Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
I'd need to be reminded of who actually won the Slams in 2001. My memory isn't that great anymore.
I did that back in post 30, I believe.
AO, Agassi
FO, Kuerten.
Wim, Goran,
US, Hewitt
I'd need to be reminded of who actually won the Slams in 2001. My memory isn't that great anymore.
I did that back in post 30, I believe.
AO, Agassi
FO, Kuerten.
Wim, Goran,
US, Hewitt
So it's 2007 Nole playing in 2001? Ok, I admit I don't see him winning any of the Slams that year. The USO would probably be his best chance.
Just because Hewitt might beat Del Potro doesn't mean he'd also beat Djokovic. You should know by now that tennis is all about match-ups Saby.
Hewitt didnt uderperform on AO. Hewitt overperformed on W and USO in a very weak era. In any other period Hewitt would never win a slam or reach #1.
Too late Blame Chico for his deranged nonsense.
Not sure how Djokovic would have a career slam if he was the same generation as Hewitt. In 2008 form he has a decent shot in 2002 (same age as Hewitt) but he doesn't win the USO or Wmbledon with Federer around IMO.
Sorry but I didn't mention Djokovic at all. It was only you who brought Djokovic in this thread. So no reason to blame me on anything.
And while we are at it, Djokovic would have won at least 8-10 slams with a CYGS in 2000-2003. There is no one in that period who could realistically take many slams from him.
Agassi, Hewitt, Rafter, Sampras, Ferrero, Federer, Roddick wouldn't stop him?
Once again, you know nothing about tennis.
In fairness Saby, Chico did say "many Slams", not "any Slams". :wink:
But he did say CYGS. That is a little too much.
In fairness Saby, Chico did say "many Slams", not "any Slams". :wink:
Yep, I'll give you that one.
I asked you nicely many times. Please don't comment my posts. Would you please show a little respect and stop.
Unbelievable.
I was actually defending you. :?
LOL Sampras and Agassi would be to old and Federer way too young.
The rest (Hewitt, Rafter, Ferrero, Roddic - looooooool) are one or two slam wonders that are nowhere near to the level and greatness of Djokovic and would had no chance against him. The weakest era ever. Anyone who thinks differently either is Djokovic hater or knows nothing about tennis.
Sorry but I didn't mention Djokovic at all. It was only you who brought Djokovic in this thread. So no reason to blame me on anything.
And while we are at it, Djokovic would have won at least 8-10 slams with a CYGS in 2000-2003. There is no one in that period who could realistically take many slams from him.
Lmao, you actually think Djokovic would beat peak Federer on grass. Put down the crackpipe.LOL Sampras and Agassi would be to old and Federer way too young.
The rest (Hewitt, Rafter, Ferrero, Roddic - looooooool) are one or two slam wonders that are nowhere near to the level and greatness of Djokovic and would had no chance against him. The weakest era ever. Anyone who thinks differently either is Djokovic hater or knows nothing about tennis.
If Hewitt was so broken down, how come he could have reached the finals of both W and USO in 2005, with a chance of winning both, without Fed around? Doesn't seem so broken down to me.
Lmao, you actually think Djokovic would beat peak Federer on grass. Put down the crackpipe.
Agassi would most likely beat Djokovic on Rebound Ace.
Hewitt would pose a great challenge for Djokovic at the USO during the ultra fast conditions phase.
Ferrero could beat Djokovic on clay.
Rafter would pose a great challenge for Djokovic on grass.
But seriously, the fact that you think that Djokovic can beat peak Federer on grass is making me pee my pants.
Peak Federer 2000-2003. :roll:
Sampras takes out Djokovic in straight at Wimbledon.
With every sentence you write it becomes more and more obvious just how little you know about tennis.You mean, for example, in 2002, when he lost in the 2nd round to a lucky loser named George Bastl :shock: . Sure, sure,
That was also "peak Sampras". :roll:
Again 2000-2003 is the weakest era ever. By far. There is no way denying it.
With every sentence you write it becomes more and more obvious just how little you know about tennis.
1996-1998 was far weaker than 2001-2002; but I bet you will deny that.
I doubt Djoko would have done much anywhere before 2001 (2007), the first year he reached a slam semi (semi at the FO and Wimbledon, final at the US Open).
And does his 2009-2010 slump suddenly go away (2003-2004), because it's a different era? Hard to say it def. would, but you could make a case for and against.
