. He wasn't even as good as Novak Djokovic was of you compare his 2002/2003 to Novak Djokovic's 2007/2008. In fact, Djokovic's 2007/2008 BLOWS Federer's 2002/2003 out of the water. Stop with this nonsense that Novak just SUDDENLY became a beast. He was an extremely talented player always on the cusp of winning, but always fell just a little short (usually to Nadal or Federer). It is more logical and believable that Federer is the one using PEDs if you want to go by erratic results.
 
Last edited:

Tony48

Legend
Time to dissect this nonsense

It was a good run at a tournament, not 5 months of consistent high level hitting. Also look at the date 2008 you need to go back 3 years to find a time when he played at a such a high level that is telling. I can list many players who went on a tear for a tournament and won it or made the finals but it doesn't mean that is the level they will attain as a norm.

Let's get one thing straight: you said he has NEVER shown this type of consistency. Never. Never. NEVER. Now that you have been shown that he HAS displayed this type of consistency when it matters, you are backpedaling and changing your statement to say that he hasn't displayed this consistency "over a 5 month period"

Let the record show that you are moving the goal posts to suit your needs.

Now as for the 5 month period statement, Novak Djokovic was and STILL IS growing and maturing as a tennis player. Just because he never was consistent before means that he can't be consistent NOW? It's called POTENTIAL.

It is a mental game, but we are talking about the top players in the world, players who have devoted their entire lives to the sport, confidence isn't as big of a problem as physical differences. Sure, a player can play better once their confidence is high, but it doesn't suddenly make you jump higher, run faster, or increase your stamina. Those are physical changes.

Bold part = fail.

Also, I'll let someone else explain the rest:

*********

glazkovss said:
1) Got rid of gluten allergy (killed two rabbits with this one: solved breathing problems, became lighter and faster).
2) At last solved a problem with his service motion (have been working in that direction for a year).
3) Found right balance between tennis and personal life.
4) Got confident after beating Roger at US Open and winning Davis Cup. In 2008-2009 winning Davis Cup did the same thing to Verdasco - lifted him greatly, he just couldn't sustain the level he showed at AO'09.

Novak talked about all these things many times, so there is no secret at all.
And the progress has been steady, not as rapid as many claim. Djokovic himself said last summer that he felt much better at Wimbledon already (because his serve finally began to work for him). After that there was US Open: beat Fed for the first time there (after 3 consecutive losses), and fighted Rafa all the way despite being tired after demanding semi-final. Just four days after US open final won his Davis Cup match and stated that his main priority and the only goal for the rest of the year will be the Davis Cup final in Serbia, so all of his rest autumn results (15-5 in ATP events) doesn't speak of anything as he was mentally preparing for Belgrade clash. And after winning it for his country he is now winning everything for himself, the evolution is obvious. Some people are talking about Novak as if he suddenly came out of nowhere. I guess they haven't watched tennis the last four years, during which Novak has always been at the top, battling with Fedal for GS glory, just losing a bit every time, but beating those two greats a few times at lower tournaments. He has always been close, and now he has finally there.

*********

It takes the physical ability and results to build more confidence. This is the precursor than the confidence grows stronger not before. Saying he simply became more confident is false, there was a physical change first.

See above
 

jmverdugo

Hall of Fame
#1 yes, but his results leading up to becoming the best were well above Djokovic's and escalated as the years went on, he did not plateau to the point were people were writing him off, as was the case with Djokovic. Honestly I don't see the comparison.

Interesting, who was writing him off I know I wasn't. ...


Interesting, who was writing off 20 year old Federer at the time, I know I wasn't. ...

oh ok, so you are the authority that decides who is written off or not ...:)

Seriously, the guy has been #3 for the last 4 years, he was the third best player of the world behind two of the greatest players off all time, he was having consistent result every year, how do you know you got to the peak of something? because you see the downhill, in Djokovic case he never started to go downhill, he was just there waiting until the two big dogs started to get tired.

