When this guy is at his 80%, he cleans everyone off the court

kramer woodie

Professional
Mats Wilander:

"When he’s at his best, I think he breaks the world record in how good you can play tennis. He does it on every surface, and does it against every match-up.

He doesn’t have a problem with Nadal or a problem with Roger Federer. The other two always had that, and he doesn’t. And he does it against any style of player, doesn’t matter if it’s a big-server, it doesn’t matter if it’s [Roberto] Bautista Agut, doesn’t matter if it’s clay, or grass, or hard court.

He’s basically the only one I think that looks unbeatable for longer periods of time”. Before the final against Roger Federer, Wilander had said: “The problem with Novak for everybody is that we have not seen 50 per cent of his ability so far.

You see 80 per cent at times, and then he cleans them off the court. And then he goes down to 40, because he doesn’t really – I don’t know, he couldn’t be bothered, because he’s too good. It’s like he’s not fully into it because I think he knows he’s so much better than most of them, especially here."


I have to agree with him. Deep down you know it is true also.
OhYes

You really had me excited for a brief moment. I thought some guy 80 years old was able to clean everyone off the tennis court.

Then I noticed the percentage sign and realize it was another fan thread. So, out of boredom, I just had to comment. Yawn!!!

Shalom
 

junior74

G.O.A.T.
Stanimal 2.0 is just "gimme injured or tired player" nothing more.
Come on. You're better than that.

Since Stan woke up in 2013:
5 sets in Australia and US Open 13, with Novak winning both.
Stan beat Novak in 5 sets in AO14, to win the title.
Novak won AO in 5 in 2015, and then Stan won RG final in 4.
Stan won in 4 USO 16 final.
Stan won in 3 USO19 (injury).

Stan has won 2/2 finals, which seems to matter a whole lot when other rivalries are debated.
 

N01E

Semi-Pro
Ah, OK...the ones that fit your agenda.
I thought the 2013 AO was the Stanimal mode too, but would not fit your argument well...
Or 2013 USO... or 2015 AO... or 2012 USO if we're bringing 2019 USO up. But this is talk tennis we're talking about. We have to ignore all the evidence against our point. It's hard to take someone seriously when they're mentioning Rome '19. And then the super motivated Djokovic during the USO13 final...
 

TearTheRoofOff

Hall of Fame
That is a logical fallacy (wrong argument) known as argumentum ad hominem: to assume that something is true only because an authority on the topic says so.

Authorities must prove their claims as everyone else. And Wilander's comments are merely his opinion, he doesn't prove anything with any data.
You mean argument from authority, right? Ad hominem is attacking the person. Not disagreeing, btw.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Nobody cares about anything except the Slams.
Exactly. That's why Djokovic has 16 and Stan has 3. Lol. If clinging to a Stanimal myth is all you've got, after he beat an injured Djokovic and got wiped off the court by Medvedev, then you are really grasping at straws. Djokovic beat Stan like 15 times in a row at one point.
 

RF-18

G.O.A.T.
Exactly. That's why Djokovic has 16 and Stan has 3. Lol. If clinging to a Stan myth is all you've got, after he beat an injured Djokovic and got wiped off the court by Medvedev, then you are really grasping at straws. Djokovic beat Stan like 15 times in a row at one point.
You have to laugh about all this Stan stuff. When that is the argument people are clinging onto, then you can see how little people have to go on. It's hilarious actually.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
You have to laugh about all this Stan stuff. When that is the argument people are clinging onto, then you can see how little people have to go on. It's hilarious actually.
It actually is. I would say as a fan I am disappointed in how Djokovic has played Stan after 2012 but he still leads that head to head 19-6 and they are even in Slam matches. 6-19 is horrendous no matter how you cut it, so yea it does show little they have to go on. Lol
 

Mike Sams

Legend
Exactly. That's why Djokovic has 16 and Stan has 3. Lol. If clinging to a Stanimal myth is all you've got, after he beat an injured Djokovic and got wiped off the court by Medvedev, then you are really grasping at straws. Djokovic beat Stan like 15 times in a row at one point.
Stan gets wiped off the court by Federer too 99.999% of the time. So what? Stan still beats Novak regardless because Novak plays the style of game that doesn't bother Stanimal.
 

Fedforever

Hall of Fame
I don't see how the claim that at his best he's better than anyone on ALL surfaces stands up.

The clay HtoH against Nadal is 17 - 7. Are we to assume that in 17 of those matches he just couldn't be bothered?
 

upchuck

Professional
What is this 50%-80% or whatever? How do you calculate the percentage? It looks like an excuse so every time Djokovic loses, his fans can put the excuse that "he was not at his best".

