Noleberic123
G.O.A.T.
I think personally it's because his game isn't attractive to the average person, so he will always lose to players playing more attractive games.
Discuss
Discuss
I think personally it's because his game isn't attractive to the average person, so he will always lose to players playing more attractive games.
Discuss
I just read today that Nadal 09 would beat Djokovic 16 at the AO. I'm not sure why saying that isn't seen as insane as saying Djokovic 16 would beat Nadal 08 at the RGNot always. Very few people would be picking him to lose at the AO when playing well, for example.
But at RG, Wimb and USO, he isn't the best by any stretch of the imagination. Nadal has shown higher levels at RG and Fed has shown higher levels at Wimb and the USO. It's more logical to pick these guys in most hypotheticals concerning these 3 slams.
Precisely. Djokovic fans are the next phase of human evolution.So, this means whoever likes Djokovic is not an average but superior person. Hahahahahaha!
Rest your case. His game is just plain ugly.
Very few people actually believe this. I, for one, don't.I just read today that Nadal 09 would beat Djokovic 16 at the AO. I'm not sure why saying that isn't seen as insane as saying Djokovic 16 would beat Nadal 08 at the RG
Not to forget his oppenents are playing worse than Roddick and Hewitt more often than not.I think personally it's because his game isn't attractive to the average person, so he will always lose to players playing more attractive games.
Discuss
2008 was statistically one of Djokovic's best AO runs, though. It's usually up there with 2016 and 2011.Very few people actually believe this. I, for one, don't.
In order to even be a hypothetical, Djokovic needs to not play well and Nadal to be at his best. The former doesn't apply in 2016.
The only Djokovic version I see 2009 Nadal defeating at the AO is 2008.
I think personally it's because his game isn't attractive to the average person, so he will always lose to players playing more attractive games.
Discuss
The difference is Djokovic fans base those victories on when they did play and Djokovic won. Federer fans base it on imaginary wins.....Fed and Nadal have more fans to award hypothetical victories to them. That could be why you see them winning a lot of the polls.
You'll see Djokovic fans awarding him hypothetical victories too (surely you must have seen the posts where people use the 2014-2015 Wimbledon finals to establish Djokovic's superiority over peak 2003-2007 Federer), but they're less common because there simply aren't as many Djokovic fans.
I do think the Federer fanbase tends to put too much emphasis on hypothetical matches, however. He has enough real records that we don't need to resort to hypotheticals. They're sure fun to debate, though!
True, but 2008 Djokovic didn't yet have the endurance 2011 and 2016 ones had.2008 was statistically one of Djokovic's best AO runs, though. It's usually up there with 2016 and 2011.
Very few people actually believe this. I, for one, don't.
In order to even be a hypothetical, Djokovic needs to not play well and Nadal to be at his best. The former doesn't apply in 2016.
The only Djokovic version I see 2009 Nadal defeating at the AO is 2008.
I just read today that Nadal 09 would beat Djokovic 16 at the AO. I'm not sure why saying that isn't seen as insane as saying Djokovic 16 would beat Nadal 08 at the RG
Yeah, beating 2015 Fed guarantees a win over 2008 Fed, which is what many Djokovic fans imply. I don't see how this is more logical.The difference is Djokovic fans base those victories on when they did play and Djokovic won. Federer fans base it on imaginary wins.....
I don't think he was worse in 2012.2009 Nadal would also beat Djokovic at the 2012 AO I believe. He nearly won in 2012, and he was easily worse in the 2012 final and overall event in general than 2009.
Of course they are.Not to forget his oppenents are playing worse than Roddick and Hewitt more often than not.
You are exaggerating here. Not more often than not, just sometimes.Not to forget his oppenents are playing worse than Roddick and Hewitt more often than not.
I don't think he was worse in 2012.
Most of those based on the Wim 09 final or something to use that as a general example of a Roddick performace as if he played that way every week.Of course they are.
If 09 Nadal can beat 16 Djokovic then I don't see why 16 Djokovic can't beat 08 Nadal.Well given that you are the same one who feels comfortable saying something as patently stupid as that Djokovic of RG 2016 would beat Nadal of RG 2008, it is obvious most peoples guess on hypothetical Djokovic results will not match up to yours, which is no doubt insanely biased in favor of Djokovic.
Well, Wimb 2009 and 2004 finals are better losing efforts than all of Murray's slam final losses.Most of those based on the Wim 09 final or something to use that as a general example of a Roddick performace as if he played that way every week.
Why? Both should be equally as ridiculousWell you claim Djokovic 2016 would beat Nadal 2008 at RG which is far more ridiculous.
Because 2008 Nadal was much better than 2016 Djokovic.If 09 Nadal can beat 16 Djokovic then I don't see why 16 Djokovic can't beat 08 Nadal.
If 09 Nadal can beat 16 Djokovic then I don't see why 16 Djokovic can't beat 08 Nadal.
He can. It's just very unlikely. Around 4% chance.If 09 Nadal can beat 16 Djokovic then I don't see why 16 Djokovic can't beat 08 Nadal.
Why? Both should be equally as ridiculous
I don't think he was worse in 2012.
Why? Both are unbeatable on their respective surfaces when they are playing like thatBecause 2008 Nadal was much better than 2016 Djokovic.
Better scoreline does not mean better level or harder match.Well, Wimb 2009 and 2004 finals are better losing efforts than all of Murray's slam final losses.
