Why Novak Djokovic Is The Greatest Male Tennis Player Of All Time?

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
Novak Djokovic fans have now sunk so low that they’re using “The Oxford Student” to back up their case.

The article’s author knows nothing about tennis history btw. Stating that the 1960s was only about Laver and Emerson is ridiculous.
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Novak Djokovic fans have now sunk so low that they’re using “The Oxford Student” to back up their case.

The article’s author knows nothing about tennis history btw. Stating that the 1960s was only about Laver and Emerson is ridiculous.
You mean this uneducated line? :"Granted, Rod Laver had Roy Emerson to deal with but tennis in the 1960’s was very much the two Australians and little else."

Ken Rosewall who? Rosewall won more Majors and more titles than Emerson, and also won more matches against Laver than Emerson, but apparently only Emerson was Laver's rival and tennis in the 1960s was only about Laver and Emerson.

The writer should be ashamed to write a piece about the GOAT debate despite ignoring the basics of tennis history. He has been compeltely disrespectful to one of the greatest, if not the greatest, tennis players of all time: Ken Rosewall.
 

CYGS

Legend
Agreed that he is full of nonsense. Cow is clearly the third wheel. Bull is close second to Goat/thread
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
You mean this uneducated line? :"Granted, Rod Laver had Roy Emerson to deal with but tennis in the 1960’s was very much the two Australians and little else."

Ken Rosewall who? Rosewall won more Majors and more titles than Emerson, and also won more matches against Laver than Emerson, but apparently only Emerson was Laver's rival and tennis in the 1960s was only about Laver and Emerson.

The writer should be ashamed to write a piece about the GOAT debate despite ignoring the basics of tennis history. He has been compeltely disrespectful to one of the greatest, if not the greatest, tennis players of all time: Ken Rosewall.
The author omitted Rosewall for a reason since he spent most of the 60s on the pro tour, and only won one Slam that decade. You actually have it wrong.
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
The author omitted Rosewall for a reason since he spent most of the 60s on the pro tour, and only won one Slam that decade. You actually have it wrong.
No, the author has it wrong if he says that tennis in the 1960s was Laver and Emerson, and little else.

Laver himself spent much of the decade on the pro tour, which had a higher quality and where Rosewall was his supreme rival.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
No, the author has it wrong if he says that tennis in the 1960s was Laver and Emerson, and little else.

Laver himself spent much of the decade on the pro tour, which had a higher quality and where Rosewall was his supreme rival.
I said the author was right to omit Rosewall who played most of that decade on the pro tour and won 1 major in '68. Laver won 11 majors in the 60's including two CYGS' so clearly there's a difference
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
I said the author was right to omit Rosewall who played most of that decade on the pro tour and won 1 major in '68. Laver won 11 majors in the 60's including two CYGS' so clearly there's a difference
If you're only looking at traditional slams, yes. That's why I said the author had a poor knowledge of tennis history - since the higher standard was being played on the pro tour, where Rosewall was one of the greatest players.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
If you're only looking at traditional slams, yes. That's why I said the author had a poor knowledge of tennis history - since the higher standard was being played on the pro tour, where Rosewall was one of the greatest players.
When have you seen any writer go into measuring pro Slam history to make a case for the greatest? I haven't seen it. If that was the case, you would hear lot more about Rosewall in these arguments and not as much about Laver but that's not the case.
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
The author omitted Rosewall for a reason since he spent most of the 60s on the pro tour, and only won one Slam that decade. You actually have it wrong.
The author knows nothing of the history of tennis. What kind of "reason" is that? Rosewall was banned from participating in most Slams in the 1960s, just like Laver was. Rosewall won 14 Majors in the 1960s (13 Pro Slams plus 1 Grand Slam). Pro Slams already had the category of Majors. Rosewall and Laver are by far the two greatest tennis players of the 1960s. The omission of Rosewall indicates a surprising lack of knowledge of tennis history.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
The author knows nothing of the history of tennis. What kind of "reason" is that? Rosewall was banned from participating in most Slams in the 1960s, just like Laver was. Rosewall won 14 Majors in the 1960s (13 Pro Slams plus 1 Grand Slam). Pro Slams already had the category of Majors. Rosewall and Laver are by far the two greatest tennis players of the 1960s. The omission of Rosewall indicates a surprising lack of knowledge of tennis history.
Pro Slams are not equal to majors which is why Laver is always at the top of GOAT lists and Rosewall is not. The author was obviously talking about who was the most successful during that time on the amateur tour and then the late 60s when the Open Era began so he is correct. Even so, I don't think think you will find anyone who would say Emerson was a better player than Laver or Rosewall, but if we are going by what actually happened on the amateur tour then it was Emerson with the success.
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Pro Slams are not equal to Majors
You are completely ignoring tennis history. Pro Slams are indeed Majors. Pro Slams always received the category of Majors back then, and still are. Laver is more popular than Rosewall and all the players from the past for the Grand Slam (winning 4 Slams the same calendar year) a feat only he has done (and twice) in tennis history. And Rosewall was more succesful than Emerson in the 1960s, as he won 14 Majors in the decade. Even if you prefer Emerson's resume in the 1960s, you can't completely ignore Rosewall and assert that "the 1960s only had 2 great Australian tennis players".

