Who was the better hard-court player, 2004 Andre Agassi or 2023 Novak Djokovic?

[AnOctorokForDinner]

We can measure if player A won more than player B. But that doesn’t mean player A would beat player B (for a whole host of reasons). All we can really say is which player won the most given the competition he faced.

If that's all there is to it, fair enough and fair play to you. It's not like Djokovic fans by and large eschew hypotheticals though, many certainly have opinions regarding who is better.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

how long have you felt this way?

Not sure what you mean? As long as I have first read that reasoning here I suppose.

 

[GabeT]

If that's all there is to it, fair enough and fair play to you. It's not like Djokovic fans by and large eschew hypotheticals though, many certainly have opinions regarding who is better.

everyone has their own opinion and rightly so. No one should have a problem with that. But when certain posters move on to mistaking their opinions for facts and using that to claim their favorite is objectively the best even when they have won less then what you have is not analysis. It’s just trolling.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

everyone has their own opinion and rightly so. No one should have a problem with that. But when certain posters move on to mistaking their opinions for facts and using that to claim their favorite is objectively the best even when they have won less then what you have is not analysis. It’s just trolling.

Well that's ubiquitous among every fanbase here lol.
Can't agree all opinions are good to have either, there's a lot of disrespectful ones around (and I do respond with some of my own at times, true enough).

 

[RS]

1960s Ali 14-6 over 1980s Holmes. All of these fights would go the distance. Both had iron jaws. Ali's footwork would be the difference.

I got to see most of Holmes' peak on live TV. That dude was a legit fighter, albeit boring during his latter years. There were times where I felt that the he was helped by the judges scorecards; much like Ali was vs Ken Norton.

I prefer knockout artists like Foreman and Tyson.

I had Holmes edging Norton but it could have gone the other way.

 

[zvelf]

But is that not a logical consequence? If player A was better but player B won more, then player B has vultured relative to player A. It seems common these days for worse players to win more than better players of the past.

The problem is that this entire point is tautological. The "if" is already assumed as fact in these propositions and then used as proof that player A was self-evidently better than player B. In reality, player A and player B from different time periods never actually played so the hypothetical match is not proof of anything. The craziest thing about these hypothetical matchups is that anyone who actually watches tennis regularly knows that there is a lot of variation in level across matches and within matches. Rybakina beat Sabalenka earlier this year 6-0, 6-3. The time before that, Sabalenka beat Rybakina 6-2, 3-6, 6-3. There's is an enormous expanse of play level for both players between those two scores. One should absolutely not expect subbing, say, peak Steffi Graf for one of them and expect either Rybakina or Sabalenka to play at the same level. That's what going on here: we'll just substitute someone else into a match that never happened and assume both players play about the same level they did against their original opponent. What? That's just absurd on the face of it. Never mind that different equipment across eras may give one player a notable advantage or disadvantage over the other, wood vs. graphite, gut vs. poly, etc.

 

[Pheasant]

I had Holmes edging Norton but it could have gone the other way.

Holmes earned that decision by being aggressive in the 15th round. That was in his very early days. That was a legit split-decision victory, and arguably the most entertaining fight of his career. That was an epic fight.

 

[RS]

Holmes earned that decision by being aggressive in the 15th round. That was in his very early days. That was a legit split-decision victory, and arguably the most entertaining fight of his career. That was an epic fight.

Oh yeah my bad. You meant later.

Where you thinking of the Witherspoon and Harris fights? Some people felt Holmes lost those.

 

[Pheasant]

Witherspoon beat Holmes, but Holmes had the judges on his side. That’s the big one.

I also felt that the judges called the TKO over Snipes too quickly. Snipes leveled Holmes earlier in the match. To be fair, Holmes likely win that fair and square

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

The problem is that this entire point is tautological. The "if" is already assumed as fact in these propositions and then used as proof that player A was self-evidently better than player B. In reality, player A and player B from different time periods never actually played so the hypothetical match is not proof of anything. The craziest thing about these hypothetical matchups is that anyone who actually watches tennis regularly knows that there is a lot of variation in level across matches and within matches. Rybakina beat Sabalenka earlier this year 6-0, 6-3. The time before that, Sabalenka beat Rybakina 6-2, 3-6, 6-3. There's is an enormous expanse of play level for both players between those two scores. One should absolutely not expect subbing, say, peak Steffi Graf for one of them and expect either Rybakina or Sabalenka to play at the same level. That's what going on here: we'll just substitute someone else into a match that never happened and assume both players play about the same level they did against their original opponent. What? That's just absurd on the face of it. Never mind that different equipment across eras may give one player a notable advantage or disadvantage over the other, wood vs. graphite, gut vs. poly, etc.

It's not a fact but trying to compare relative levels is certainly fairer than just counting achievements, which leaves no room to account for actual tennis. At any rate, there has not been any real improvement since the poly switch happened so we can compare players within the last twenty years at face value level-wise, whatever claims to the contrary some local crazies may produce.

 

[RS]

Witherspoon beat Holmes, but Holmes had the judges on his side. That’s the big one.

I also felt that the judges called the TKO over Snipes too quickly. Snipes leveled Holmes earlier in the match. To be fair, Holmes likely win that fair and square

@Poisoned Slice

After we score the Frampton I think Witherspoon Holmes is a good choice.

 

[GabeT]

The problem is that this entire point is tautological. The "if" is already assumed as fact in these propositions and then used as proof that player A was self-evidently better than player B. In reality, player A and player B from different time periods never actually played so the hypothetical match is not proof of anything. The craziest thing about these hypothetical matchups is that anyone who actually watches tennis regularly knows that there is a lot of variation in level across matches and within matches. Rybakina beat Sabalenka earlier this year 6-0, 6-3. The time before that, Sabalenka beat Rybakina 6-2, 3-6, 6-3. There's is an enormous expanse of play level for both players between those two scores. One should absolutely not expect subbing, say, peak Steffi Graf for one of them and expect either Rybakina or Sabalenka to play at the same level. That's what going on here: we'll just substitute someone else into a match that never happened and assume both players play about the same level they did against their original opponent. What? That's just absurd on the face of it. Never mind that different equipment across eras may give one player a notable advantage or disadvantage over the other, wood vs. graphite, gut vs. poly, etc.

Exactly this.

When I point out that if anyone here could actually predict hypothetical matches they’d be rich from betting the answer I get (over and over) is that all they are doing is assuming that if player A played in a certain way in year X he would play in the exact same way if he played at a different time and against a different opponent. That’s nonsense.

If you look at Fed at WB in 03, for example, and reach some conclusion as to how well he played that tells us next to nothing how he would do against Novak from 2015. You can’t simply assume Fed’s general level would remain unchanged. Once you change the initial conditions (date, time, place, opponent) that has all kinds of ripple effects that can‘t be measured.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Depth and level of competition fluctuate over time and never stays constant. Strong era and there are weak era, Djokovic's competition was a joke in the CIE.

Peak/prime Djokovic in his 20s couldn't win more because of the better competition. No one ever expected(even his fans) a post 30s Djokovic wins many more slams and stay at the #1 for such a long time. That's because no one ever expected the NextGen and 90s born players were this bad.

Not all slam wins are equally impressive and high quality. There are great and subpar slams wins because it depends how good the field brings to the table.






At the time of this post, Djokovic won 13 slams after his 28th birthday, it is now 16 slams won after his 28th !
There's no way one can say all of his slams titles are equally valued/impressive because that's intellectually dishonest.





Another good example. Old, past prime Djokovic vultured slams in his 30s. Notice his much higher win rate than when he was in his peak/prime years, only due to stiffer competition.