I can tell you're being sarcastic, but...We all know that 2011 was the strongest year of the tennis universe with an insanely good field and the top 10 playing at the zenith of their powers.
Typical SpicyCurry, neglecting the fact that Hewitt in 2007 was a shadow of what he was in 2005. Forgetting that he had a surgery and was a year away from having yet another surgery and that he had some of his worst results in majors ever in 2007.He wouldn't have won a slam before 01, but he played very well at FO 06. He beat Gonzalez, Monfils, and Haas (all seeded players) in 3 straight upsets and only lost to Nadal. Very possible he could have reached the SF/F on FO 00 in that form and given Guga a good match setting up for a potential win the following year when he was even better (stopped by Nadal again).
This we will never know of course, but I would make a case for it.
I think 09-10 was largely mental due to not being able to overcome Fed or Nadal for ages. Remember in 07/08 outside of the Safin loss, he ONLY lost to those two at slams. Then he had that great clay 09 run and could still not beat Nadal even once and he kind of mentally fell off for the next 1.5 years and tried to do some weird things with his serve which contributed to all of that (more DF than Aces in 10 and fixed in 11).
In 01/02 he would not have faced anything like that and likely been ranked #1 for much of that time and played with far more confidence and who knows maybe even solved his gluten allergy situation earlier.
Even independent of that
Djokovic in 07:
At the start of the season he won Miami, lost to Nadal at Indian Wells, and Federer at AO and Dubai. Very possible he could make a deep push at the AO in 01 with that hards resume from 07.
As mentioned before Djokovic already reached the QF at the FO in 06 beating Gonzalez, Haas, and Monfils along the way and losing only to Nadal. He got to the SF in 07, once again only losing to Nadal. He could make another deep push here as well in that form in 01.
Wimbledon 07, 4 years away from his peak he beat Hewitt only 2 years removed from his peak and didn't even need a 5th set to do it. Not to mention he won that epic over Baghdatis who was zoning that tournament (straight sets over Nalbandian with a bagel and straight set over Davydenko in the prior 2 rounds) before again losing to Nadal (after winning the first set) right before the epic Fed-Nadal final.
I think its possible he could have won one of those slams or at the very least played in a final, and then come to USO 01 having had slam finals experience and played without the jitters (the way he was able to in his 2nd slam final in AO 08) that cost him set points vs Fed in 07. Also Hewitt or Sampras in 01 were not near Fed 07 level at USO, so I find it more likely than not that Djokovic would have won USO 07.
After 07:
He has great chances at AO and FO in 02 like you said. Don't know why you are dismissing Djokovic from winning USO 02.
1)Djokovic beat Federer in 10
2)Djokovic in 08>Djokovic in 10
3)Fed in 10 at USO was younger than Sampras in 02
4)I would expect you think Fed>Sampras
Given that, why would he not have good chances at USO in 02?
After that things would be unknown in regards to his drop in form. If he was the defending FO Champion and no Nadal there and he didn't have those epic clay court 09 battles he lost, would he play awful in FO 03? I think its doubtful and same with FO in 04 or potentially a FO in 05 vs a young Nadal (in his 11 form).
USO would be interesting as well in 05. Old Agassi and Hewitt both pushed Fed to 4 sets (+ a lost tiebreaker) in 05. Why couldn't Djokovic push that to 5 instead considering his 2011 form was far above them, and then use a far superior 5th set record and mental toughness to gut that win out the same way we saw Safin and Nalbandian in the SAME YEAR on that SAME Surface win 5th sets vs Federer? You're telling me Djokovic in 2011 is below those guys?
I think its very unlikely he wins ZERO USOs from 01-03 especially without prime Fed there (when he was the ONLY guy to beat him in 07-09 USOs all in SF/F) as well as give him ZERO slams period in 01 (when he was ONLY losing to Nadal/Fed in slams) like you have him doing.
Hard obviously to say which slams he would/would not win especially considering 2014 for context. I doubt anybody would have predicted preseason that Djokovic would fail to win both AO and FO this year, but then go on to win Wimbledon, so something crazy like that could easily happen as well.
But I would guess Djokovic would win each of the AO, FO, and USO at least once in the 01-04 timeframe, and contend for a few more.
Because he probably could and you fan-boys are super hard to take seriously. Overrating Djokovic when the guy can't even get past Nishikori at the US Open. Yet he'd beat Hewitt/Sampras at 2001 USO.LOL this guy is still trying to convince us that weak era Hewitt could compare on equal terms to prime Djokovic. :lol:
Unbelievable.