Djokovic loses to Nadal in the US Open 2010 final: "he was not at his best".

Djokovic loses to Federer in the Wimbledon 2012 semifinal: "he was not at his best".

Djokovic loses to Nadal in the US Open 2013 final: "he was not at his best".

Djokovic loses to Nadal in Rome 2019: "Djokovic was not at his best".

Djokovic almost lost to 37-year old Federer in the Wimbledon 2019 final: "Djokovic was subpar and not at his best".

With the "he was not at his best" excuse, almost every time Djokovic loses to Fedal is not valid. But if Djokovic defeats Fedal, they must be "at their best". This is how the "Djokovic has the highest level" legend was born.

Also, Nadal still leads the H2H over Djokovic 9-6 in Slams (including 2-1 at the US Open). So it is false that Djokovic doesn't have any problem with Nadal, as Wilander said.
This isn't complicated. When everyone is healthy and showing good enough form to reach the latter rounds of a tournament, Djokovic is the one you most expect to be the last man standing at the end of the event because of his peak abilities, not Nadal, not Federer. We've seen it happen enough times to know that it is true.

Consider the current context. Medvedev has made many consecutive finals, showing tremendous consistency. Nadal won the US Open and has the best win-loss percentage of the year. But does anyone think either of them is the de facto best player in the world or the sport's most fearsome prospect? No, and the reason why is Djokovic.
 

OhYes

Legend
OhYes

You really had me excited for a brief moment. I thought some guy 80 years old was able to clean everyone off the tennis court.

Then I noticed the percentage sign and realize it was another fan thread. So, out of boredom, I just had to comment. Yawn!!!

Shalom
:-D
Yoy are excused. Shalom
 

OhYes

Legend
Come on. You're better than that.

Since Stan woke up in 2013:
5 sets in Australia and US Open 13, with Novak winning both.
Stan beat Novak in 5 sets in AO14, to win the title.
Novak won AO in 5 in 2015, and then Stan won RG final in 4.
Stan won in 4 USO 16 final.
Stan won in 3 USO19 (injury).

Stan has won 2/2 finals, which seems to matter a whole lot when other rivalries are debated.
1 win when he beat not injured Djokovic was AO 14. That was only legit win.
RG win came after Novak playing Murray in 2 days, after 1st set he was gassed.
UO 16 Novak was injured (elbow remember)
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Stan gets wiped off the court by Federer too 99.999% of the time. So what? Stan still beats Novak regardless because Novak plays the style of game that doesn't bother Stanimal.
Except those 19 times when he didn't beat Djokovic, and those 15 times in a row because you know Djokovic's game never bothered him. Lol
 

junior74

G.O.A.T.
1 win when he beat not injured Djokovic was AO 14. That was only legit win.
RG win came after Novak playing Murray in 2 days, after 1st set he was gassed.
UO 16 Novak was injured (elbow remember)
RG was a legit win.

US 16 was not an obvious injury, it was a long term thing which he continued to play with for a long time.

My point was they play each other very closely in the slams, since Stan became a top dog.
 

Tommy Haas

Hall of Fame
Novak was 100% at AO 2019 and made Nadal look like a rec player. That was the most painful beating I've seen Nadal take in a very long time.
 
Wilander is so clueless. I agree Djokovic at his best is almost unbeatable in the fall season, but overall? LOL. There are enough tournaments where he is vulnerable, even on hardcourt. And only somebody really ignorant might say he has the highest peak on clay. Forget about Nadal, even Federer and Wawrinka outplayed peak Djokovic in RG.
 

Yugram

Hall of Fame
Wilander is so clueless. I agree Djokovic at his best is almost unbeatable in the fall season, but overall? LOL. There are enough tournaments where he is vulnerable, even on hardcourt. And only somebody really ignorant might say he has the highest peak on clay. Forget about Nadal, even Federer and Wawrinka outplayed peak Djokovic in RG.
Seems like Wilander is always clueless about everything. When it’s AO he picks Nadal for the win, when it’s RG he picks Djokovic, when it’s Thiem in the final against Nadal and not Djokovic he picks Thiem LOL.
 
Seems like Wilander is always clueless about everything. When it’s AO he picks Nadal for the win, when it’s RG he picks Djokovic, when it’s Thiem in the final against Nadal and not Djokovic he picks Thiem LOL.
Same as always. During the tournaments after USO Djokovic fans always start writing such stuff. Especially now when Nadal withdrew from Shanghai and basically gifted their hero another YE#1.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
He might be right that Novak at his best is the better than anyone else (I disagree but whatever), however the 80% is obviously hyperbole lol. At the top level the game has small margins.
 
