Pat Cash says Djoko is better than Federer!

Well, he has done it again.

http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/879710-novak-djokovic-is-one-of-the-greatest-tennis-players-ever-says-pat-cash

"Novak has been phenomenal, winning the Australian Open, Wimbledon and the US Open and getting to the semis at Roland Garros.

‘That puts him right up there alongside the best who have ever played. I feel Djokovic is better than Federer in his prime because he has greater opposition."


Does anyone remember any other Cash's random forgetful quotes?
This has again confirmed that despite being a grand slam champion Cash hardly comes out with intelligent stuff.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=346787

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/104721-andy-murray-is-quotugly-and-boringquot-says-pat-cash/

I think Cash is a tennis joker.

I could have said that too. I'll go even further:

The next number 1 will be better than Djokovic.

Opinions are like a**holes, every body has one. So does Pat Cash.

Just waiting for Cash to say that Djokovic is the GOAT. And he has forgotten McEnroe's 82-3 1984 or Federer's 81-4 2005 or 92-5 2006.

Tenez wrote:I could have said that too. I'll go even further:

The next number 1 will be better than Djokovic.

wow wrote:‘That puts him right up there alongside the best who have ever played. I feel Djokovic is better than Federer in his prime because he has greater opposition."

I can see where he's coming from, but he needs to factor in that arguably Djoko's most difficult opponent this hear has been TMF who, by Cash's logic, cannot be in his prime.

laverfan wrote:Opinions are like a**holes, every body has one. So does Pat Cash.

Just waiting for Cash to say that Djokovic is the GOAT. And he has forgotten McEnroe's 82-3 1984 or Federer's 81-4 2005 or 92-5 2006.

Cash says that fed won most of his matched in the weak era

wow wrote:Cash says that fed won most of his matched in the weak era

Again, I'd agree with

Fed won most of his slams in a "physically weaker" era

.

tenez, what were the reasons for nalby to not to win a slam as he was the only one to challenge fed in the physically weaker era?

lol let the guy have his opinion. I thought he liked Nadal though?

What you could make an argument for is the fact that Djokovic's year has been better than Federer's best years. So if Djokovic produces this tennis for the next three years at least he might have a point. Until then, we're missing the :facepalm: smiley big time...

wow wrote:tenez, what were the reasons for nalby to not to win a slam as he was the only one to challenge fed in the physically weaker era?

Clearly Nalbandian is not too strong mentally, except versus Federer cause that was the only occasion where he had nothing to lose.

Cashy's got a point THIS time....
Nole's 10:1 against Federer and Nadal this year, this in itself is some achievement.
I've always thought that Nole is the best and that Federer is the GOAT ....

Cash has had other prophetic moments in the past, too

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/pat-cash-flushing-meadows-is-a-dump-ndash-but-the-atmosphere-is-the-best-of-any-grand-slam-1778311.html

While I can understand the criticisms of his comments and that he does actually say some usually obvious things, he is entitled to an opinion.

I can't see how he can measure that against what Federer achieved and even Nadal the previous year. It does bring out the 'weakera' guff again.

noleisthebest wrote:

...I've always thought that Nole is the best and that Federer is the GOAT ....

Even though Djoko did not quite look like the "better" in their last 2 encounters, did he? Djoko will improve though. Fed won't.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

...I've always thought that Nole is the best and that Federer is the GOAT ....

Even though Djoko did not quite look like the "better" in their last 2 encounters, did he? Djoko will improve though. Fed won't.

He won, though....

It takes something very, very special to pull a win 2 MPs down on FED'S serve IN FRONT OF NY's crowd, and I am not agreeing with Fed's "luck" view in that case.

Cash does come out with some, shall we say, interesting, views. Think what he should have said is that Djoko has had one of the greatest SEASONS of all time as he has been up against three other really top players and, in nearly all his finals, has had to get past one of them(sometimes two of them) to win it.
To cast doubts on Djoko is to deny his remarkable achievements THIS SEASON. To overpraise him is to ignore the fact that Rafa and Rog - to mention just two players - have had stellar CAREERS. Too early to judge Nole yet. In a few years time, may be.