Can I honestly ask you why you rate Djokovic so high? He has 7 slams and for most of his career he's only had 1. It's only due to his one great year that he's even an all-time great outside of the AO. Why do you think he would dominate Hewitt, be ranked above him or beat him every single time with his streaky 2007-2010 play?Keep dreaming. :roll:
Hewitt's only Slam final in 2005 was at the AO. His only W final was in 2002 and his 2 USO finals were in 2001 and 2004.
Excuse me for interrupting you guys, but allow someone who is NOT a Djokovic fan to answer.Can I honestly ask you why you rate Djokovic so high? He has 7 slams and for most of his career he's only had 1. It's only due to his one great year that he's even an all-time great outside of the AO. Why do you think he would dominate Hewitt, be ranked above him or beat him every single time with his streaky 2007-2010 play?
Perhaps I'm underselling it because I know that Moya dominated the h2h for a while in that period. I will add that Hewitt was still only 19 at the time and Moya did end the year inside the top 20 even if his results overall were not as good in 02-04 when he got back up to a good level.
Hewitt won their 1st match at Indian Wells in 2000, lost their 2nd match at the 2001 Australian Open, and then won their 3rd match at Indian Wells in 2002. And THEN, Moya won the next 4, all in 2002. As you note, 2002 was the start of Moya's comeback stretch, where he finished year-end #5, #7, and #5. But in 1999, 2000, and 2001, Moya finished year-end #22, #41, and #19, with that #19 pretty much only coming b/c he beat Hewitt at the Australian Open and made the QF. So, I'd still say it was a pretty bad and surprising loss.
He knows that. He's saying Hewitt's form was good enough to get to the SF's at those 2 slams in 2005 and if not for Federer he probably would of made the finals.
Yeah, when I re-read it I realised I had misunderstood what he was saying. I've deleted the post!
Easy mistake to make. Wanted to say sorry for how heated I got with you a little while back when we were discussing stuff. Hope there's no hard feelings!
Come to think of it, pretty much all 4 of Australia's best open era players have underachieved a bit at their home Slam.
Pat Cash did make back to back finals in 1987 (on grass) and in 1988 (on hard) both of which he lost but, apart from that, made only 2 other quarter-finals (1982 & 1984).
Pat Rafter only ever made it as far as the semi-finals on 1 occasion, his last appearance in 2001.
Mark Philippoussis never ever made it past the 4th round.
Lleyton Hewitt made only 1 final in 2005 which he lost and that was the only time he ever made it past the 4th round.
Can it just be a coincidence that all 4 of these guys, not just Hewitt, have a less than stellar record at their home Slam?
None at all. Can't even remember what it was about, although I suspect it had something to do with Murray! :wink:
He wouldn't have won a slam before 01, but he played very well at FO 06. He beat Gonzalez, Monfils, and Haas (all seeded players) in 3 straight upsets and only lost to Nadal. Very possible he could have reached the SF/F on FO 00 in that form and given Guga a good match setting up for a potential win the following year when he was even better (stopped by Nadal again).
This we will never know of course, but I would make a case for it.
I think 09-10 was largely mental due to not being able to overcome Fed or Nadal for ages. Remember in 07/08 outside of the Safin loss, he ONLY lost to those two at slams. Then he had that great clay 09 run and could still not beat Nadal even once and he kind of mentally fell off for the next 1.5 years and tried to do some weird things with his serve which contributed to all of that (more DF than Aces in 10 and fixed in 11).
In 01/02 he would not have faced anything like that and likely been ranked #1 for much of that time and played with far more confidence and who knows maybe even solved his gluten allergy situation earlier.
Even independent of that
Djokovic in 07:
At the start of the season he won Miami, lost to Nadal at Indian Wells, and Federer at AO and Dubai. Very possible he could make a deep push at the AO in 01 with that hards resume from 07.
As mentioned before Djokovic already reached the QF at the FO in 06 beating Gonzalez, Haas, and Monfils along the way and losing only to Nadal. He got to the SF in 07, once again only losing to Nadal. He could make another deep push here as well in that form in 01.
Wimbledon 07, 4 years away from his peak he beat Hewitt only 2 years removed from his peak and didn't even need a 5th set to do it. Not to mention he won that epic over Baghdatis who was zoning that tournament (straight sets over Nalbandian with a bagel and straight set over Davydenko in the prior 2 rounds) before again losing to Nadal (after winning the first set) right before the epic Fed-Nadal final.