He might be right that Novak at his best is the better than anyone else (I disagree but whatever), however the 80% is obviously hyperbole lol. At the top level the game has small margins.
He might be right? Yeah, so Djokovic lost so many times to Nadal on clay because he wasn't at his best every time? And in general-in every match he ever lost in his career he wasn't anywhere near his best?
 

junior74

G.O.A.T.
He might be right that Novak at his best is the better than anyone else (I disagree but whatever), however the 80% is obviously hyperbole lol. At the top level the game has small margins.
Agree, but there is no doubt 80% Djokovic is better than 80% Federer, for instance.

Players who rely on consistency relies less on their top level than the aggressors.
 

OhYes

Legend
RG was a legit win.

US 16 was not an obvious injury, it was a long term thing which he continued to play with for a long time.

My point was they play each other very closely in the slams, since Stan became a top dog.
It was a legit win but Novak could've really used 1 day of rest instead playing him right after Murray.
UO 16 was hillarious. Novak got such easy draw that he just walked injured pass all of them, I think he even got one retirement in the process. He never ever got such easy draw.
My point is that we are talking about levels. Novak has unprecedented level of game when he is on peak of his powers, rested, healthy, motivated. Stan didnt have an opportunity to play against such Djokovic in recent years.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
He might be right? Yeah, so Djokovic lost so many times to Nadal on clay because he wasn't at his best every time? And in general-in every match he ever lost in his career he wasn't anywhere near his best?
So you're taking what I said and extrapolating your own meaning? That makes sense.

Obviously on clay Nadal is better, likewise I would say definitively that Federer/Sampras were tops on grass - I was talking generally. Personally I'd give the edge to Federer on HC in a hypothetical at 100% match but I don't think the idea that Djokovic is the best all round player ever is far fetched.
 

ReeceSachs

Hall of Fame
Wilander is so clueless. I agree Djokovic at his best is almost unbeatable in the fall season, but overall? LOL. There are enough tournaments where he is vulnerable, even on hardcourt. And only somebody really ignorant might say he has the highest peak on clay. Forget about Nadal, even Federer and Wawrinka outplayed peak Djokovic in RG.
Djokovic peaked at RG was 2013/16 with 2011 being a little worse IMO but still prime. So Federer beat Djokovic at prime level but not Stan. Djokovic was passive a times and a bit tight in RG15.
Federer is close to Djokovic depending on the event and court speed indoors.
 
It was a legit win but Novak could've really used 1 day of rest instead playing him right after Murray.
UO 16 was hillarious. Novak got such easy draw that he just walked injured pass all of them, I think he even got one retirement in the process. He never ever got such easy draw.
My point is that we are talking about levels. Novak has unprecedented level of game when he is on peak of his powers, rested, healthy, motivated. Stan didnt have an opportunity to play against such Djokovic in recent years.
Such pathetic excuses. So Djokovic playing one hour practice session against his pigeon made him gassed for RG 2015 final? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
He played well enough in the final, Wawrinka was simply better. It was a great win, more impressive than AO 2014.
 
Djokovic peaked at RG was 2013/16 with 2011 being a little worse IMO but still prime. So Federer beat Djokovic at prime level but not Stan. Djokovic was passive a times and a bit tight in RG15.
Federer is close to Djokovic depending on the event and court speed indoors.
I don't see how Djokovic in RG 2016 played better than in 2015. He won, but let's not forget he faced a much, MUCH weaker opponent in the final compared to RG 2015. In 2015 he faced an in-form opponent who has the game and mentality to beat him. In 2016 he faced Murray who totally collapsed after 40 minutes.
 

OhYes

Legend
Such pathetic excuses. So Djokovic playing one hour practice session against his pigeon made him gassed for RG 2015 final? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
He played well enough in the final, Wawrinka was simply better. It was a great win, more impressive than AO 2014.
Would you call RBA Novaks pigeon too ? He leads 8-3 but RBA alway makes him go distance.
Only thing pathetic here are your constant attacks on Nole and his fanbase.
 

ReeceSachs

Hall of Fame
I don't see how Djokovic in RG 2016 played better than in 2015. He won, but let's not forget he faced a much, MUCH weaker opponent in the final compared to RG 2015. In 2015 he faced an in-form opponent who has the game and mentality to beat him. In 2016 he faced Murray who totally collapsed after 40 minutes.
Murray was not great sure but the level Djokovic played at after set 1 was very high. I think he was more rested in RG 16 and played more aggressive. Even if you disagree with that i would still say 11 and 13 were better.
 