If Pro Slams are not Majors, then why is it said in Ken Rosewall's Wikipedia page said that Rosewall won 23 Majors?


Rod Laver is also acknowledged as having won 19 Majors (11 Grand Slams + 8 Pro Slams) by Wikipedia:
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
You are completely ignoring tennis history. Pro Slams are indeed Majors. Majors always received the category of Majors back then, and still are. Laver is more popular than Rosewall and all the players from the past for the Grand Slam (winning 4 Slams the same calendar year) a feat only he has done (and twice) in tennis history. And Rosewall was more succesful than Emerson in the 1960s, as he won 14 Majors in the decade. Even if you prefer Emerson's resume in the 1960s, you can't omite citting Rosewall.

If Pro Slams are not Majors, then why is it said in Ken Rosewall's Wikipedia page said that Rosewall won 23 Majors?


Rod Laver is also acknowledged as having won 19 Majors (11 Grand Slams + 8 Pro Slams) by Wikipedia:
Sport, I am not ignoring tennis history. I am cluing you in to how the establishment and the media measure tennis greatness. Do you want me to compile alllll the GOAT lists and show you that Laver is often at the top and Rosewall is often behind Connors, McEnroe, etc ? Even Tennis Channel ranked him behind Emerson in 2012, which I don't agree with but that gives you an idea of what it is. Pro Slams are not equal to majors unless you are doing GOAT debates on TTW.
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Sport, I am not ignoring tennis history. I am cluing you in to how the establishment and the media measure tennis greatness. Do you want me to compile alllll the GOAT lists and show you that Laver is often at the top and Rosewall is often behind Connors, McEnroe, etc ? Even Tennis Channel ranked him behind Emerson in 2012, which I don't agree with but that gives you an idea of what it is. Pro Slams are not equal to majors unless you are doing GOAT debates on TTW.
NoleFam, I totally agree that from a modern perpective, Grand Slams are prefered over Pro Slams. But it doesn't mean Pro Slams are not Majors. Pro Slams always have been and always will be Majors. And in the 1960s, Pro Majors were perceived as equally relevant as Grand Slams, so the omission of Rosewall and inclusion of Emerson is disrespectful. Had he included both Rosewall and Emerson, I wouldn't complain. But the authour is being compeltely unfair to Ken, assuming he didn't play in the 1960s because he was banned from pariticipating in Slams, when in reality Ken did play in the 1960s.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
NoleFam, I totally agree that from a modern perpective, Grand Slams are prefered over Pro Slams. But it doesn't mean Pro Slams are not Majors. Pro Slams always have been and always will be Majors. And in the 1960s, Pro Majors were perceived as equally relevant as Grand Slams, so the omission of Rosewall and inclusion of Emerson is disrespectful. Had he included both Rosewall and Emerson, I wouldn't complain. But the authour is being compeltely unfair to Ken, assuming he didn't play in the 1960s because he was banned from pariticipating in Slams, when in reality Ken did play in the 1960s.
Yea it's not fair but the author is only going by what the common consensus is. I actually do think Rosewall was a better player than Emerson and probably would rank him over McEnroe, Connors, etc., but when they measure greatness, Slams are everything which does not exclude pro Slams. Do you notice a common theme in these lists?

 

RaulRamirez

Hall of Fame
Yea it's not fair but the author is only going by what the common consensus is. I actually do think Rosewall was a better player than Emerson and probably would rank him over McEnroe, Connors, etc., but when they measure greatness, Slams are everything which does not exclude pro Slams. Do you notice a common theme in these lists?

I like women's tennis, and I'm not an ESPN basher, BUT...that ESPN list is silly.
It's okay to have different placements than I would, but mixing men with women makes no sense.
Putting Emerson on - and not Rosewall - is, at best, idiotic, and so many other things to take issue with here.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
I like women's tennis, and I'm not an ESPN basher, BUT...that ESPN list is silly.
It's okay to have different placements than I would, but mixing men with women makes no sense.
Putting Emerson on - and not Rosewall - is, at best, idiotic, and so many other things to take issue with here.
ESPN lists are just nutty in multiple sports so maybe I should have used a different source. Lol. It does show how the media thinks though when it comes to the greatest, even if it's not a fair assessment.
 
D

Deleted member 768841

Guest
ESPN lists are just nutty in multiple sports so maybe I should have used a different source. Lol. It does show how the media thinks though when it comes to the greatest, even if it's not a fair assessment.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they put Lebron as the GOAT. Stephen A Smith gotta knock someone sense into em
 
ESPN lists are just nutty in multiple sports so maybe I should have used a different source. Lol. It does show how the media thinks though when it comes to the greatest, even if it's not a fair assessment.
Well, I certainly agree with their top spots.

Good job (y)
 

duaneeo

Legend
The OP hasn't been as successful as Lew II with the bait threads. Lew typically gets multiple pages of replies.
 
Top