More often than was the case.You are exaggerating here. Not more often than not, just sometimes.
They picked Djokovic to win 5 at Wim in my poll. Aside from Lew and some other trolls.Yeah, beating 2015 Fed guarantees a win over 2008 Fed, which is what many Djokovic fans imply. I don't see how this is more logical.
Federer getting the better of Djokovic at the USO is also based on the matches they did play too.
Nadal was much more destructive. He didn't lose a set to old man Fed or even a set throughout the tournament.Why? Both are unbeatable on their respective surfaces when they are playing like that
He's simply applying a reductio ad absurdum argument. He doesn't actually believe 2016 Djokovic can beat 2008 Nadal at the French. He's merely using it as an example to demonstrate the absurd claim that 2009 Nadal would beat 2016 Djokovic at the AO.This makes utterly no sense. In the hypothetical 09 Nadal would be able to beat 2016 Djokovic at Nadal's worst slam and Djokovic's best, which btw I agree he definitely does not, then on what planet would 2016 Djokovic also be able to beat 08 Nadal at Djokovic's worst slam and Nadal's best.
I will put it more easily for you though. 2013 RG Djokovic who played much better at that event than 2016 (he struggled against an out of form Murray on clay in the final, LMFAO) could not even beat Nadal, and was lucky to even be in a 5th set. Nadal who was about 60% at best as good at RG as the 2008 version which was the best ever Nadal at RG. Yet Djokovic wins somehow?
You're overrating 2013 Djokovic. The bloke went missing for a set and ended up fluking out a fourth set. He only GOATED for the first part of the fifth setNo, since 2016 Djokovic is not even the best ever Djokovic at the French. Not that the best ever Djokovic would beat Nadal at the French, but this was not even that. AO 2009 Nadal was atleast the best ever Nadal at the AO.
Of course I don't believe 2016 Djokovic would beat 08 Nadal at the French. That's ridiculous. But even you are saying that the difference in level is higher. Why? Because he plays a more attractive? I bet it's that.He's simply applying a reductio ad absurdum argument. He doesn't actually believe 2016 Djokovic can beat 2008 Nadal at the French. He's merely using it as an example to demonstrate the absurd claim that 2009 Nadal would beat 2016 Djokovic at the AO.
It's a bit of a poor comparison because the difference in level between 2016 Djoker and 2008 Nadal is larger than the difference in level between 2009 Nadal and 2016 Djoker, but it gets the point across.
Well, they were harder matches than Murray's hardest losses: Wimb 2012 and AO 2013.Better scoreline does not mean better level or harder match.
It's really only a few instances unless you provide clear examples.More often than was the case.
It's a different match up dude. Against Djokovic you have to suffer physically in order to keep up with him. Which is why so many players keep up with him for a set or two and then get crushed after.Well, they were harder matches than Murray's hardest losses: Wimb 2012 and AO 2013.
It's really only a few instances unless you provide clear examples.
This makes utterly no sense. In the hypothetical 09 Nadal would be able to beat 2016 Djokovic at Nadal's worst slam and Djokovic's best, which btw I agree he definitely does not, then on what planet would 2016 Djokovic also be able to beat 08 Nadal at Djokovic's worst slam and Nadal's best.
I will put it more easily for you though. 2013 RG Djokovic who played much better at that event than 2016 (he struggled against an out of form Murray on clay in the final, LMFAO) could not even beat Nadal, and was lucky to even be in a 5th set. Nadal who was about 60% at best as good at RG as the 2008 version which was the best ever Nadal at RG. Yet Djokovic wins somehow?
Lots. Gonzo in fire in AO 07. Roddick and Hewitt better than Murray and Old Federer or Fedalovic on clay. Old Agassi being better than Old Federer and so on. Ranking not mattering about the depth etc etc etc.Well, they were harder matches than Murray's hardest losses: Wimb 2012 and AO 2013.
It's really only a few instances unless you provide clear examples.
Fed was garbage at the 08 FO. At the 16 AO he was Solid.Nadal was much more destructive. He didn't lose a set to old man Fed or even a set throughout the tournament.
Well, several players played well against Fed for a couple of sets and then went away, so I don't see why only Murray's efforts count while the others's efforts are dismissed.It's a different match up dude. Against Djokovic you have to suffer physically in order to keep up with him. Which is why so many players keep up with him for a set or two and then get crushed after.
Because it's literally Nadal on f**king clay. In the tournament when he broke serve in 51% of return games. In the tournament he won without dropping a single set. No one even comes close to that. Regarding the bolded point, I like watching Federer more than Nadal, but no version of him is beating the Nadal that showed up at RG 2008.Of course I don't believe 2016 Djokovic would beat 08 Nadal at the French. That's ridiculous. But even you are saying that the difference in level is higher. Why? Because he plays a more attractive? I bet it's that.
They do. But Roddick-Fed aren't as physical while Murray-Djokovic matches are brutal which is why there have been several 7-6 6-7 6-3 6-2 like scorelines between them.Well, several players played well against Fed for a couple of sets and then went away, so I don't see why only Murray's efforts count while the others's efforts are dismissed.
Ok, thank you for the examples.Lots. Gonzo in fire in AO 07. Roddick and Hewitt better than Murray and Old Federer or Fedalovic on clay. Old Agassi being better than Old Federer and so on. Ranking not mattering about the depth etc etc etc.
Harder match lies on so many things.