Would you call RBA Novaks pigeon too ? He leads 8-3 but RBA alway makes him go distance.
Only thing pathetic here are your constant attacks on Nole and his fanbase.
Agut is just a tough matchup for him, just like Wawrinka is. Thing is Djokovic fans really like to bring Wawrinka down and hype Murray.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
I don't see how Djokovic in RG 2016 played better than in 2015. He won, but let's not forget he faced a much, MUCH weaker opponent in the final compared to RG 2015. In 2015 he faced an in-form opponent who has the game and mentality to beat him. In 2016 he faced Murray who totally collapsed after 40 minutes.
Djokovic is not giving back his RG 2016 title or his NCYGS. I think you would like that but it's never going to happen no matter how much you whine about it.
 

RF-18

G.O.A.T.
I don't see how Djokovic in RG 2016 played better than in 2015. He won, but let's not forget he faced a much, MUCH weaker opponent in the final compared to RG 2015. In 2015 he faced an in-form opponent who has the game and mentality to beat him. In 2016 he faced Murray who totally collapsed after 40 minutes.
I would say I agree that overall in 2015 RG that Djokovic level was a bit higher than in the 2016 tournament.
 

OhYes

Legend
Agut is just a tough matchup for him, just like Wawrinka is. Thing is Djokovic fans really like to bring Wawrinka down and hype Murray.
No. Thing is some ppl really like to put down Murray bcs of Djokovic. Murray is better player than Agut and Stan combined, but he is considered as Novaks pigeon ? :rolleyes:
He is hyped as member of big 4 which is clear hype since big 4 shouldnt exist. But at the same time Murray is not like any other player below big 3. He won enough and gave much more fight and resistance to big 3 than any other player. Other players might be just bad matchup for particular big3 member, Murray was tough for all of them.
 
No. Thing is some ppl really like to put down Murray bcs of Djokovic. Murray is better player than Agut and Stan combined, but he is considered as Novaks pigeon ? :rolleyes:
He is hyped as member of big 4 which is clear hype since big 4 shouldnt exist. But at the same time Murray is not like any other player below big 3. He won enough and gave much more fight and resistance to big 3 than any other player. Other players might be just bad matchup for particular big3 member, Murray was tough for all of them.
Not because of Djokovic, but because how bad Murray usually plays in big matches. Do you honestly believe Murray in RG 2016 played better than Wawrinka did in RG 2015? Do you actually believe Murray GAVE A FIGHT in that final? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Obviously by career results and consistency Murray is much better than Wawrinka. But by peak level? Hell no. Wawrinka reached much higher peak level at all slams except Wimbledon. He pushed Djokovic in slams in 2014-2016 and had a few wins over him. What did Murray do in these years? Not only he never beat Djokovic in a slam, he also totally collapsed in almost all of their meetings. Even in AO 2015, who gave a better fight?
 

OhYes

Legend
Not because of Djokovic, but because how bad Murray usually plays in big matches. Do you honestly believe Murray in RG 2016 played better than Wawrinka did in RG 2015? Do you actually believe Murray GAVE A FIGHT in that final? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Obviously by career results and consistency Murray is much better than Wawrinka. But by peak level? Hell no. Wawrinka reached much higher peak level at all slams except Wimbledon. He pushed Djokovic in slams in 2014-2016 and had a few wins over him. What did Murray do in these years? Not only he never beat Djokovic in a slam, he also totally collapsed in almost all of their meetings. Even in AO 2015, who gave a better fight?
He didnt play better than Stan in RG that year, but he took No.1 spot from Novak when all people thought it would be impossible.
And he did gave a fight at RG 2016.
I wish Nadal has some player outside of big 3 that could beat him on regular basis so we could call that player better than Nadal. Maybe you wouldnt jump on to Stanimal bandwagon so easily then.
 
He didnt play better than Stan in RG that year, but he took No.1 spot from Novak when all people thought it would be impossible.
And he did gave a fight at RG 2016.
I wish Nadal has some player outside of big 3 that could beat him on regular basis so we could call that player better than Nadal. Maybe you wouldnt jump on to Stanimal bandwagon so easily then.
Except that nobody ever said Wawrinka is better than Djokovic. And there are more than enough players who are beating Nadal. Even Thiem now beats him every year on clay.
 
Top