Sure...well 1 all anyway.


But to define the "best" you have to produce the best tennis and it wasn't clear, imo. Luck or not. When Fed went on to beat Hewitt regularly, Fed became the better player. It was obvious on the court.

For me Federer is still producing the best tennis when on form. And I am not talking about "most beautiful" tennis. I am talking about the most efficient tennis, even against each others.

sirfredperry wrote:Cash does come out with some, shall we say, interesting, views. Think what he should have said is that Djoko has had one of the greatest SEASONS of all time as he has been up against three other really top players and, in nearly all his finals, has had to get past one of them(sometimes two of them) to win it.
To cast doubts on Djoko is to deny his remarkable achievements THIS SEASON. To overpraise him is to ignore the fact that Rafa and Rog - to mention just two players - have had stellar CAREERS. Too early to judge Nole yet. In a few years time, may be.

pretty much sums it up for me. Well said

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:Cash does come out with some, shall we say, interesting, views. Think what he should have said is that Djoko has had one of the greatest SEASONS of all time as he has been up against three other really top players and, in nearly all his finals, has had to get past one of them(sometimes two of them) to win it.
To cast doubts on Djoko is to deny his remarkable achievements THIS SEASON. To overpraise him is to ignore the fact that Rafa and Rog - to mention just two players - have had stellar CAREERS. Too early to judge Nole yet. In a few years time, may be.

pretty much sums it up for me. Well said

Agreed. I promise I won't gloat when the time comes

Well I guess if you are paid to be a pundit, it is necessary to keep promoting and 'bigging up' the here and now. Cash has never really given Federer his due - coolness all seems to have stemmed from Cash suggesting TMF should not have Mirka with him at all times from about 2004.

Novak has had one of the most tremendous years ever, but it certainly took the stuffing out of him, and it will be interesting to see how much of a force he is at the tail end of season.

In the meantime, he is yet to equal Fed winning 3 slams in 3 separate years and making all four slam finals in two of those - didn't he also win TMC as well in two of those years?

Considering how Pat Cash has spent his entire life in and around tennis, you'd think his knowledge of the game would be at a level greater than bugger all.

I am amazed that tv networks still pay him for the utter tripe that he comes out with.

Everyone knows that Federer is the best to have ever played the game, not only because of his slam record, but because he has maintained an incredibly high standard for the last decade. Djokovic has had one of the best years that any tennis player has ever had, but unless he backs it up in 2012 and 2013, it will go down as nothing other than a flash in the pan.

Pat's a bit of a Wilander, he has loads of opinions, many of them contradictory and there's never any shortage of them.

Djokovic has had a great season, during which in two Slam matches he lost one and came within a point of losing the other to the 30 year old well past it guy who he's supposed to have surpassed.

Yeah, logical............

Opinions are free and he's entitled to his. In my opinion, when factoring the difficulty of his main opposition and his record this season, I rate Djokovic's year above any of Fed's.

It's also my opinion Fed's best years came in a relatively weak era however vehemently some may reject the notion of a weak era so there.

The weak era theory is quite puzzling.

If 03-07 was a weak era, how does one explain the appearance of Youzhny, Ferrer, Roddick, Melzer, Fish, Davydenko, Federer all of whom are 29/30 years old, in the top 10 in the last 18 months?

mthierry wrote:so there.

I am glad to see that this new day sees you as sweet tempered as ever and disposed to get on with all!

Also don't understand the talk of Fed being past it. The drive, passion and concentration, particularly against lesser opposition, may not be what it once was but in the big games against the top 2, he's technically been as good as I've seen him. Fed's matches at the French Open Semis and Finals are probably the best I've seen him play on clay.

Looks like that's an excuse we have to put up with till he retires. Basically a win-win situation whether he wins or loses.

emancipator wrote:The weak era theory is quite puzzling.