Basically the only proof you have that Djokovic is on the juice is because you say so, we tell you that what he is doing has been done by others and you say that "in your opinion" Djokovic talent is not at the same level as Federer or Sampras or even Agassi, all of them have a similar stories, and it seems that your opinion makes it a fact and that is, end of the discussion.... please... so then you say Djokovic was definitelly at his peak because you know his game and you played at a really good level and you know a bunch of people all this makes your opinion a fact and that is ... end of discussion ... please.... I think that at some point you are going to have to admit that Djokovic is IN FACT a really good player, he is IN FACT one of the best tennis players of the world, that Federer and Sampras and any other player that could be considerer for the GOAT are IN FACT humans and what they have done can be done by any other human with similar talents, and IN FACT it will happen over and over again until May 21st 2011 - yes next saturday!!! - that is supposed to be the Judgement Day ;) ..... and this is my opinion which makes it a fact ... end of discussion...


.... I said end of discussion ..... LOL sorry I had to do it.
 
Last edited:

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
Interesting, who was writing him off I know I wasn't. ...




oh ok, so you are the authority that decides who is written off or not ...:)

Seriously, the guy has been #3 for the last 4 years, he was the third best player of the world behind two of the greatest players off all time, he was having consistent result every year, how do you know you got to the peak of something? because you see the downhill, in Djokovic case he never started to go downhill, he was just there waiting until the two big dogs started to get tired.

Basically the only proof you have that Djokovic is on the juice is because you say so, we tell you that what he is doing has been done by others and you say that "in your opinion" Djokovic talent is not at the same level as Federer or Sampras or even Agassi, all of them have a similar stories, and it seems that your opinion makes it a fact and that is, end of the discussion.... please... so then you say Djokovic was definitelly at his peak because you know his game and you played at a really good level and you know a bunch of people all this makes your opinion a fact and that is ... end of discussion ... please.... I think that at some point you are going to have to admit that Djokovic is IN FACT a really good player, he is IN FACT one of the best tennis players of the world, that Federer and Sampras and any other player that could be considerer for the GOAT are IN FACT humans and what they have done can be done by any other human with similar talents, and IN FACT it will happen over and over again until May 21st 2011 - yes the day after tomorrow!!! - that is supposed to be the Judgement Day ;) ..... and this is my opinion which makes it a fact ... end of discussion...


.... I said end of discussion ..... LOL sorry I had to do it.



Actually plenty of people were writing Federer off after the 2003 FO. He was basically the Nalbandian of his day; ultra talented but a total headcase who couldn't put it together to win a slam. He was hyped up to be the world #1, to win multiple slams, and yet he was consistently losing before the QFs of slams.


It's funny that he talks about Novak Djokovic showing no consistency when in 2007 Djokovic from Indian Wells and on went on a tear on the tour, only to be stopped by Federer or Nadal. He made the final of Indian Wells, won Miami, SF in Madrid, QF in Rome, SF at the FO, SF at Wimbledon, win in Canada, F at USO in 2007 ALONE. That is far greater consistency than Federer EVER showed pre-Wimbledon 2003.


Let's not even talk about Djokovic in 2008, won the AO, SF at the FO, SF at USO, won the TMC, won Indian Wells, and won Rome. It wasn't until 2009/2010 when he started having serving yips and issues with his stamina did his results start to drop, and even THEN he was consistent.


In fact, it is more likely that Federer was the one who used PEDs to get to where he is today. In 2002/2003 he was so wildly inconsistent it was hilarious. Suddenly in 2004 he wins 3 slams along with a boatload of Master Tournaments seemingly out of the blue. Yes, Federer had a great finish to 2003, but it wasn't like he went out there and TOTALLY dominated the end of the 2003 season. The only tournaments he won after Wimbledon were Vienna and the YEC. Not by any means spectacular at all. And somehow next year Federer wins the AO, Wimbledon, the USO, along with 3 Master Titles and the YEC.


Yet we are supposed to believe somehow that Novak Djokovic who in 2007 and 2008 made it to the SFs or better at all slams, won multiple Master titles (against good players too), and won the AO in 2008 along with the YEC isn't comparable to young Federer at all. Well, he is right. It's not even a close comparison. Young Djokovic clearly > Young Federer.