Setting aside the complete arbitrary cut-off date of 28, which serves the sole purpose of getting 4 more slams which Novak won in 2015/16 in the alleged “vulture bucket”, this undermining of his late achievements is ridiculous. We all know that the instagram generation of recent years is nothing to write home about but only in TTW could Novak’s unparalleled longevity be seen as something negative. Same as I tell people who try to discredit Court’s achievements: for whatever value you want to deduct from Djokovic’s late achievements, be fair and also keep in mind what would have happened if Wimbledon 2020 takes place, Novak enters AO 2022, and he does not decide to waste his time with Pepe Imaz. He could easily have 3-4 more slams and as a consequence Fedal would have less. So even if we try some mental gymnastics and try to not fully credit his slams after a certain age, this would still all even out under normal circumstances.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Can we please shut down that parallel boxing discussion? This is a tennis thread, for boxing we have the odds and ends section. If there were any parallels or analogies to the discussed tennis matters at hand fine, but what the heck have Holmes and Norton to do with Agassi and Nole?

 

[Neptune]

The problem is that this entire point is tautological. The "if" is already assumed as fact in these propositions and then used as proof that player A was self-evidently better than player B. In reality, player A and player B from different time periods never actually played so the hypothetical match is not proof of anything. The craziest thing about these hypothetical matchups is that anyone who actually watches tennis regularly knows that there is a lot of variation in level across matches and within matches. Rybakina beat Sabalenka earlier this year 6-0, 6-3. The time before that, Sabalenka beat Rybakina 6-2, 3-6, 6-3. There's is an enormous expanse of play level for both players between those two scores. One should absolutely not expect subbing, say, peak Steffi Graf for one of them and expect either Rybakina or Sabalenka to play at the same level. That's what going on here: we'll just substitute someone else into a match that never happened and assume both players play about the same level they did against their original opponent. What? That's just absurd on the face of it. Never mind that different equipment across eras may give one player a notable advantage or disadvantage over the other, wood vs. graphite, gut vs. poly, etc.

It's all about coping with grief, some seem to be stuck at a certain stage.
Understandable, for some, it's particularly hard to swallow when the chosen ones (whom the propaganda conditions them to be fans of) lose despite all the off-court help.

 

[RS]

Can we please shut down that parallel boxing discussion? This is a tennis thread, for boxing we have the odds and ends section. If there were any parallels or analogies to the discussed tennis matters at hand fine, but what the heck have Holmes and Norton to do with Agassi and Nole?

No problem.

 

[Sputnik Bulgorov]

Exactly. Well put. If Zverev, Tsitsipas etc had consistently reached later stages of slams only succumbing to the big three, then I would be quick to say they are ATG potential in "normal" eras but were prevented from their rightful titles just by the anomaly of the best players in history whose 80% would still be too much for regular ATGs.

However, Zverev needed years for his first top ten win. At a time he was already in the top 5, he was busy losing to all kind of mediocre players in middle rounds of slams and had to fight over several 5 setters against actual journeymen in early rounds. Guys like Anderson or Delpo reached slam finals at a time one would have expected Zverev to take that place, and Delpo (in his state after injury) or even more Anderson were never more than 2nd or 3rd tier players during the big three prime era, hence got further than what would have been one of the leading players of the 90s gen. Tsitsipas and especially Med did a little better than Zverev, but let's not pretend their only problem were the big three. Med is the only one who would be even close to an ATG career now if the big 3 hadn't existed and he is already 28.

I don't agree with the way Djoko's incredible achievements are undermined here sometimes but one cannot deny that the 90s born players are one of the worst generation of all times and I am also still sceptical about Raz and Sinner.

Zverev and Tsitsipas are solid players, but they're more comparable to the second tier in other eras like Berdych, Tsonga, Ferrer, Nalbandian, and Davydenko. They can be relied on to make slam QFs, and even SFs, but they for the most part lose to best of their generation.

I set Medvedev apart in that he's a slam champ, and he's consistently made HC slam finals. He deserves to be compared to guys like Roddick, Thiem, and Ivanisevic. All of these are great players, but they're not main rivals for GOAT level candidates. We've seen Federer thrash Roddick, Sampras thrash Ivanisevic, Nadal thrash Thiem, and now the same for Medvedev who has now consistently lost to both much older and much younger players. Ironically, Medvedev's main rivals for slams have not been his peers Zverev and Tsitsipas, but his elders Djokovic and Nadal, and recently his juniors Sinner and Alcaraz. He's a dominant 4-1 vs Zverev and Tsitsipas in slams, kind of solidifying them in the second tier, while he's 2-2 vs Alcaraz and Sinner and 1-5 vs Nadal and Djokovic.

It's not that these three are "bad" players on an absolute level, far from it. Nobody who makes it to the top of the game can ever be considered "bad" in absolute terms. What makes the competition weak is that these three are the best of their generation when historically, we've been accustomed to the existence of even better players. In this generation, there's nobody at the level of Federer/Nadal/Djokovic, or Agassi/Lendl/McEnroe, or Edberg/Becker/Wilander, or Courier/Murray, or Kuerten/Wawrinka or even Safin/Rafter/Hewitt, and it's now clear that there's been a void in multi-slam level talent for the 14 years after Djokovic was born.

I understand your skepticism on Sinner and Alcaraz. They are benefitting just as much from the 14 year void as Djokovic is. It's like how Federer is considered lucky that his biggest competition at one point was Agassi, except the age gap is even more extreme this time. (Surprisingly, nobody ever talks about Agassi and Sampras being in a position to benefit from the early 00's void. Probably because Safin, Hewitt and Ferero were providing them stiff competition) However, being in a position to benefit from weak relative competition means that they've already set themselves apart at a higher level. They're already better than Zverev, Tsitsipas and Medvedev. Alcaraz has given Tsitsipas nightmares since he was 18 years old, and he's already 50-50 with Zverev and Medvedev at just 20. Sinner has taken a bit longer, but he's been slowly turning all the h2hs in his favor. There's a lot to overturn, but he's made incredible progress in less than a year. I'm quite optimistic for the two of them, and hope the best is yet to come. Only problem is Alcaraz seems to be made out of glass.

 

[Neptune]

Djokovic’s competition don’t just perform poorly against him. They perform poorly against much lesser players. Tsitsipas has been a punching bag for the top 10 for most of the past year. With the exception of Monte Carlo l, he had a grand total of 1 top 10 win in the past year. He loses to random journeymen all the time, and it just happened again in Madrid. Zverev has a high peak level, but he’s wildly inconsistent and chokes his opportunities away. He has a 30% win rate vs the top 10 and only a 50% win rate vs top 20 in the past year, and he also loses to random journeymen all the time. He was such a choker in the biggest stages that despite his talent, he didn’t get his first top 10 slam win until 2022 RG when he was already 25! Medvedev is a great player, no doubt, but it’s not saying good things about the competition when he’s the best of his generation. He has limitations, but he’s maximized his results with the tools he has. He also loses to random journeymen all the time on grass and clay. This is not a case of Djokovic’s competition consistently beating the field, only to lose to him. It’s really no surprise that at 20 and 22, Alcaraz and Sinner have surpassed all of Djokovic’s mediocre competition when they should be at their peak.

How about showing us the strong competition faced by your favorite?

How about showing who provided adequate competition to your favorite?
Comparison is key, isn't it?

Which player is your favorite? @Sputnik Bulgorov

 

[nolefam_2024]

How about showing us the strong competition faced by your favorite?

Everything can be settled by tennis abstract. Check for these players BRK and HLD %

Top 10 for each year between 2000 and 2023. We can see where each of the player lie. I think you are great statistician. You can do it.

 

[The_Order]

At the time of this post, Djokovic won 13 slams after his 28th birthday, it is now 16 slams won after his 28th !
There's no way one can say all of his slams titles are equally valued/impressive because that's intellectually dishonest.

So, 16 as it stands with potentially more to come! That's now double the slams after 28 than before...

 

[Sputnik Bulgorov]

How about showing us the strong competition faced by your favorite?

