Tim Henman about Djokovic
- Thread starter RF-18
- Start date
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
Problem with Hewitt is he lags Djokovik on all measures, no? Not the case with Djokovik relative to Nadal.
I need to point out that it is completely illogical to place somebody at #1 and then accuse Nadal of not dominating that same era.
Sampras, if we assume Federer > Sampras, would not have dominated Federer's era either. He would have found refuge on his best surface (grass, most likely) and racked a lot of weeks at #2. The only logical way to compare Nadal's and Sampras' longevity at the top would be to sum Nadal's weeks at #1 with his weeks-at-#2-when-#1-was-held-by-Federer.
That somebody was able to rack 14 slams with Federer and Djokovic still in their primes, beat the living crap out of Federer himself and maintain positive H2H against all top players, is pretty remarkable.
The clay and WTF arguments are not exactly valid. Yes, Nadal took advantage of clay, but 1. clay is still a legitimate tennis surface; any sport is all about taking advantage of your strengths and exploiting the weaknesses of your opponents, and 2. if the clay season was longer, pretty much everybody agrees that Nadal's slam count could easily exceed 20. And if WTF was played on clay, I hope there is no doubt in anybody's mind that Nadal would have a few titles there.
Sampras, if we assume Federer > Sampras, would not have dominated Federer's era either. He would have found refuge on his best surface (grass, most likely) and racked a lot of weeks at #2. The only logical way to compare Nadal's and Sampras' longevity at the top would be to sum Nadal's weeks at #1 with his weeks-at-#2-when-#1-was-held-by-Federer.
That somebody was able to rack 14 slams with Federer and Djokovic still in their primes, beat the living crap out of Federer himself and maintain positive H2H against all top players, is pretty remarkable.
The clay and WTF arguments are not exactly valid. Yes, Nadal took advantage of clay, but 1. clay is still a legitimate tennis surface; any sport is all about taking advantage of your strengths and exploiting the weaknesses of your opponents, and 2. if the clay season was longer, pretty much everybody agrees that Nadal's slam count could easily exceed 20. And if WTF was played on clay, I hope there is no doubt in anybody's mind that Nadal would have a few titles there.
Last edited:
Soul_Evisceration
Hall of Fame
Noelan and Freebird are not too far behind as well. Maybe RF-18 can share some with them
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
What does Novak have to do to inspire some confidence in you ?
Every match of his ,including against all his pigeons , you sing the same "under rating" tune. You ought to become a fan of Humbalito.
Rafa has won 9 FO. So what ? He is going to lose at some point in his career, right ? And who do you think has the best chances in the field to beat him ? Donald Young ?
Your patterns are so predictable - You have zilch confidence in Novak , yet once he wins the titles - masters and majors you keep asking all and sundry where they think they would place Novak in the tiers. It is like you don't want to enjoy the ride, but enjoy just the fruits of his labor.
Rozroz
G.O.A.T.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
An ATG like Nadal will find a way on clay. That is until he doesn't anymore.
Until he gets old and just can't find a way anymore. Listen, I know counting out any ATG is stupid, but the "find a way" line is so cliche. For example, Could Federer win another Wimbledon? Yes, but if he doesn't it's because he's old and can't "find a way" anymore.
Until he gets old and just can't find a way anymore. Listen, I know counting out any ATG is stupid, but the "find a way" line is so cliche. For example, Could Federer win another Wimbledon? Yes, but if he doesn't it's because he's old and can't "find a way" anymore.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
Try telling that to cc0.
I'm trying to tell it to you.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
18 with 3-9-3-3 would be quite something.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
I meant that cc0 doesn't agree with your way of thinking.
D
Deleted member 733170
Guest
Couldn't agree more even if Djokovic doesn't lose a match in the next 3 years.
From a visual perspective we are sadly unlikely ever to witness more beautiful tennis.
D
Deleted member 733170
Guest
But it wouldn't take away from the visual perspective that Steve is referring to would it?
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Djokovic is closer to Hewitt than he is to Fedal, it doesn't matter if he's better than him in everything.