Honestly Lsmkenpo; you're being embarrassed beyond reason right now. You should just stop. If you had actually paid attention to Federer's career (or even done a little research, such as reading Stauffer's book on Federer), you would have known that Federer in fact was one of the most overhyped players on the planet, and he failed to achieve said hype, and was beginning to be classified with the likes of Nalbandian; had he not won Wimbledon in 2003 it's actually very likely Federer would have ended up like Nalbandian.
 
Last edited:

Lsmkenpo

Hall of Fame
1) You obviously never watched Federer in 2002 and 2003. Anyone who even remotely followed Federer in those years knew that he was hyped beyond reason despite having wildly inconsistent results at a majority of tournaments. And yes, FO and before, Federer did jack diddly squat in 2003. You're obviously so blinded by your hatred that it is unbelievable. It is the main reason why Andy Roddick ended up as world #1 and Federer didn't, because Federer's first half of the season sucked ass.


Federer's year in 2003 FO and before :

Titles at Dubai, Marsille, Munich, runner up in Rome. 4th round Australian Open, 1st round French Open. 2nd round IW, QF Miami, 3rd round Hamburg. If that's not wildly inconsistent then what the hell is it? Consistently underachieving?



2) You say he won Wimbledon, 7 titles, and a Masters Cup. You seem to love to ignore the fact that most of those titles were small, and the major one came AFTER the FO (mainly the YEC and Wimbledon). Federer beat an oldman Sampras at the Wimbledon 2001 in 5 sets. That is far less impressive than what Djokovic did in 2007, winning Miami while beating good players along the way, beating Federer, Nadal, Roddick in Toronto (#1, #2, #3 respectively), while also making the final of the US Open. Then, he proceeded to win the Australian Open in 2008, win in Indian Wells, and win in Rome.




You're right; there is no ****ing comparison at all. Djokovic was 100x the player Federer was before he ascended to this status as an elite tier player. In fact, according to your logic, it is more likely that Federer with his wildly inconsistent results in both 2002 and 2003 was the one who used/is using PEDs.


Djokovic in 2007/2008 was always on the cusp of overtaking Nadal and Federer, always consistently there, always playing them extremely tough (and occasionally beating them). So yes, it is believable that something as small as a gluten allergy can send him to this level. What is more unbelievable is Federer somehow going from a guy who gets knocked out of tournament after tournament before the 4th round all of a sudden rolling off 16 slams in the span of 7 years.




In fact, there is no way to explain how Federer's results in 2002/2003 went into the results of 2004. He plain out was an average top 10 player in 2002 to 2003 up until Wimbledon. He wasn't even as good as Novak Djokovic was of you compare his 2002/2003 to Novak Djokovic's 2007/2008. In fact, Djokovic's 2007/2008 BLOWS Federer's 2002/2003 out of the water. Stop with this nonsense that Novak just SUDDENLY became a beast. He was an extremely talented player always on the cusp of winning, but always fell just a little short (usually to Nadal or Federer). It is more logical and believable that Federer is the one using PEDs if you want to go by erratic results.

What hatred? That's in your own mind, just because I am skeptical of his recent results doesn't mean I hate him. I really don't hate any of these players some of their fans that is a different story. If I hated him I wouldn't watch his matches or his practice sessions. You think I am there booing him and heckling while he practices. :)

Secondly, I don't care if you believe Federer is more likely to have used PEDs than Djokovic, thats your opinion and I am fine with it, I spedulated Djokovic isn't the only one that has or is using PEDs. I am on record as such in previous posts.

There is no comparison to the rise of 19-20 year old Federer to that of nearly 24 year old Djokovic one was expected and the other not so much.

I think you prove that yourself saying there was a tremendous amount of hype behind 19 year old Federer did he live up to it or not?

It is a silly argument one player has 6 years on tour and 2 major titles to his name at nearly 24 years old, the other started dominating the sport at 21 years old after 3 years on tour and his level continued to escalate every year there after.

I really don't want to continue arguing about it, I have my opinion and you have yours.
 