What does that have to do with how inadequate Zverev, Tsitsipas and Medvedev have been?

 

[Sputnik Bulgorov]

How about showing us the strong competition faced by your favorite?

How about showing who provided adequate competition to your favorite?
Comparison is key, isn't it? @Sputnik Bulgorov

As far as twilight/post-prime younger competition goes:
Connors and Vilas had Borg, McEnroe and Lendl.
McEnroe and Lendl had Becker, Edberg and Wilander.
Becker, Edberg and Wilander had Agassi, Sampras and Courier.
Agassi and Sampras actually had a void in the late 90’s and early 00’s, but they still had Rafter and Kafelnikov, who were slightly younger, Kuerten to a limited extent, and then Safin, Hewitt and eventually Federer (for Agassi at least).
Federer had Nadal, Djokovic, Murray and Wawrinka.
Djokovic and Nadal had Raonic, Nishikori, Dimitrov, Zverev, Medvedev and Tsitsipas.

One of these stands out to me as much weaker than the others.

 

[Angrybirdstar]

Not sure what you mean? As long as I have first read that reasoning here I suppose.

i was thinking about a thread from a year ago

Lol at the idea of Murray beating 96 Krajicek.

i'm curious about whether (and if so, why) your thinking changed recently, and what the extent of your uncertainty with hypotheticals is (including a relevant post of mine from that thread)

some posters on TTW say player X's peak level from match Y would beat every other player in history while in reality it does not prove much more than that it would beat the opponent in that particular match. Krajicek in Wimbledon Quarter 96, or Safin in USO 2000 played out of their mind, but matchups exist for a reason and it could well be that had they played the exact same day against a different opponent they might have lost.

the part that feels most relevant and makes this whole comparison weird is that the s&v and baseline play styles are diametrically opposed, and for the hypothetical to be at all worthwhile i have to imagine at least a slight consideration of a stylistic mismatch even with Krajicek being obviously more dominant in his run.

 

[abmk]

You can exaggerate weak era claims, but the fact is, you still missed your guess by 7 slams even allowing for luck for Djokovic to reach a mere 4 instead of the 11 he got. Missing a guess by 7 slams, 7!, the entire career of a McEnroe or Wilander, just means that Djokovic vastly, vastly outperformed your estimation of him. But when that happens, it can't remotely be because you underestimated Djokovic. It has to be that his competition just kept getting worse even as clear ATGs like Alcaraz and Sinner have arisen.

there is no exaggeration of weak era. Worst period in open era Joke, joke competition.
bolded and underline for emphasis.

2 worst generations of all time - Rao/Dimi/Nishi and Med/Z/Tpas generations
Stop ignoring that.

Look at all the comments in this thread after Wimbledon 2018:
almost every one was between 14-20 slams for Djokovic. Includes Djokovic fans like vex, BrokenGears, TheFifthSet, Raining Hopes etc.

He was at 13 back then. I said 2 to 4 more. which means my range was 15-17, which perfectly fits in with the majority range.

14-16. Maybe 17

Said 15 years ago, still on 15 unless he wins USO and AO for 3 straight

16-18. But idc right now. Just relishing this win

16-17 for me if he played longer

I'd say 15-16.
But it is the makeup of this that will be interesting, I really would like to see him get the DCGS and become the AO standalone goat.
The USO he has underachieved as well, so another there would be fantastic.

Final Slam count of Novak?

Well everyone has his doubts cleared after this win. How many Slams for him before he retires? Vote.

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

Don't forget djokovic only faced Alcaraz in a slam first in RG 23 and Sinner only hit his stride in the 2nd half of last year.
Clear ATGs like Alcaraz and Sinner. LOL. their level so far isn't even at Roddick/Hewitt level at their primes.
Sinner is a luckier Berdych.
Alcaraz worse than Roddick/Hewitt at their primes at AO/Wim/USO. Only better at RG, but he failed to even last for more than 2 sets vs 36 yo old Djokovic.

Also telling you ignored this part:

That would be 2007-12 (with exception of 2010).

2013, 2014 aren't particularly different by any means. 2013 is good enough, but 14 a little better than decent, nothing else.

you over-rate 13/14 and then come back and say I am exaggerating for the worst period in open era BY FAR.

Stats don't tell the whole story. The Borg-McEnroe 1980 Wimbledon final for decades was widely seen as the greatest tennis match of all time and was even turned into a movie, but it was filled with unforced errors.

no, it wasn't.

The TA charting for the Wimbledon 1980 final is way way off.
goes to show you didn't watch Wimbledon 1980 final or don't remember properly or don't know how UFEs are supposed to be charted.
match was high quality even if there were a few more UFEs than what you would think based on reputation. There were ridiculous amount of excellent plays in the match. Cincy 23 only had a few (accounting for points wise ratio)

And I didn't say stats tell the whole story. But I saw the Cincy 23 final match also. quality wasn't good first 2 sets.

Now look at the most liked comments from the Cincy match:

"Novak at 36 years old and playing at a high level against a 20 year old Carlos, that's incredible." - 10,000 likes
"Probably the greatest non-slam final I've watched, just unbelievable." - 8,100 likes
"What a match this was. Alcaraz v Nole probably the best fixture in any sport right now." - 2,500 likes
"As an Alcaraz fan, how Djokovic came back after struggling so much with the heat is insane, legend." - 1,500 likes
"There is no one better in adversity than one, Novak Djokovic. Astounding feat of grit and determination. Wow." - 1,500 likes
"I don't think people realize how absurd it is for Novak to still be playing at such a high level at his age, and still winning major trophies against another generation of athletes." - 1,300 likes
"Match was amazing" - 1,200 likes
"It's unbelievable that a man like Alcaraz has come along and he's being able to push Djokovic beyond limits he has probably not touched before. Seriously, this was the greatest 3-set non-slam final in history. The level has been raised like never before." - 1,000 likes

This video has 7.8 million views. If the match was so awful, surely someone, anyone would have chimed in and said so, but none, zero, of the top-voted comments state this was a poorly played match. I mean, I know you know more about tennis than anyone on Earth and so everyone else's opinions are invalidated just because you say so, but I guess thousands of people who watched this match don't know anything about tennis or reality and are just lying to themselves.

match was highly dramatic and 3rd set was good. Hence the number of views.
match was only decent/mid overall quality wise. I watched the match and stats for the match back up what I saw.

and some of the comments/likes are lol djokovic fan--bots and kids with no idea.

Outside of 2006, Blake has never had any sustained level of play to equal to, much less surpass Medvedev, Zverez, or Tsitsipas, but all of a sudden #39 James Blake whose ranking would continue to drop the rest of 2004 is a "brutal" matchup, but Medvedev, Zverez, or Tsitsipas are all mugs. If that's not a self-serving agenda, there is no such thing.

I meant draw is brutal if you start having players like even older Martin/Blake from 3R, 4R before facing Roddick/Agassi/fed. not that they are tougher than Med, Z, Tpas.
I didn't say Blake alone was brutal. He wasn't.
Stop twisting things around.
Roddick, Agassi in AO 2004 >>> med, Z, tpas

Not proof. You're just asserting what needs to be proved and the assertion by itself has no merit.

what constitutes proof for level of Agassi in AO 04/USO 04 vs Djokovic in AO 23/USO 23.
you said stats don't tell the whole story for Cincy 23 final. so what exactly do you want as proof?
can you atleast admit djokovic more vulnerable in USO 23 compared to agassi in USO 04 as djokovic was down 0-2 in sets to Djere?

As to your objection to my objection of hypothetical matchups, you clearly didn't understand any of what I wrote.

I understood it pretty well, kiddo. But you don't even admit basic obvious things about actual levels, so I didn't want to go in detail about hypotheticals.