If 03-07 was a weak era, how does one explain the appearance of Youzhny, Ferrer, Roddick, Melzer, Fish, Davydenko, Federer all of whom are 29/30 years old, in the top 10 in the last 18 months?

Youzhny always had the talent, maybe he's matured, but I don't think his average ranking is much better than it was furing Fed's dominance. Ferrer, Roddick and Davydenko were all high ranked in the Fed era, much higher in fact for the latter too than they are now. Melzer has found some consistency, the shot-making was always there. Fish has got stronger physically (ie shed the excess weight which his body couldn't carry).

I don't buy into the "weak era" argument, just saying they are always reasons why players can do better at different stages of their careers.

time please wrote:

mthierry wrote:so there.

I am glad to see that this new day sees you as sweet tempered as ever and disposed to get on with all!

Was pretty much a way of getting on my tin hat cos I know plenty will disagree with me.

If the Federa (see what I did there) was supposedly weak, then perhaps we can level the same argument at the opposition faced by Djoko in 2011... Nadal has played nowhere near his best throughout, neither has Fed, Murray has been typical Murray, the great JMDP is on the comeback trail, and (I can't believe I'm going to say this but...) Soderling has been ill/injured for a lot of the year.

The strength of eras -particularly chronologically close ones- can't ae measured by "floaters" around the rankings or general field depth cos those would always be around the same level. Imo, it's judged by the strength of the top end talent at the very top of the rankings and the slam winners.

There are no Johanssons and Gaudios lifting GS right now.

That's just twisted little me anyway.

I woudl like to understand what is this era strong in? More precisely what do we call a "strong" player nowadays, compared to a 2006 player?

If it is being able to retrieve more balls for longer...then yes. This is a stronger era. If it's technically having better weapons like FHs, Serves and BHs, I believe it has gone backward at the top as players don;t particularly look to win points with those weapons anymore as observed in those last 2 slams finals. They look for the stamina battle which usually leads to the same result invariably. The fittest wins..as has been the case for the last 7 slams.

Is that what Pat Cash means? then he is right.

No such thing as strong or weak eras.

The rankings reflect the style of play and the overall ability of tennis players. Every so often a player comes along and raises the bar, and it takes a while for other players to reach that standard in order to compete on a regular basis. Just because someone dominates, it doesn't automatically mean that the rest of the players are suddenly crap.

If Federer didn't exist, no-one would be saying that the early 00s was a weak era...they'd be saying that it was one of the most competitive eras ever.

I think we should just let it be. So nowadays physical matches and their associated drama does it for people and hitting the ball safely within the lines for 10 shots or more on every surface counts as having to carefully construct a point these days as tennis has 'moved on'. Its still amazing I suppose to see ex pros talk as if no one was playing tennis during 04-07 and it only just began now.

mthierry wrote:Also don't understand the talk of Fed being past it. The drive, passion and concentration, particularly against lesser opposition, may not be what it once was but in the big games against the top 2, he's technically been as good as I've seen him. Fed's matches at the French Open Semis and Finals are probably the best I've seen him play on clay.

Looks like that's an excuse we have to put up with till he retires. Basically a win-win situation whether he wins or loses.

In 2004, 2006 and 2007 the years that Fed won three slams he also won The Master's Cup now renamed World Tour Finals (or the brilliant acronym WTF!) - beating Rafa in 2006 and 2007, when he was 25 and 26. In other words, much the same age Rafa is now, but the latter along with Novak and Andy are not yet facing the challenges from brilliant 19 and 20 year olds that Fed was, and pretty much every champion before him did - so is this a weak era?

You are fully entitled to your opinion but emancipator has asked a very pertinent question about the players in the top 20 being much the same as in Fed's pomp and in a few cases - Ferrer, Fish being higher in the rankings. So from 'era' to 'era' not a lot has changed and there is not much new blood. If one of you weak era apologists can answer that question perhaps the Fed apologists can reconsider your point of view because of the facts you present?

mthierry wrote:That's just twisted little me anyway.