Lsmkenpo

Hall of Fame
Honestly Lsmkenpo; you're being embarrassed beyond reason right now. You should just stop. If you had actually paid attention to Federer's career (or even done a little research, such as reading Stauffer's book on Federer), you would have known that Federer in fact was one of the most overhyped players on the planet, and he failed to achieve said hype, and was beginning to be classified with the likes of Nalbandian; had he not won Wimbledon in 2003 it's actually very likely Federer would have ended up like Nalbandian.


Seriously, you shouldn't have edited this into the previous post it was better in tone and substance without it. Someone tells me I should be embarrassed thinking Federer was going to be a great player, because Federer was very close to having a career like Nalbandian's :) History proves one of us correct and one of us borderline delusional in their thought process. How long did you give 19 year old Federer before you wrote him off? 6 month? a year? 2 years? But you give Djokovic 6 years.
 
Last edited:

T1000

Legend
You are way too low "in your rebuttals" to waste any time on your false posts.

I don't agree with lsmkenpo on this matter but at least he's making arguments, unlike you who just posts insults with no substance. Probably should stop instead making yourself look like a fool, which is pretty much all you've done in this thread, just a suggestion but feel free to attack me and call me an idiot I really don't care since I won't respond to it.

Anyway I don't think Djoko is doping, he just happened to peak during the weakest period in men's tennis history. Federer is nearing retirement, Nadal's level has dropped, Murray chokes in any big situation, Soderling is inconsistent, Delpo is injured, the new generation is slowing down now (Dimitrov, Tomic, Harrison, Raonic, Dolgo, Berankis etc.) no big results lately, and the good players from Fed's generation are slowing down/retiring soon (Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Haas etc.) Pretty weak era and the surfaces are practically the same speed and everyone plays the same style so it's easy to dominate with all these factors. Djokovic was just fortunate to peak now.
 

Lsmkenpo

Hall of Fame
Let's get one thing straight: you said he has NEVER shown this type of consistency. Never. Never. NEVER. Now that you have been shown that he HAS displayed this type of consistency when it matters, you are backpedaling and changing your statement to say that he hasn't displayed this consistency "over a 5 month period"



Let the record show that you are moving the goal posts to suit your needs.

Now as for the 5 month period statement, Novak Djokovic was and STILL IS growing and maturing as a tennis player. Just because he never was consistent before means that he can't be consistent NOW? It's called POTENTIAL.



Bold part = fail.

Also, I'll let someone else explain the rest:

*********



*********



See above

He has never played as well as he is playing right now, in his entire life, not my words his own. Was he on the verge of breaking playing records in 2008? Hell No , was he a good player than, yes. That's the difference, if you can't differentiate between the two. I don't know what to say.
 

Lsmkenpo

Hall of Fame
Anyway I don't think Djoko is doping, he just happened to peak during the weakest period in men's tennis history. Federer is nearing retirement, Nadal's level has dropped, Murray chokes in any big situation, Soderling is inconsistent, Delpo is injured, the new generation is slowing down now (Dimitrov, Tomic, Harrison, Raonic, Dolgo, Berankis etc.) no big results lately, and the good players from Fed's generation are slowing down/retiring soon (Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Haas etc.) Pretty weak era and the surfaces are practically the same speed and everyone plays the same style so it's easy to dominate with all these factors. Djokovic was just fortunate to peak now.

This is an opinion I can respect backed with some reasoning.
 

Tony48

Legend
He has never played as well as he is playing right now, in his entire life, not my words his own.

Oh wow. Deciding which of Djokovic's statements to use as evidence and which ones to discard. You sly little devil! :twisted:

Besides, Djokovic says that he playing the "tennis of his life" after every hard fought victory.

Was he on the verge of breaking playing records in 2008? Hell No , was he a good player than, yes. That's the difference, if you can't differentiate between the two. I don't know what to say.

Was Federer on the verge of breaking the slam record in 2003? Who thought he would win SIXTEEN slams back then?
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
If I can help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgrade
Belgrade's wider city area was the birthplace of the largest prehistoric culture of Europe, the Vinča culture, as early as the 6th millennium BC. As a strategic location, the city was battled over in 115 wars and razed to the ground 44 times since the ancient period by countless armies of the East and West.
Apart from the first Christian Emperor of Rome who was born on the territory in modern Serbia – Constantine I known as Constantine the Great – another early Roman Emperor was born in Singidunum (Belgrade): Flavius Iovianus (Jovian), the restorer of Christianity. Atilla the Hun uses the city as a military base for his further penetration into the Balkans.