I think its possible he could have won one of those slams or at the very least played in a final, and then come to USO 01 having had slam finals experience and played without the jitters (the way he was able to in his 2nd slam final in AO 08) that cost him set points vs Fed in 07. Also Hewitt or Sampras in 01 were not near Fed 07 level at USO, so I find it more likely than not that Djokovic would have won USO 07.
After 07:
He has great chances at AO and FO in 02 like you said. Don't know why you are dismissing Djokovic from winning USO 02.
1)Djokovic beat Federer in 10
2)Djokovic in 08>Djokovic in 10
3)Fed in 10 at USO was younger than Sampras in 02
4)I would expect you think Fed>Sampras
Given that, why would he not have good chances at USO in 02?
After that things would be unknown in regards to his drop in form. If he was the defending FO Champion and no Nadal there and he didn't have those epic clay court 09 battles he lost, would he play awful in FO 03? I think its doubtful and same with FO in 04 or potentially a FO in 05 vs a young Nadal (in his 11 form).
USO would be interesting as well in 05. Old Agassi and Hewitt both pushed Fed to 4 sets (+ a lost tiebreaker) in 05. Why couldn't Djokovic push that to 5 instead considering his 2011 form was far above them, and then use a far superior 5th set record and mental toughness to gut that win out the same way we saw Safin and Nalbandian in the SAME YEAR on similar surfaces win 5th sets vs Federer? You're telling me Djokovic in 2011 is below those guys?
I think its very unlikely he wins ZERO USOs from 01-03 especially without prime Fed there (when he was the ONLY guy to beat him in 07-09 USOs all in SF/F) as well as give him ZERO slams period in 01 (when he was ONLY losing to Nadal/Fed in slams) like you have him doing.
Hard obviously to say which slams he would/would not win especially considering 2014 for context. I doubt anybody would have predicted preseason that Djokovic would fail to win both AO and FO this year, but then go on to win Wimbledon, so something crazy like that could easily happen as well.
But I would guess Djokovic would win each of the AO, FO, and USO at least once in the 01-04 timeframe, and contend for a few more.
Not with peak Nadal on clay around.@Djokovic2011, you got your wish!
Spicecurry, good to see you, it's been a while. Unfortunately, I'm rather busy these days, so I don't have time for a lengthy back and forth.
I will say this though - as far as I can tell, you're going the ultimate optimistic route.
As for FO 2000, he had a good run, but retired vs. Rafa. I can't see how that would set him up for a semi, much less a RU in 2000. Nor how his run in 2007 (2001) beating one player inside the top-100 (51st, Verdasco) on his way to a straight set defeat to Rafa would set him up for a potential win vs. Guga, who I personally regard as a much better clay courter than Novak in 2007 (and most other years for that matter).
AO 2001, he went down in pretty straight forward fashion without beating anyone inside the top-40 on his way to meet Fed (losing 2-6, 5-7, 3-6). What he did after that doesn't say much about his 2001-form, so I doubt he would make much of a "push".
Wim 2001, he needed 3 TB's going in his favor vs. post-surgery Hewitt and another two TB's going his way (one against) before he edged out grass behemoth Baghdatis 7-5 in the fifth before, again, retiring vs. Rafa - this time in the middle of the third down 4-1.
I don't call this slam-winning form vs. Goran nor Rafter - two players who I believe could make it real tough for Djoko on grass, especially Goran.
US Open 2001 - I've already stated this is a possibility but Hewitt was in mighty good form and Novak hasn't exactly got a stellar record in US Open finals.
US Open 2002, 4)I would expect you think Fed>Sampras (not necessarily Fed 2010, no).
"Given that, why would he not have good chances at USO in 02?"
I think Pete could be a pretty bad match-up for Djoko. Look how Roddick did in general. Look how Djoko struggles vs. very big servers. Pete was a big server with a big game. And Agassi is no easy feat either.
US 2003 - 4 players in very good form in the semis. Wouldn't just give it to Djoko - a pretty decent Fed lost to one of them.
The big question is, as you hint, whether his 2009-2010 form would be better. Saying he could even become gluten free earlier is stretching the imagination a bit too far imo.
In 2010, I doubt it would matter much outside the FO though - Fed was too good that year.
After that, who knows. I tend to think Fed 2005 would be more than a handful for Novak at Wimbledon and the US. Novak may have won that FO though.
Not with peak Nadal on clay around.
2005. 102005s.Which year are you talking about Saby?