@Angrybirdstar owned you big time btw

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

i was thinking about a thread from a year ago

i'm curious about whether (and if so, why) your thinking changed recently, and what the extent of your uncertainty with hypotheticals is (including a relevant post of mine from that thread)

Fair point. I mean of course it is never all black and white and there is always a possibility that any player could have lost against another player on a given day in any hypothetical. However, there are of course different likelihoods in it. I mean if we take a hypothetical of 2008 Nadal against 1999 Pete at the FO, would we really not have a BIG tendency to assume that Nadal would win even if we cannot know 100% for sure? As another example, if we compare a Safin of 2000 against a Zverev of 2020 USO with their respective level in the finals the likelihood of Safin winning in a hypothetical match would be higher than a hypothetical match between two members of the big three (especially if we factor in the not so ideal matchup of Nadal against Fed). You are right however, that we cannot assume Safin simply transcends that level over a full match, could happen that he makes some close errors at the beginning, don’t get into the groove, loses confidence, we can never know.

So as for the Krajicek-Murray hypothetical. Rick played as such an incredibly high level against Pete that I (and this is only my opinion I want to stress not a universal fact of course) cannot see any version of Murray beating him. However, you are right that this is still only speculation insofar I might have overstated it with the “lol” in my initial post.

My main point however is that if there aren’t weird matchup issues involved, some hypotheticals are of course clearer to asses than others and any hypothetical involving two big three members at their primes would typically be way closer than next to all others.

 

[mike danny]

Exactly. Well put. If Zverev, Tsitsipas etc had consistently reached later stages of slams only succumbing to the big three, then I would be quick to say they are ATG potential in "normal" eras but were prevented from their rightful titles just by the anomaly of the best players in history whose 80% would still be too much for regular ATGs.

Even then, they were still able to go up 2-0 in sets against Djokodal in major finals. Were Djokodal suddenly just way too good after that for the Next Gen to just collapse the way they did?

 

[zvelf]

Look at all the comments in this thread after Wimbledon 2018:
almost every one was between 14-20 slams for Djokovic. Includes Djokovic fans like vex, BrokenGears, TheFifthSet, Raining Hopes etc.

He was at 13 back then. I said 2 to 4 more. which means my range was 15-17, which perfectly fits in with the majority range.

Eh, doesn't mean much. Fans of players are the most reluctant to predict extreme long-term success for fear of jinxing their player. That even some people predicted 7 more slams when you predicted 4 with luck shows that you vastly underrated Djokovic. Everything since then has been confirmation bias to reaffirm your conviction of underrating him instead of admitting you were wrong.

Don't forget djokovic only faced Alcaraz in a slam first in RG 23 and Sinner only hit his stride in the 2nd half of last year.
Clear ATGs like Alcaraz and Sinner. LOL. their level so far isn't even at Roddick/Hewitt level at their primes.
Sinner is a luckier Berdych.
Alcaraz worse than Roddick/Hewitt at their primes at AO/Wim/USO. Only better at RG, but he failed to even last for more than 2 sets vs 36 yo old Djokovic.

Alcaraz and Sinner have already equaled Roddick and Hewitt's career slam count and neither are past 22 years old yet. Barring injury, Alcaraz and Sinner's combined slam count will eventually, at minimum, triple Roddick and Hewitt's combined career slam count.

Also telling you ignored this part:

That would be 2007-12 (with exception of 2010).

2013, 2014 aren't particularly different by any means. 2013 is good enough, but 14 a little better than decent, nothing else.

you over-rate 13/14 and then come back and say I am exaggerating for the worst period in open era BY FAR.

I didn't address it because I will come back to this in a separate thread I am developing to measure stronger and weaker years.

no, it wasn't.

The TA charting for the Wimbledon 1980 final is way way off.
goes to show you didn't watch Wimbledon 1980 final or don't remember properly or don't know how UFEs are supposed to be charted.
match was high quality even if there were a few more UFEs than what you would think based on reputation. There were ridiculous amount of excellent plays in the match. Cincy 23 only had a few (accounting for points wise ratio)

You can try to be insulting and call me "kiddo," but I've probably been watching tennis at least as long as you have. I watched the 1980 Wimbledon final live. I do think it was a great match, but it had a lot of unforced errors. Whenever you're wrong, it's because the stats are mysteriously off. Well, how about here?

Match Stats/Report - Borg vs McEnroe, Wimbledon final, 1980

Bjorn Borg beat John McEnroe 1-6, 7-5, 6-3, 6-7(16), 8-6 in the Wimbledon final, 1980 on grass It was Borg's 5th Wimbledon title in a row and McEnroe's first final at the event. The two would go onto meet again in the following years final, with McEnroe winning Borg won 192 points...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

Our own Waspsting stat'd this and said that based on the stats, "Its not even a top tier encounter" and that "this is the worst volleying I've seen by Borg in a Wimbledon match."

And I didn't say stats tell the whole story. But I saw the Cincy 23 final match also. quality wasn't good first 2 sets.

match was highly dramatic and 3rd set was good. Hence the number of views.
match was only decent/mid overall quality wise. I watched the match and stats for the match back up what I saw.

and some of the comments/likes are lol djokovic fan--bots and kids with no idea.

Yeah, yeah, your opinion is always better than thousands of other people. In any case, in the opinion of these thousands of people, of Tennis.com, and the ATP website, Cincy is a classic match. I concur. As usual, clearly a lot more people agree with me than with you.

I meant draw is brutal if you start having players like even older Martin/Blake from 3R, 4R before facing Roddick/Agassi/fed. not that they are tougher than Med, Z, Tpas.
I didn't say Blake alone was brutal. He wasn't.
Stop twisting things around.
Roddick, Agassi in AO 2004 >>> med, Z, tpas

#84 Vahaly, #37 Nieminen, 33-year old #66 Martin, and #39 Blake are a brutal draw. LOL! Sure, AO 2004 Roddick and Agassi are better than some versions of Med, Z, and Tpas, but not all.

what constitutes proof for level of Agassi in AO 04/USO 04 vs Djokovic in AO 23/USO 23.
you said stats don't tell the whole story for Cincy 23 final. so what exactly do you want as proof?
can you atleast admit djokovic more vulnerable in USO 23 compared to agassi in USO 04 as djokovic was down 0-2 in sets to Djere?

I understood it pretty well, kiddo. But you don't even admit basic obvious things about actual levels, so I didn't want to go in detail about hypotheticals.

You didn't understand because you didn't address my points about how context determines who that player is at that moment in time and so it doesn't make sense to evaluate him against a different context when the entire field is different. As for USO 23 Djokovic being more vulnerable than USO 04 Agassi? Probably not. Sure, Djokovic lost 2 sets to Djere, but then he easily won the next 3. If we count tiebreakers as a game won, then USO 04 Agassi won 94 games to losing 65, a ratio of winning 1.45 more games than he lost. USO 23 Djokovic won 137 games and lost 71, a ratio of winning 1.93 games than he lost. Wow, that's a pretty striking difference. Oh, but Agassi lost to #1 Federer, a level of opponent USO 23 Djokovic didn't have to face. Fine, let's drop the Federer match from the numbers. Agassi's ratio only improves to 1.73 (71 games won, 41 games lost), still a 10% worse performance than USO 23 Djokovic. So USO 23 Djokovic performed 10% better in game wins against Medvedev, Fritz, Shelton, Gojo, Djere, Miralles, and Muller than USO 04 Agassi did against only Sargsian, Novak, Mayer, and Ginepri. Whatever you think of Medvedev and Fritz, they are a clear tier above the 2004 versions of Sargsian, Novak, Mayer, and Ginepri.

@Angrybirdstar owned you big time btw

I disagree of course, but the whole board owned you. This is how the debate has gone: I point out the many losses Agassi had on hard court in 2004 and you try to defend some of these losses to very pedestrian players (all outside the top 20) by saying they are actually very good while in the same breath claiming that Medvedev, Zverev, and Tsitsipas have been joke competition for Djokovic. Even while you admit that Medvedev, Zverev, and Tsitsipas are much better players than those to whom Agassi lost, it fails to dawn on you that Djokovic regularly beats Medvedev, Zverev, and Tsitsipas while Agassi lost to the players inferior to them.