This is history, this is culture.
This is not my opinion (I am Serb - my opinion is irrelevant). This is from
Wikipedia.
Those are the reasons, why the Serbs are so religious people.

Something that you maybe don't know: Whenever Djokovic win, he raise his
hand with three fingers in the air, and it mean: In the name of God (first finger), Son (second finger) and Wholly Spirit (third finger) ... Amen.
It is not surprise that people from EU and USA don't like this.

Its ignorant of you to place the U.S. in the same irreligious category of the E.U.. The U.S. is quite religious! To the point of influencing our politics and culture to a large extent.

What some posters, including myself, find somewhat worrisome (if not potentially troubling) is the highly nationalistic celebratory expressions of Nole's fans or even his family during matches. We all know the recent history of your nation and others of the former Yugoslavia and therefore some precaution is warranted and reasonable IMO.

There is nothing wrong with sporting pride in a fellow citizen, and no nation is beyond reproach. But there is a line between sporting pride and fervent nationalism and it should not be crossed!
 
Last edited:

tenis1

Banned
I don't agree with lsmkenpo on this matter but at least he's making arguments, unlike you who just posts insults with no substance. Probably should stop instead making yourself look like a fool, which is pretty much all you've done in this thread, just a suggestion but feel free to attack me and call me an idiot I really don't care since I won't respond to it.

Anyway I don't think Djoko is doping, he just happened to peak during the weakest period in men's tennis history. Federer is nearing retirement, Nadal's level has dropped, Murray chokes in any big situation, Soderling is inconsistent, Delpo is injured, the new generation is slowing down now (Dimitrov, Tomic, Harrison, Raonic, Dolgo, Berankis etc.) no big results lately, and the good players from Fed's generation are slowing down/retiring soon (Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Haas etc.) Pretty weak era and the surfaces are practically the same speed and everyone plays the same style so it's easy to dominate with all these factors. Djokovic was just fortunate to peak now.

I will not attack you or call you an idiot. Why would I?
Anyway, the reason I reacted the way I reacted is because lsmkenpo does not deserve better. I don't feed the trolls hence I don't make arguments vs senseless, stupid and untrue posts by lsmkenpo. Plain and simple.

And about Novak being lucky and peaking in "weakest period in tennis history". You know what, it might as well be true, but I don't really care. If it will make his job easier and allow him to take more GS titles I welcome this "weak era". The weaker the better.
 
Last edited:

Evan77

Banned
^^^ It is also ignorant of you to compare Europe that has thousands years old culture and history with The USA (a couple of hundreds years old 'culture/history'). I'm Canadian btw, lol. Shall I talk about the Roman Empire, Greece. European settlers created what America is today, so please...
 

MaiDee

Professional
Its ignorant of you to place the U.S. in the same irreligious category of the E.U.. The U.S. is quite religious! To the point of influencing our politics and culture to a large extent.

What some posters, including myself, find somewhat worrisome (if not potentially troubling) is the highly nationalistic celebratory expressions of Nole's fans or even his family during matches. We all know the recent history of your nation and others of the former Yugoslavia and therefore some precaution amongst some is reasonable IMO.

There is nothing wrong with sporting pride in a fellow citizen, and no nation is beyond reproach. But there is a line between sporting pride and fervent nationalism and it should not be crossed!

Thank you for sharing your view and knowledge. Your words are wise, and you are the great man. How can I argue with you about subject you know to much, and I don't know almost nothing.
The city was battled over in 115 wars and razed to the ground 44 times since the ancient period by countless armies of the East and West.
And I like when Nole after win, rise his hand with three fingers - In the name of Father, Son, and Wholly Spirit.
 
Last edited:

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
Seriously, you shouldn't have edited this into the previous post it was better in tone and substance without it. Someone tells me I should be embarrassed thinking Federer was going to be a great player, because Federer was very close to having a career like Nalbandian's :) History proves one of us correct and one of us borderline delusional in their thought process. How long did you give 19 year old Federer before you wrote him off? 6 month? a year? 2 years? But you give Djokovic 6 years.