Is that an admission of guilt with this 'Wee Keira' stuff?

Marcus wrote:No such thing as strong or weak eras.

This is for you, MThierry. You could explain when the 'weak era' ended and a 'strong era' started, please?

mthierry wrote:The strength of eras -particularly chronologically close ones- can't ae measured by "floaters" around the rankings or general field depth cos those would always be around the same level. Imo, it's judged by the strength of the top end talent at the very top of the rankings and the slam winners.

There are no Johanssons and Gaudios lifting GS right now.

That's just twisted little me anyway.

In that case, given the proximity and overlap of these years, instead of defining them as seperate eras, perhaps it would be more prudent to look at individual years instead?

For example, if one were to look at Nadal's success at slam level, one could be just as dismissive of his achievements, since he won three of his slams in the 'Fed-era' and three more in 2010 when Roger was clearly declining (not that beating him matters, after all he is only a product of a weak era), when Novak didn't have a serve, Murray was abysmal for the most part, and Del potro was injured.

See how easy it is to discredit?

Likewise, one could do the same with Djokovic wrt 2011.

It seems to me that posters who have an axe to grind against Roger are very keen to blanket label his 'era' as weak and then similarly to generalise everything that came after as strong.

The reality is that there are a lot of nuances, a lot of factors that require consideration.

If RF hadn't existed, no doubt the likes of Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Nalby would have had multiple slams, with a much more even distribution of hardware, similar to the early nineties, and thus given the impression of a 'strong' era.

The reality is that Federer brought tennis to a new level; his superiority made the competition look inferior. He was the first player to dominate consistently on all surfaces. Since then only Novak in 2011 has been able to match that consistent domination across surfaces.

mthierry wrote:The strength of eras -particularly chronologically close ones- can't ae measured by "floaters" around the rankings or general field depth cos those would always be around the same level. Imo, it's judged by the strength of the top end talent at the very top of the rankings and the slam winners.

There are no Johanssons and Gaudios lifting GS right now.

That's just twisted little me anyway.

aaaahhh you tried! The thing is that the floaters that you dismiss are actually the guys that the top four have to go through to win the tournaments - perhaps one should tell them just not to bother showing up!

emancipator wrote:

mthierry wrote:The strength of eras -particularly chronologically close ones- can't ae measured by "floaters" around the rankings or general field depth cos those would always be around the same level. Imo, it's judged by the strength of the top end talent at the very top of the rankings and the slam winners.

There are no Johanssons and Gaudios lifting GS right now.

That's just twisted little me anyway.

In that case, given the proximity and overlap of these years, instead of defining them as seperate eras, perhaps it would be more prudent to look at individual years instead?

For example, if one were to look at Nadal's success at slam level, one could be just as dismissive of his achievements, since he won three of his slams in the 'Fed-era' and three more in 2010 when Roger was clearly declining (not that beating him matters, after all he is only a product of a weak era), when Novak didn't have a serve, Murray was abysmal for the most part, and Del potro was injured.

See how easy it is to discredit?

Likewise, one could do the same with Djokovic wrt 2011.

It seems to me that posters who have an axe to grind against Roger are very keen to blanket label his 'era' as weak and then similarly to generalise everything that came after as strong.

The reality is that there are a lot of nuances, a lot of factors that require consideration.

If RF hadn't existed, no doubt the likes of Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Nalby would have had multiple slams, with a much more even distribution of hardware, similar to the early nineties, and thus given the impression of a 'strong' era.

The reality is that Federer brought tennis to a new level; his superiority made the competition look inferior. He was the first player to dominate consistently on all surfaces. Since then only Novak in 2011 has been able to match that consistent domination across surfaces.

now can I be a disciple please????

The weak era ended when it was obvjous to all without an agenda that fed was randomly and inexplicably missing shots even when he was under no pressure to get in position. That's when finally the competition they'd been waiting for all these years showed up, all the players around prior to this decided to start playing well now and you could only genuinely win a slam if you were Nadal or Djokovic.