So obvious was this a detriment to your argument, you create a new thread trying to reframe the argument away from who was the better hard court player between 2004 Agassi and 2023 Djokovic to just who was better at hard court slams. Just the creation of this new thread was a gross admission of defeat as two thirds of the poll respondents in my thread sided with me and against you. Then in this new thread, poll respondents again sided with me 2 to 1 against you. That just shows how poor your stance is.

You were once a decent poster, but Djokovic overwhelmingly surpassing Federer in almost every major tennis record has given you Djokovic derangement syndrome.

 

[abmk]

Eh, doesn't mean much. Fans of players are the most reluctant to predict extreme long-term success for fear of jinxing their player. That even some people predicted 7 more slams when you predicted 4 with luck shows that you vastly underrated Djokovic. Everything since then has been confirmation bias to reaffirm your conviction of underrating him instead of admitting you were wrong.

LOL, the excuses flow like river flowing into the sea.
non-Djokovic fans also made similar predictions.

vast vast majority was <20 slams

so what exactly means anything for you?

anything that crushes your BS , actual predictions from that time or actual official stats from Cincy 23 final don't mean much.

Alcaraz and Sinner have already equaled Roddick and Hewitt's career slam count and neither are past 22 years old yet. Barring injury, Alcaraz and Sinner's combined slam count will eventually, at minimum, triple Roddick and Hewitt's combined career slam count.

doesn't change the things I said about their levels so far till now ...

their level so far isn't even at Roddick/Hewitt level at their primes.
Sinner is a luckier Berdych.
Alcaraz worse than Roddick/Hewitt at their primes at AO/Wim/USO. Only better at RG, but he failed to even last for more than 2 sets vs 36 yo old Djokovic.

someone had to win a slam here and there. them being decent/least worst did.

what they do from now on isn't going to change what has happened previously. bolded and underlined for you. If you don't get it, it means you've failed 101 of evaluation in tennis (or any sport)

also you conveniently use this prediction (I mean no one could have foreseen Roddick not winning a single slam after USO 03), but miss that 89-99 born have won a pathetic 2 slams so far in total.

I didn't address it because I will come back to this in a separate thread I am developing to measure stronger and weaker years.

no, pal, you were wrong. Hence you couldn't address it.

You can try to be insulting and call me "kiddo," but I've probably been watching tennis at least as long as you have. I watched the 1980 Wimbledon final live.

you expect people to believe that? LOL.
anyone who has watched tennis from 1980 and has a little sense would know 16-current is easily the weakest period in the open era

I do think it was a great match, but it had a lot of unforced errors. Whenever you're wrong, it's because the stats are mysteriously off. Well, how about here?

Match Stats/Report - Borg vs McEnroe, Wimbledon final, 1980

Bjorn Borg beat John McEnroe 1-6, 7-5, 6-3, 6-7(16), 8-6 in the Wimbledon final, 1980 on grass It was Borg's 5th Wimbledon title in a row and McEnroe's first final at the event. The two would go onto meet again in the following years final, with McEnroe winning Borg won 192 points...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

Our own Waspsting stat'd this and said that based on the stats, "Its not even a top tier encounter" and that "this is the worst volleying I've seen by Borg in a Wimbledon match."

waspsting is wrong about the quality of the match. Plus even his UE count is anywhere remotely as high as the TA one.

and here is the reality:

NBC provided an unforced error count for the 1980 Wimbledon final only two points before the end. And the last two points ended with a clearly forced error and a clean winner, so essentially we've got an UE count for the full match: Borg 25, McEnroe 42.

In those days UE counts tended to be presented apart from the double-faults. Adding DF's, this is what we get:

Borg - 33 UE
McEnroe - 45 UE

This is a low number of errors for such a long match, and if we use these numbers we get some fairly high Aggressive Margins:

Borg - 30%
McEnroe - 28%

Yeah, yeah, your opinion is always better than thousands of other people. In any case, in the opinion of these thousands of people, of Tennis.com, and the ATP website, Cincy is a classic match. I concur. As usual, clearly a lot more people agree with me than with you.

ATP website doesn't include slam matches. I didn't say anything about other non-slam matches being better per se for the year. Given the year was sh*t quality wise on men's side ....

Yes, the tennis.com list is laughable. What is said is backed by stats and watching the match.

#84 Vahaly, #37 Nieminen, 33-year old #66 Martin, and #39 Blake are a brutal draw. LOL! Sure, AO 2004 Roddick and Agassi are better than some versions of Med, Z, and Tpas, but not all.

AO 2004 Roddick and agassi better than all versions of those 3 at the AO

You didn't understand because you didn't address my points about how context determines who that player is at that moment in time and so it doesn't make sense to evaluate him against a different context when the entire field is different. As for USO 23 Djokovic being more vulnerable than USO 04 Agassi? Probably not. Sure, Djokovic lost 2 sets to Djere, but then he easily won the next 3. If we count tiebreakers as a game won, then USO 04 Agassi won 94 games to losing 65, a ratio of winning 1.45 more games than he lost. USO 23 Djokovic won 137 games and lost 71, a ratio of winning 1.93 games than he lost. Wow, that's a pretty striking difference. Oh, but Agassi lost to #1 Federer, a level of opponent USO 23 Djokovic didn't have to face. Fine, let's drop the Federer match from the numbers. Agassi's ratio only improves to 1.73 (71 games won, 41 games lost), still a 10% worse performance than USO 23 Djokovic. So USO 23 Djokovic performed 10% better in game wins against Medvedev, Fritz, Shelton, Gojo, Djere, Miralles, and Muller than USO 04 Agassi did against only Sargsian, Novak, Mayer, and Ginepri. Whatever you think of Medvedev and Fritz, they are a clear tier above the 2004 versions of Sargsian, Novak, Mayer, and Ginepri.

I disagree of course, but the whole board owned you. This is how the debate has gone: I point out the many losses Agassi had on hard court in 2004 and you try to defend some of these losses to very pedestrian players (all outside the top 20) by saying they are actually very good while in the same breath claiming that Medvedev, Zverev, and Tsitsipas have been joke competition for Djokovic. Even while you admit that Medvedev, Zverev, and Tsitsipas are much better players than those to whom Agassi lost, it fails to dawn on you that Djokovic regularly beats Medvedev, Zverev, and Tsitsipas while Agassi lost to the players inferior to them.

So obvious was this a detriment to your argument, you create a new thread trying to reframe the argument away from who was the better hard court player between 2004 Agassi and 2023 Djokovic to just who was better at hard court slams. Just the creation of this new thread was a gross admission of defeat as two thirds of the poll respondents in my thread sided with me and against you. Then in this new thread, poll respondents again sided with me 2 to 1 against you. That just shows how poor your stance is.

You were once a decent poster, but Djokovic overwhelmingly surpassing Federer in almost every major tennis record has given you Djokovic derangement syndrome.

if you think I was looking for approval from a board currently having many djoko--bots, recency biased kiddos etc, you are even more delusional than I thought. I wanted to see how many would expose theselves.

I understood, but your nonsense denial of djoko being more vulnerable despite 0-2 sets to love down shows what sort of a terrible poster you have become.

and then bringing in garbage stats from TA to make your point -- about Wim 1980 final. is just another attempt at desperation.

you were never a good poster, just went from bad to terrible given your Djokovic fanboyism and BS denial of worst period of tennis in open era

 

[fedfan24]

You can exaggerate weak era claims, but the fact is, you still missed your guess by 7 slams even allowing for luck for Djokovic to reach a mere 4 instead of the 11 he got. Missing a guess by 7 slams, 7!, the entire career of a McEnroe or Wilander, just means that Djokovic vastly, vastly outperformed your estimation of him. But when that happens, it can't remotely be because you underestimated Djokovic. It has to be that his competition just kept getting worse even as clear ATGs like Alcaraz and Sinner have arisen.