If you actually paid attention to tennis at all in 2002/2003 Federer was being written off by nearly everyone, especially after the disaster that was the French Open in 2003.



Ask Zagor, who actually is a Federer fan and actually followed him back then. He'll tell you that Federer was hyped up despite his wildly inconsistent results.



And are you serious? Federer's level dropped from his 2002 level. He was playing like total ass in early 2003 all the way up to Wimbledon. It was only then did he suddenly dramatically up his level of play beyond reason. That is backed up with results. Federer in 2002 and 2003 was wildly so inconsistent that people were starting to write him off, especially since he couldn't get it done in a major. He went from being like a one time QF at Wimbledon, to multiple early round exits, and then all of a sudden rolled of 16 slams in a span of 7 years. How did he do that? PEDs obviously!


BTW, completely ignore the fact that Novak Djokovic in 2007 and 2008 was 20 and 21 respectively. Both of those years blow Federer's 2002/2003 out of the water, which was the years he really began to break through.


What hatred? That's in your own mind, just because I am skeptical of his recent results doesn't mean I hate him. I really don't hate any of these players some of their fans that is a different story. If I hated him I wouldn't watch his matches or his practice sessions. You think I am there booing him and heckling while he practices. :)

Secondly, I don't care if you believe Federer is more likely to have used PEDs than Djokovic, thats your opinion and I am fine with it, I spedulated Djokovic isn't the only one that has or is using PEDs. I am on record as such in previous posts.

There is no comparison to the rise of 19-20 year old Federer to that of nearly 24 year old Djokovic one was expected and the other not so much.

I think you prove that yourself saying there was a tremendous amount of hype behind 19 year old Federer did he live up to it or not?

It is a silly argument one player has 6 years on tour and 2 major titles to his name at nearly 24 years old, the other started dominating the sport at 21 years old after 3 years on tour and his level continued to escalate every year there after.

I really don't want to continue arguing about it, I have my opinion and you have yours.


Novak Djokovic at ages 20/21 was just as good as if not better than Federer at age 20/21. Novak had won multiple Master Titles, won the YEC, won the Australian Open; he was consistently SF or better at most slams (SF at FO, SF at Wimbledon, SF/F at USO, W in AO, etc.) He had slump years in 2009/2010 and yet somehow managed to stay in the top 4. He fixed his issues (serve, stamina); those were the only things holding him back. His ground game has always been this good, period. In fact, if you look at Federer before his Wimbledon title; he actually sucks pretty hard compared to Novak in 2007 before his slam title.


You don't want to argue about it anymore because you know you are getting beat up and down this thread. You are totally ignorant of the fact that Federer actually was absurdly hyped up, and then failed to deliver in 2002 and midway 2003. He was expected to win Wimbledon in 2002 (no real competition), he was also a favorite to make deep runs at the AO and the FO (he was considered a contender at the FO in 2003). After his inconsistent results and early round exits at the slams though, he was actually written off and was considered more of an outside shot at Wimbledon in 2003. That is why everyone was so surprised; people knew he had the talent, but he was so wildly inconsistent that they didn't believe what they were seeing.



It is more logical that Federer is the one used PEDs to up his level of play. Djokovic in 2007/2008/2009/2010 was always consistently deep in nearly every tournament. He was always in the heels of Nadal and Federer. He just needed one very, very, very slight advantage and he would instantly overtake them. Federer has declined, and Djokovic improved his stamina also fixed his serve. With the lack of a strong field outside of Nadal, it is obvious that Novak would be demolishing everyone. He has been a long standing figure in the top 3/top 4 since 2007; once people slip up of course he's going to take over.

In fact, alot of people forget that Djokovic's stamina was never honestly that terrible. Where Djokovic had more trouble with was dealing with extreme heat most of the time. His stamina actually wasn't too shabby as long as it was a nice day or a night match.
 