The weak era point has been addressed to death by all sides. I particularly liked a lot of Socal's points on the issue. I guess wherever you stand on the issue, no one would ever budge so I don't think there's any point in trying.

I do believe though, it says something when the overwhelming majority of pundits, analysts, commentators and ex-players consistently talk up the strength of this era.

but they always have! They did in Borg's day, Becker's pomp, saluted the return to the classic tennis of Edberg, hailed Sampras as the greatest ever, hailed Fed as the greatest ever, hailed Rafa as the greatest ever, beginning to hail Novak as the greatest ever.

Cash makes his living as a pundit and commentator, and believe it or not it is sensible to sell the 'here and now' to your captive audience. Funnily enough it doesn't sit so well with the sponsors, tennis authorities, tournament organisers and television companies for a commentator to sit and wax lyrically about the halycon days - odd isn't it?

Hello



Oh child Time Please,

Thou hast been raised to the level of accepted (the level above disciple).

The EO (Eastern Oracle) has confirmed it by email.

Ye may celebrate.

Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaallelujaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

Sadly, child Mthierry's request for disciplehood may have to be reconsidered.

Pray for redemption oh child Mthierry.

Thy iniquity must end.



emancipator - recruitment lines are now open.

I should add that it is ex players who are employed as commentators that have talked up this period, as they did the last - same culprits, same comments they made about Federer in 2004-07

Laver and Rosewall have on more than one occasion stated unequivocally that no-one plays tennis like TMF, In another class is the phrase I think Laver used 2 years ago.

There are great points refuting my arguments but I guess I just can't reconcile how rapidly the challenge of players like Hewitt, Ferrero, Coria, Nalbandian, Safin and to a lesser extent the likes of Roddick fell apart after a brief window of form that threatened a lot more.

time please wrote:but they always have! They did in Borg's day, Becker's pomp, saluted the return to the classic tennis of Edberg, hailed Sampras as the greatest ever, hailed Fed as the greatest ever, hailed Rafa as the greatest ever, beginning to hail Novak as the greatest ever.

Cash makes his living as a pundit and commentator, and believe it or not it is sensible to sell the 'here and now' to your captive audience. Funnily enough it doesn't sit so well with the sponsors, tennis authorities, tournament organisers and television companies for a commentator to sit and wax lyrically about the halycon days - odd isn't it?

Spot on.

It is the nature of the beast.

The hype is used to generate interest.

Pundits, even useless ones like Cash, will say anything to keep themselves relevant. After all their livelihoods are dependant on generating and maintaining interest.

Only the most gullible, or agenda driven, would take such statements without a huge pinch of salt.

emancipator wrote:Hello



Oh child Time Please,

Thou hast been raised to the level of accepted (the level above disciple).

The EO (Eastern Oracle) has confirmed it by email.

Ye may celebrate.

Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaallelujaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

Sadly, child Mthierry's request for disciplehood may have to be reconsidered.

Pray for redemption oh child Mthierry.

Thy iniquity must end.



emancipator - recruitment lines are now open.

Ta very muchly emancipator! The Eastern Oracle eh? Good to see he is fully connected!

mthierry wrote:There are great points refuting my arguments but I guess I just can't reconcile how rapidly the challenge of players like Hewitt, Ferrero, Coria, Nalbandian, Safin and to a lesser extent the likes of Roddick fell apart after a brief window of form that threatened a lot more.

Their challenge fell off no less rapidly than Becker, Edberg, Courier, Chang. None of who I believe won a slam after '96 (all were around 22-27 yrs old)

time please wrote:I should add that it is ex players who are employed as commentators that have talked up this period, as they did the last - same culprits, same comments they made about Federer in 2004-07

Laver and Rosewall have on more than one occasion stated unequivocally that no-one plays tennis like TMF, In another class is the phrase I think Laver used 2 years ago.

They were talking of Federer though, not his era. They weren't exactly creaming over Roddick (despite the booming serve), Hewitt, Ljubicic, Ferrero etc. None of those challengers imo is a patch on even Murray.