That's besides the point anyway. The only way I'd rate Djokovic over Fedal is if he wins more slams than them. It seems like people are having this same conversation daily.
D
Deleted member 733170
Guest
Quite, it is like denying your happiness when you are happy. As things currently stand, barring illness or injury, Djokovic will likely humiliate Nadal and the rest of the tour at RG.
D
Deleted member 733170
Guest
And if there were as many grass Masters 1,000 as clay Masters Federer maybe would over 35 Master titles and a positive head to head over Nadal.
Hypotheticals are what makes this place interesting.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Please explain what you mean by this Saby.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
I honestly don't know if he is trying to jinx, playing this game that Novak has no pressure, or if he just doesn't believe in Djokovic's quality.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
It's not his quality I don't believe in, it's his mentality. Look, I'd love nothing more than for him to win the French this year but I've had my heart broken too many times in the last few years to get excited that this will finally be his shining moment. Just because I don't think my favourite player will win every match he competes in doesn't make me any less of a fan.
Take away 6 slams from Novak and what are you left with? TWO. Quit while you're ahead bro.
Novak will win at least 4 more slams. Nadal will be lucky to win 1.
Happy to help.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
That comparisons between Djokovic and Fedal do him no favors?
He isn't better than either of them and you know it. Arguing this is fruitless, just be happy that Novak has won 8 slams, has numerous other accolades and that he's going to be adding to it. When he retires (and if he has the accolades to support it) we will then compare the trio. But as of right now, it's barely out of joke territory.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
For a start, how about any match instead of every match ?
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
For what it's worth Nadal was being compared to Federer when he had like seven or eight fewer slams
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
He was also like 23 years old at the time. Novak is turning 28. Give it a rest.
D
Deleted member 733170
Guest
My well meant advice to you is enjoy Djokovic's success while it lasts. It won't last forever but should last for the next 18 months or so. He deserves his fans belief considering all he has given them recently, especially for the next key GS. For sure he will have the odd loss but it won't be the end of the world.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Mmm, I don't think that's what you really meant but whatever. And it's unfair to compare Nole to two players anyway so there's really no danger of any joke occurring in the first place.
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
I am not sure we can compare Federer at Wimbledon to Nadal at the FO. Just because Federer lost his turf at Wimbledon to Nadal when Federer was in his late 20's, doesn't mean Nadal is ready to lose his FO turf at age 29. It may well be that the time has come for Nadal to lose at the FO again, but we shouldn't use Federer's Wimbledon case as the standard. They are two completely different players with two completely different careers/stories.
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
Well, I totally disagree. Can't fully understand this "Slams are everything approach". Almost like a fetish.
Nole already has more weeks at number 1 and is poised to beat Nadal at years at number 1. To say ranking doesn't matter compared to Slams is to say Cilic had a better season than Federer in 2014. Or like saying Nadal had the same level season as Djokovik last year, since they both won one slam.
Not buying it.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Cilic peaked at No. 8 last year. Even during his worst period of tennis, Federer has been better than Cilic, relatively speaking. I assume you're new to tennis if you're offering him as an example.
As I've said, Djokovic is better than Hewitt in everything; but that doesn't mean that he should be compared to players that are better than him (even if we took away slams, Federer is still quite a bit better than Djokovic).
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
And saying things like "12 Masters titles equals 5 or 6 slams" is just insanity.
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
Hmm.. Maybe I was unclear.
I am addressing a specific claim, that I understood you made, which is that ALL that matters when comparing two tennis players is how many Slams they won. I completely disagree with this assertion, and I think that you have to look at all the tournaments they played in any comparison.
For anyone that claims that Slams are all that matter then in 2014 Cilic, who won a Slam, had a better season then Federer, who didn't. I certainly don't agree with that. Federer may not have won a Slam but he won other tournaments and his 2014 season, IMHO, was better than Cilic's. Who, IIRC, came in seventh for the year.
Please note that I was not comparing Federer's overall career with Cilic's, only what they did in 2014. And let's try to avoid silly "you must be new at tennis" jibes. No need for that.