Last edited:

Lsmkenpo

Hall of Fame
Oh wow. Deciding which of Djokovic's statements to use as evidence and which ones to discard. You sly little devil! :twisted:

Besides, Djokovic says that he playing the "tennis of his life" after every hard fought victory.



Was Federer on the verge of breaking the slam record in 2003? Who thought he would win SIXTEEN slams back then?

I did not discard any statement, if you have a statement that contradicts the fact that he is currently playing the best tennis of his career please provide it. I would like to hear what you think I left out or at least tell me why you feel he hasn't improved.

I think Djokovic is a great player no matter the cause of his recent rise in form. I would be equally suspicious if any other top player suddenly went on a similar streak and displayed a marked physical improvement in such a short period of time.

Federer's slam record is a career record not a sudden winning streak in a short time frame. That is really the main reason I am scrutinizing his recent results. Do you follow other sports? I can understand you not seeing a possible correlation if not. This isn't intended as an insult.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
I did not discard any statement, if you have a statement that contradicts the fact that he is currently playing the best tennis of his career please provide it. I would like to hear what you think I left out or at least tell me why you feel he hasn't improved.

I think Djokovic is a great player no matter the cause of his recent rise in form. I would be equally suspicious if any other top player suddenly went on a similar streak and displayed a marked physical improvement in such a short period of time.

Federer's slam record is a career record not a sudden winning streak in a short time frame. That is really the main reason I am scrutinizing his recent results. Do you follow other sports? I can understand you not seeing a possible correlation if not. This isn't intended as an insult.



So how does someone go from a virtual non-contender at slams (1 QF, multiple early round exits) to a guy who next year wins 3 out of 4 slams with a boatload of titles to boot? And what? 16 slams in 7 years is not a short time period for that many slams? What the hell are you on?

It is hilarious that you conveniently ignore that Djokovic had actually very good 2007/2008 years and was always a top 4 player, while Federer was the definition of a wildly inconsistent player in 2002/early 2003.


Djokovic had already won a slam before his dominance. He went through slump years because his serve went down the drain, and he wasn't properly eating, nor was he doing his breathing exercises anymore. Now that he's fixed his serve, fixed his diet, and fixed his breathing issues (which really only occur during extreme situations of heat), and along with Federer's decline, it is no wonder that he is so dominant at the moment.

Even before his rise to dominance, he basically beat everyone not named Nadal or Federer. Occasionally he did get upset, but those are very rare for him.
 
Last edited:

Lsmkenpo

Hall of Fame
If you actually paid attention to tennis at all in 2002/2003 Federer was being written off by nearly everyone, especially after the disaster that was the French Open in 2003.



Ask Zagor, who actually is a Federer fan and actually followed him back then. He'll tell you that Federer was hyped up despite his wildly inconsistent results.



And are you serious? Federer's level dropped from his 2002 level. He was playing like total ass in early 2003 all the way up to Wimbledon. It was only then did he suddenly dramatically up his level of play beyond reason. That is backed up with results. Federer in 2002 and 2003 was wildly so inconsistent that people were starting to write him off, especially since he couldn't get it done in a major. He went from being like a one time QF at Wimbledon, to multiple early round exits, and then all of a sudden rolled of 16 slams in a span of 7 years. How did he do that? PEDs obviously!


BTW, completely ignore the fact that Novak Djokovic in 2007 and 2008 was 20 and 21 respectively. Both of those years blow Federer's 2002/2003 out of the water, which was the years he really began to break through.





Novak Djokovic at ages 20/21 was just as good as if not better than Federer at age 20/21. Novak had won multiple Master Titles, won the YEC, won the Australian Open; he was consistently SF or better at most slams (SF at FO, SF at Wimbledon, SF/F at USO, W in AO, etc.) He had slump years in 2009/2010 and yet somehow managed to stay in the top 4. He fixed his issues (serve, stamina); those were the only things holding him back. His ground game has always been this good, period. In fact, if you look at Federer before his Wimbledon title; he actually sucks pretty hard compared to Novak in 2007 before his slam title.