Stats don't tell the whole story. The Borg-McEnroe 1980 Wimbledon final for decades was widely seen as the greatest tennis match of all time and was even turned into a movie, but it was filled with unforced errors. Now look at the most liked comments from the Cincy match:

"Novak at 36 years old and playing at a high level against a 20 year old Carlos, that's incredible." - 10,000 likes
"Probably the greatest non-slam final I've watched, just unbelievable." - 8,100 likes
"What a match this was. Alcaraz v Nole probably the best fixture in any sport right now." - 2,500 likes
"As an Alcaraz fan, how Djokovic came back after struggling so much with the heat is insane, legend." - 1,500 likes
"There is no one better in adversity than one, Novak Djokovic. Astounding feat of grit and determination. Wow." - 1,500 likes
"I don't think people realize how absurd it is for Novak to still be playing at such a high level at his age, and still winning major trophies against another generation of athletes." - 1,300 likes
"Match was amazing" - 1,200 likes
"It's unbelievable that a man like Alcaraz has come along and he's being able to push Djokovic beyond limits he has probably not touched before. Seriously, this was the greatest 3-set non-slam final in history. The level has been raised like never before." - 1,000 likes

This video has 7.8 million views. If the match was so awful, surely someone, anyone would have chimed in and said so, but none, zero, of the top-voted comments state this was a poorly played match. I mean, I know you know more about tennis than anyone on Earth and so everyone else's opinions are invalidated just because you say so, but I guess thousands of people who watched this match don't know anything about tennis or reality and are just lying to themselves.


Outside of 2006, Blake has never had any sustained level of play to equal to, much less surpass Medvedev, Zverez, or Tsitsipas, but all of a sudden #39 James Blake whose ranking would continue to drop the rest of 2004 is a "brutal" matchup, but Medvedev, Zverez, or Tsitsipas are all mugs. If that's not a self-serving agenda, there is no such thing.


Not proof. You're just asserting what needs to be proved and the assertion by itself has no merit. As to your objection to my objection of hypothetical matchups, you clearly didn't understand any of what I wrote.

after 18 W I guessed he would win another 5-7 at least taking him to 18-20. Would never have dreamed we would have years as weak as 2021 or 2023 where a 34-36 year old can win 3 slams without a spectacular level. He got kinda lucky between 18-20 too, won 2 Wimbledons by skin of teeth and could’ve lost that AO final to thiem too. He’s definitely been the most fortunate of the big 3 for sure.

 

[GabeT]

after 18 W I guessed he would win another 5-7 at least taking him to 18-20. Would never have dreamed we would have years as weak as 2021 or 2023 where a 34-36 year old can win 3 slams without a spectacular level. He got kinda lucky between 18-20 too, won 2 Wimbledons by skin of teeth and could’ve lost that AO final to thiem too. He’s definitely been the most fortunate of the big 3 for sure.

This simply means you don’t have the analytical tools to judge and forecast tennis results. Not surprising since no one has.

 

[zvelf]

LOL, the excuses flow like river flowing into the sea.
non-Djokovic fans also made similar predictions.

vast vast majority was <20 slams

so what exactly means anything for you?

anything that crushes your BS , actual predictions from that time or actual official stats from Cincy 23 final don't mean much.



doesn't change the things I said about their levels so far till now ...

their level so far isn't even at Roddick/Hewitt level at their primes.
Sinner is a luckier Berdych.
Alcaraz worse than Roddick/Hewitt at their primes at AO/Wim/USO. Only better at RG, but he failed to even last for more than 2 sets vs 36 yo old Djokovic.

someone had to win a slam here and there. them being decent/least worst did.

what they do from now on isn't going to change what has happened previously. bolded and underlined for you. If you don't get it, it means you've failed 101 of evaluation in tennis (or any sport)

also you conveniently use this prediction (I mean no one could have foreseen Roddick not winning a single slam after USO 03), but miss that 89-99 born have won a pathetic 2 slams so far in total.


no, pal, you were wrong. Hence you couldn't address it.

you expect people to believe that? LOL.
anyone who has watched tennis from 1980 and has a little sense would know 16-current is easily the weakest period in the open era



waspsting is wrong about the quality of the match. Plus even his UE count is anywhere remotely as high as the TA one.

and here is the reality:





ATP website doesn't include slam matches. I didn't say anything about other non-slam matches being better per se for the year. Given the year was sh*t quality wise on men's side ....

Yes, the tennis.com list is laughable. What is said is backed by stats and watching the match.



AO 2004 Roddick and agassi better than all versions of those 3 at the AO




if you think I was looking for approval from a board currently having many djoko--bots, recency biased kiddos etc, you are even more delusional than I thought. I wanted to see how many would expose theselves.

I understood, but your nonsense denial of djoko being more vulnerable despite 0-2 sets to love down shows what sort of a terrible poster you have become.

and then bringing in garbage stats from TA to make your point -- about Wim 1980 final. is just another attempt at desperation.

you were never a good poster, just went from bad to terrible given your Djokovic fanboyism and BS denial of worst period of tennis in open era

This is one long post engaging in ad hominem attacks instead of addressing my points, which again, having to resort to so much ad hominem is just your admission to losing the debate. I never once mentioned TA data regarding the Borg-McEnroe match, but your excuse for a second thread is transparently false as this thread alone suffices to "expose" who believes what. A near duplicate thread is basically redundant, but nevertheless, re-emphasized that you lost the debate by a ratio of 2-1. That makes sense because I proved wrong your claim that 2004 USO Agassi's level was somehow way above 2023 USO Djokovic's. Djokovic's games-won-to-games-lost ratio is clearly better than Agassi's at the USO even after eliminating his loss to Federer from the calculation. That was the only USO match where he played anyone notable. As for me being a terrible poster, well, I guess that's why my positive reaction score on the forum is much higher than my number of posts whereas yours is far below.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

This simply means you don’t have the analytical tools to judge and forecast tennis results. Not surprising since no one has.

Still rocking this false equivalence, good to see.

 

[RS]

My likes to dislike ratio is in the negative by a mile.

 

[GabeT]

Still rocking this false equivalence, good to see.

What “equivalence”? The poster clearly doesn’t have the analytical tools to predict tennis outcomes. neither do you. Or I

 

[fedfan24]

What “equivalence”? The poster clearly doesn’t have the analytical tools to predict tennis outcomes. neither do you. Or I

actually I predicted most slams since 2019 or so -djokovic to win most of them because the 90s gen is the worst gen in open era history. I didn’t think he would be disqualified for assaulting a lines person or banned for not taking vaccine but the ones he played I guessed he’d win most of them. 2023 Wimbledon I thought was a toss up.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

What “equivalence”? The poster clearly doesn’t have the analytical tools to predict tennis outcomes. neither do you. Or I

Inference. Don't be obtuse.

 

[GabeT]

actually I predicted most slams since 2019 or so -djokovic to win most of them because the 90s gen is the worst gen in open era history. I didn’t think he would be disqualified for assaulting a lines person or banned for not taking vaccine but the ones he played I guessed he’d win most of them. 2023 Wimbledon I thought was a toss up.

Djokovic has been playing great for years now, I think he’s generally been the favorite in most slams he’s played. I’m not sure that’s the same as predicting. And it certainly doesn’t mean that you (or anyone else) has a method to consistently judge tennis levels and predict tennis outcomes (which was my point )

 

[GabeT]

Inference. Don't be obtuse.