Also, anyone who claims that Slams wins are all that matter must think that Nadal and Djokovik had identical seasons in 2014. I disagree.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Not everything is based around Grand Slams, I give quite a bit of weight to the #1 ranking and Masters Cup trophies (which Djokovic certainly isn't in shortage of) and the Masters sort of fall into that category too.
I believe Cilic ended the year at 9th. He made the cut at the Masters Cup due to his US Open trophy and Nadal withdrawing.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
What I am trying to say though is that even with everything (accomplishments away from Grand Slams) taken into consideration, the gap between Djokovic and Fedal is too big.
Perhaps once Djokovic approaches 12-13 slams I might listen to theories about him being greater than Fedal. But until that point, the difference between them (Grand Slam wise) is just too big.
Perhaps once Djokovic approaches 12-13 slams I might listen to theories about him being greater than Fedal. But until that point, the difference between them (Grand Slam wise) is just too big.
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
Could be. I don't have a strong opinion on this, other than to look at the whole picture and not just Slams. I give a lot of weight to YE1 because, for all its imperfections, it's the best single gauge of how players did in a given year. The fact that Nole may end up in December with four YE1 vs three for Nadal is a very important indicator, in my opinion. It means that in four different years he managed to "win" more than any other player, something Nadal did only three times.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
The gap between Djokovic and Federer outside of Grand Slams is too big but not between Djokovic and Nadal.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
But there are certain other factors also.
Nadal holds the Masters record (soon to be usurped most likely, but right now he still has it) and he has seldom dropped below 5 in the rankings post 2005. That's top 5 for ten years, which is actually an astounding amount of consistency.
I see Novak posting similar numbers, but even with Grand Slams aside they're very comparable.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Agreed about Federer, and also about Nadal. But right now I'd say Novak and Nadal are comparable even Grand Slams aside.
Talker
Hall of Fame
Yeah, Djokovic is one of the best ever.
You have to look at slams but at level also.
He's been playing some of the best tennis ever and against the best he's right there.
How long he can keep it up is the question.
Going by how he's playing it'll take a long time for decline to set in, years.
He's racking up weeks at #1, WTF's, YE #1's, and masters.
He needs RG though, it's the only tournament out of the top 5 he doesn't have.
He'll join Fed with owning all 5 if he can get it this year.
You have to look at slams but at level also.
He's been playing some of the best tennis ever and against the best he's right there.
How long he can keep it up is the question.
Going by how he's playing it'll take a long time for decline to set in, years.
He's racking up weeks at #1, WTF's, YE #1's, and masters.
He needs RG though, it's the only tournament out of the top 5 he doesn't have.
He'll join Fed with owning all 5 if he can get it this year.
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
Actually I believe he has never dropped below 5 since he got to the Top 5. He's a couple of weeks away from making it 10 years in the Top 5.
Djokovic himself is at almost 8 years straight in the Top 5 as well. Of course an injury could quickly derail this, but I believe Djoker can reach 10 years as well.
The reverse was true for a long time, I am giving him plenty of credit. He is definitely the most well rounded player to ever play the game. Besides maybe not fitting the mould of a player in all eras, he has been the ideal player to base your game off of.
In saying that, there is just something missing, I don't know. Djokovic doesn't hit the awe inspiring shots that Rafa and Roger do that make you say "these guys are something special". AO 09 was just unreal.
In saying that, there is just something missing, I don't know. Djokovic doesn't hit the awe inspiring shots that Rafa and Roger do that make you say "these guys are something special". AO 09 was just unreal.
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
Nadal's wins are more spread out over time, which explains why he has less weeks at number 1 than Nole even though he has won more Slams and MM. is this good or bad? A bit of both, I guess. It shows consistency, an ability to win over long periods of time (doesn't he hold a record on number of years with a Slam win?). But the unit of analysis in sports is generally the calendar year. A team that comes in second several years in a row may have cumulatively more games won than any of the individual champions, but that's not much of a susbtitute.
In any case we are talking about an incredible player, no matter how you measure his accomplishments.
In any case we are talking about an incredible player, no matter how you measure his accomplishments.
Similar threads