You don't want to argue about it anymore because you know you are getting beat up and down this thread. You are totally ignorant of the fact that Federer actually was absurdly hyped up, and then failed to deliver in 2002 and midway 2003. He was expected to win Wimbledon in 2002 (no real competition), he was also a favorite to make deep runs at the AO and the FO (he was considered a contender at the FO in 2003). After his inconsistent results and early round exits at the slams though, he was actually written off and was considered more of an outside shot at Wimbledon in 2003. That is why everyone was so surprised; people knew he had the talent, but he was so wildly inconsistent that they didn't believe what they were seeing.



It is more logical that Federer is the one used PEDs to up his level of play. Djokovic in 2007/2008/2009/2010 was always consistently deep in nearly every tournament. He was always in the heels of Nadal and Federer. He just needed one very, very, very slight advantage and he would instantly overtake them. Federer has declined, and Djokovic improved his stamina also fixed his serve. With the lack of a strong field outside of Nadal, it is obvious that Novak would be demolishing everyone. He has been a long standing figure in the top 3/top 4 since 2007; once people slip up of course he's going to take over.

In fact, alot of people forget that Djokovic's stamina was never honestly that terrible. Where Djokovic had more trouble with was dealing with extreme heat most of the time. His stamina actually wasn't too shabby as long as it was a nice day or a night match.

This is a lot of wasted time trying to rewrite history into some twisted vision in your mind where Federer was on the verge of having a career like Nalbandian's. History proves this to be wrong, and it is delusional to think otherwise just as it is delusional to think you are somehow beating me up with this absurd notion that Federer didn't live up to his hype, for Christ sakes the guy has 16 slams!!! How many slams should he have won in your mind? It is a shame he toiled most of his career away.:confused:
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
This is a lot of wasted time trying to rewrite history into some twisted vision in your mind where Federer was on the verge of having a career like Nalbandian's. History proves this to be wrong, and it is delusional to think otherwise just as it is delusional to think you are somehow beating me up with this absurd notion that Federer didn't live up to his hype, for Christ sakes the guy has 16 slams!!! How many slams should he have won in your mind? It is a shame he toiled most of his career away.:confused:




You can't talk about history with knowledge that Federer actually won 16 slams.


Before Wimbledon 2003, Federer was considered overhyped, inconsistent, a headcase that had a ton of talent, but simply couldn't put it together. Even Federer himself was beginning to lose confidence in himself after the FO in 2003.

You're just trolling at this point; you know that I am right. Djokovic in 2007/2008 showed just as much promise if not more than Federer did in his 2002/2003 years. In fact, if you compare only Djokovic's 2007 to Federer's 2002, he blows him out of the water. Their 2008 and 2003 years are just as comparable (if not favoring Djokovic slightly).


Read Stauffer's book on Federer; read some news articles from 2002/2003. Federer was considered a bust at the time. So how does one go from a bust to rolling off 16 slams at an average of 2 slams a year? Who the hell knows. According to your ridiculous assumptions the only logical explanation would be PEDs.


The point is that in 2002/early 2003 it was not a forgone conclusion that Federer would win slams. In fact, many people thought maybe this guy wasn't as good as we thought he was. Djokovic however, has PROVEN himself to be a consistent top 3/4 force in the world of mens tennis. He consistently has had deep runs at the slams. Every year he has made a SF or better in the slams. And yet somehow he is the one using PEDs? Don't make me laugh. Federer prior to Wimbledon in 2003 hadn't even made it past the QF of a slam.
 
Last edited:

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
Federer won 16 slams in weak era.



That's not the point; the only point that I'm making is that Federer in his early years showed far less promise than Djokovic did before they both won their slams. Djokovic before winning his slam had consistently made deep runs in slams (SF at Wimbledon, SF at FO, F at USO), won multiple Master titles (won Canada, Miami), and beat many top players in those years (Federer, Nadal, Roddick, etc). Oh, and somehow that is all overshadowed by the fact that Federer beat old man Sampras at Wimbledon. So what about Novak's accomplishment of beating Federer during his prime? LOL.


And yet somehow we're suppose to believe that Djokovic is the one doping. He was always consistently very good. Federer on the other hand, is a much stronger candidate for the PED case considering before his slam, he was just a wildly inconsistent player who could lose to just about anyone.
 
Top