I don’t know what you are talking about

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

Djokovic has been playing great for years now, I think he’s generally been the favorite in most slams he’s played. I’m not sure that’s the same as predicting. And it certainly doesn’t mean that you (or anyone else) has a method to consistently judge tennis levels and predict tennis outcomes (which was my point )

That equivalence. Predicting tennis outcomes involves performances you haven't seen yet. I doubt many could have predicted Bernard getting wrecked in 28 minutes or whatever it was by Jarrko, but with hindsight, I'd guess most would be fairly confident in asserting his performance wouldn't have gotten him particularly far against basically anyone.

You're equating being able to reckon a player played well or poorly to literal magic, and it's annoying.

 

[GabeT]

That equivalence. Predicting tennis outcomes involves performances you haven't seen yet. I doubt many could have predicted Bernard getting wrecked in 28 minutes or whatever it was by Jarrko, but with hindsight, I'd guess most would be fairly confident in asserting his performance wouldn't have gotten him particularly far against basically anyone.

You're equating being able to reckon a player played well or poorly to literal magic, and it's annoying.

I was addressing @fedfan24 ’s comment, where he tried to explain why he didn’t predict correctly match outcomes. I’m pointing out that would require tools we don’t have

Correctly judging how well players are playing before a match is a precondition to be able to predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of any match. that’s why we “know” that a pro will beat a recreational player, because almost by definition the pro is playing at a much higher level.

 

[abmk]

This is one long post engaging in ad hominem attacks instead of addressing my points, which again, having to resort to so much ad hominem is just your admission to losing the debate. I never once mentioned TA data regarding the Borg-McEnroe match, but your excuse for a second thread is transparently false as this thread alone suffices to "expose" who believes what. A near duplicate thread is basically redundant, but nevertheless, re-emphasized that you lost the debate by a ratio of 2-1. That makes sense because I proved wrong your claim that 2004 USO Agassi's level was somehow way above 2023 USO Djokovic's. Djokovic's games-won-to-games-lost ratio is clearly better than Agassi's at the USO even after eliminating his loss to Federer from the calculation. That was the only USO match where he played anyone notable. As for me being a terrible poster, well, I guess that's why my positive reaction score on the forum is much higher than my number of posts whereas yours is far below.

bro, I straight up proved your point about Wimbledon 1980 final wrong. it did not have a high number of unforced errors at all.
I also addressed Hewitt/Roddick vs Alcaraz/Sinner.
that vast majority of both Djokovic and nonDjokovic fans predicted between 14-20 slams is a reality - which you again denied.

While you keep denying/downplaying basic stuff like the above and like 89-99 born winning a pathetic 2 slams in total and being THE 2 worst generations in open era, I'm supposed to address every point of yours with kid gloves?

As far as the last statement, oh my god, your desperation is hilarious. Let me burst your ignorant bubble though. likes only started some years ago and I had made plenty of posts before that.

Just in case it didn't sink in: if you think I was looking for approval from a board currently having many djoko--bots, recency biased kiddos etc, you are even more delusional than I thought. I wanted to see how many would expose themselves.

that you think debates are won by polls with skewed members instead of actual substantial points is

 

[InsideOut900]

Exactly this.

When I point out that if anyone here could actually predict hypothetical matches they’d be rich from betting the answer I get (over and over) is that all they are doing is assuming that if player A played in a certain way in year X he would play in the exact same way if he played at a different time and against a different opponent. That’s nonsense.

If you look at Fed at WB in 03, for example, and reach some conclusion as to how well he played that tells us next to nothing how he would do against Novak from 2015. You can’t simply assume Fed’s general level would remain unchanged. Once you change the initial conditions (date, time, place, opponent) that has all kinds of ripple effects that can‘t be measured.

This is about predicting matches with hindsight, not predicting future matches.

And it's usually not the relevant comparison to pit them against each other on the same court given changes happen over time just as you said. 2003 Fed played a different style than other versions of him on court that also played differently than today.

It's all about getting a rough estimate of one's level, which is usually easy to do because most ATGs played against each other at some point.
McEnroe challenged or beat late prime Borg on grass than had his own peak year in 84, then Lendl came along and so on. There was always overlap between generations that could make hypotheticals work.

It's particularly easy for Big 3 given the technology and style of play for the last 20 years hasn't changed in any significant way and they played each other for 15 years, so there is a huge sample size with all versions of them.

Fed fans didn't bother until he was getting trailed by Djokodal, Ned fans always did that when Nadal was closing in on Fed, calling his era weak and Fed lucky to not be same age as Nadal and Djoko fans don't bother at all to look at his wins in the past 3-4 years, any win will do.

Matter of fact is people will never bother scrutinizing wins as long as it suits their narratives.

 

[Milanez82]

I'm sure we can find some extreme examples such that all agree that Player A would have beaten Player B. Even then, they probably need to be very extreme. If I had told you in early 2014 that the last 4 players at the USO that year would be Federer, Djokovic, Cilic, and Nishikori, and that Roger and Novak were on opposite halves, how many would have predicted the final two players. This is why we play the matches. A lot of results seem very unlikely until they happen. The list is very long.

But let's try to focus on the key issue in this subthread. The reason this comes up over and over again is not just because some posters love to debate hypotheticals, it's because a sub group of posters wants to use this line of reasoning to attack the results of players they don't like. Claims that Player A only won due to when and who he played and claims that some posters simply know that Player B would have won more had he faced the same completion as Player A are made almost daily.

If Fed played in a certain way in year X and Novak in a certain way in year Y even if you think that Fed played better against his competition than Novak did against his (a common type of argument here) you can't deduce from that that Fed from year X would beat Novak from year Y (a very common conclusion among a certain group of fans). Just because Fed had a certain distribution of UEs, winners, serves in, etc.. in the real match does not mean that would repeat in this hypothetical match. That's not how the world works.

That's why I keep repeating that no one here has the tools to look at levels and predict outcomes. If they did they would be rich betting on that info.

No one would bet that at 40-15 Federer doesn't serve it out and yet...

 

[GabeT]

This is about predicting matches with hindsight, not predicting future matches.

And it's usually not the relevant comparison to pit them against each other on the same court given changes happen over time just as you said. 2003 Fed played a different style than other versions of him on court that also played differently than today.

It's all about getting a rough estimate of one's level, which is usually easy to do because most ATGs played against each other at some point.
McEnroe challenged or beat late prime Borg on grass than had his own peak year in 84, then Lendl came along and so on. There was always overlap between generations that could make hypotheticals work.

It's particularly easy for Big 3 given the technology and style of play for the last 20 years hasn't changed in any significant way and they played each other for 15 years, so there is a huge sample size with all versions of them.

Fed fans didn't bother until he was getting trailed by Djokodal, Ned fans always did that when Nadal was closing in on Fed, calling his era weak and Fed lucky to not be same age as Nadal and Djoko fans don't bother at all to look at his wins in the past 3-4 years, any win will do.

Matter of fact is people will never bother scrutinizing wins as long as it suits their narratives.

I don’t know what you mean by this.

if the match already happened then there is no “prediction”.

Predictions only make sense on matches that have not happened. And in that case there is no “hindsight”

here’s an example of the type of comments I’m referring to. It’s an actual comment from a poster here:

”Prime Hewitt would've beat Novak at the USO in 12 and Djokovic in Wim 13 final”.

This is a prediction of a “future” match, meaning a match that has not happened. The poster considers the level of what he defines as ”prime” Hewitt, compares that to the level Novak showed in USO12 and WB13 and “predicts” Hewitt would win a hypothetical match.

No matter how much information the poster has on prime Hewitt and Novak from 2012/13 that does not mean he knows who would win, becasue that match never happened.

So I go back to my original comment. If a poster had the ability to compare levels between two players and predict who would win they would be able to do that for real matches.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

All the arguments against Djokovic are based on ridiculous hypotheticals that are completely unprovable and have no basis in reality or at least a competent argument in their favor.

Competition matters, yes. And 2023 didn't have the strongest competition, which I don't think anyone has argued. However, a player's competition is not something they choose. Denying a player their achievements because other players lost early or played badly is ridiculous. What exactly is a player supposed to do for his achievements to count and not be "asterisked" or "inflation"? Because I can understand the argument if he was struggling against subpar competition. Maybe against stronger competition he would lose and he got lucky. But that wasn't the case with Djokovic last year. AT ALL. He was routining the opposition and demolishing it at times. So he was doing his part.

At the USO he won 6 out 7 matches in straights.

At the AO he did the same thing. Beat Rublev 6-1 6-2 6-4. 7 games dropped against world #5. After the first set dropped only 3 games vs Tommy Paul. Dropped FIVE games against De Minaur, who is now TOP 10. He had two bagels and a breadstick in his first two matches. Only dropped one set across the whole tournament and it was a tie-break, similar situation as 2011.

What else was he supposed to do exactly for the achievement to be worth it? Not drop a set and not more than 3 games per set?

At the USO he beat a top hardcourter like Medvedev (who had just beaten Alcaraz) in straights. He beat a top 10 like Fritz 6-1 6-4 6-4. So it's not like he was struggling against them. Even in the match against Djere, the only one where dropped sets, he won his sets fairly comfortably. So expecting him to put a memorable clinic every match and dish out bagels and breadsticks to make the achievements "count" is nonsense. Criticizing his level when he beats a top player 6-1 6-4 6-4 or a multiple slam finalist in straights? I'd understood if he was going 7-5 in the fifth or at least a tough four-setter against weak rivals and saying he would lose against top opposition (which would still be a hypothetical, but at least more grounded in reality).

Saying his level was not good and he would easily lose against Agassi 2004, or any other player when he achieved far more (even if against worse competition) is hilarious. What's the argument to say his level was not good enough if he was winning comfortably? "Because I said so"?

 

[Milanez82]

I don’t know what you mean by this.

if the match already happened then there is no “prediction”.

Predictions only make sense on matches that have not happened. And in that case there is no “hindsight”

here’s an example of the type of comments I’m referring to. It’s an actual comment from a poster here:

”Prime Hewitt would've beat Novak at the USO in 12 and Djokovic in Wim 13 final”.

This is a prediction of a “future” match, meaning a match that has not happened. The poster considers the level of what he defines as ”prime” Hewitt, compares that to the level Novak showed in USO12 and WB13 and “predicts” Hewitt would win a hypothetical match.

No matter how much information the poster has on prime Hewitt and Novak from 2012/13 that does not mean he knows who would win, becasue that match never happened.

So I go back to my original comment. If a poster had the ability to compare levels between two players and predict who would win they would be able to do that for real matches.

Prime Hewitt ended up with 2 slams while playing in vacuum era(before Federer truly arrived which is 2004).
Hewitt also holds the dubious distinction of being the only slam winner to get double bagelled in a slam final.

So prime Hewitt is really laughable if we try to compare him to a 24 slam winner in any sort of a hypothetical, especially against a player that does everything better and has an extra gear that only the likes of Rafa and Federer could match.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

All the arguments against Djokovic are based on ridiculous hypotheticals that are completely unprovable and have no basis in reality or at least a competent argument in their favor.

Competition matters, yes. And 2023 didn't have the strongest competition, which I don't think anyone has argued. However, a player's competition is not something they choose. Denying a player their achievements because other players lost early or played badly is ridiculous. What exactly is a player supposed to do for his achievements to count and not be "asterisked" or "inflation"? Because I can understand the argument if he was struggling against subpar competition. Maybe against stronger competition he would lose and he got lucky. But that wasn't the case with Djokovic last year. AT ALL. He was routining the opposition and demolishing it at times. So he was doing his part.

At the USO he won 6 out 7 matches in straights.

At the AO he did the same thing. Beat Rublev 6-1 6-2 6-4. 7 games dropped against world #5. After the first set dropped only 3 games vs Tommy Paul. Dropped FIVE games against De Minaur, who is now TOP 10. He had two bagels and a breadstick in his first two matches. Only dropped one set across the whole tournament and it was a tie-break, similar situation as 2011.

What else was he supposed to do exactly for the achievement to be worth it? Not drop a set and not more than 3 games per set?

At the USO he beat a top hardcourter like Medvedev (who had just beaten Alcaraz) in straights. He beat a top 10 like Fritz 6-1 6-4 6-4. So it's not like he was struggling against them. Even in the match against Djere, the only one where dropped sets, he won his sets fairly comfortably. So expecting him to put a memorable clinic every match and dish out bagels and breadsticks to make the achievements "count" is nonsense. Criticizing his level when he beats a top player 6-1 6-4 6-4 or a multiple slam finalist in straights? I'd understood if he was going 7-5 in the fifth or at least a tough four-setter against weak rivals and saying he would lose against top opposition (which would still be a hypothetical, but at least more grounded in reality).

Saying his level was not good and he would easily lose against Agassi 2004, or any other player when he achieved far more (even if against worse competition) is hilarious. What's the argument to say his level was not good enough if he was winning comfortably? "Because I said so"?

Say you didn't watch the match lol. Djokovic was thoroughly mediocre and fritz was garbage, particularly the first set is basically this era in a nutshell lol.
What Djokovic should do regardless of scorelines is to play crazy good tennis as befits his continued achievements, instead he keeps relying on opponents to mug up and vulturing their errors. Sad!

 

[RS]

Prime Hewitt ended up with 2 slams while playing in vacuum era(before Federer truly arrived which is 2004).
Hewitt also holds the dubious distinction of being the only slam winner to get double bagelled in a slam final.

So prime Hewitt is really laughable if we try to compare him to a 24 slam winner in any sort of a hypothetical, especially against a player that does everything better and has an extra gear that only the likes of Rafa and Federer could match.

Hewitt never missed a ball.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Say you didn't watch the match lol. Djokovic was thoroughly mediocre

Based on what exactly?

Which of his shots were mediocre? Forehand? Serve?

and fritz was garbage, particularly the first set is basically this era in a nutshell lol.

Not his fault, obviously. But what a coincidence 90% of the time the argument is the same: "His opponent was garbage". I'm starting to think that maybe he has something to do with it if every time his opponent plays badly. Even when it's players like Federer, Nadal and Murray, etc. They play brilliantly the previous match or during the tournament but somehow are garbage against him.

What Djokovic should do regardless of scorelines is to play crazy good tennis as befits his continued achievements, instead he keeps relying on opponents to mug up and vulturing their errors. Sad!

Why would he change the way he plays if it's obviously successful for him? To be able to win hypotheticals instead of actual matches? As if there wouldn't be ******** arguments against him anyway.

Also, why should he play "crazy good" every time? He is the only player to be judged by those standards. Federer, Nadal or Sampras didn't play crazy good every slam they won either.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Based on what exactly?

Which of his shots were mediocre? Forehand? Serve?

Watch the full match if you want to know I guess.

Not his fault, obviously. But what a coincidence 90% of the time the argument is the same: "His opponent was garbage". I'm starting to think that maybe he has something to do with it if every time his opponent plays badly. Even when it's players like Federer, Nadal and Murray, etc. They play brilliantly the previous match or during the tournament but somehow are garbage against him.

Not like Noel's current opponents 'play brilliantly' before meeting him though. Last time that happened in a slam was AO three years ago, that was a nice final from Djokovic admittedly to stamp the win like he did.

Why would he change the way he plays if it's obviously successful for him? To be able to win hypotheticals instead of actual matches? As if there wouldn't be ******** arguments against him anyway.

No reason, sure. Why would I think Djoe's tennis is the best ever, then? No reason either.

Also, why should he play "crazy good" every time? He is the only player to be judged by those standards. Federer, Nadal or Sampras didn't play crazy good every slam they won either.

Rog certainly played superbly when he was winning three slams per season, AO '6 apart perhaps.