Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Page 4 of 6 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Go down

Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by Guest on Mon 04 Apr 2016, 7:16 pm

First topic message reminder :

The difference between the Federer run and the Djokovic run (both mightily impressive) is that Federer did it with a style, panache and level of play that brought new fans into the sport in truckloads and got old heads talking all over again. Of course Federer kept it up for 4 years - Djokovic may yet do that - the opportunity is certainly there.

Federer, to quote Agassi, 'was the guy that came and took the game light years ahead'. Federer fans, and indeed tennis fans, will remember watching him play in those days simply to see what outrageous play he would produce next. It was magical.

Djokovic in contrast, aside from a good spell in the latter half of 2015, hasn't been all that special. If anyone has watched him this year, you'd note that he's looked far from magical. Most of his wins have been dull affairs. And that's not knocking him or his style. For me, he certainly has not been as brilliant as he was in the first half of 2011, yet, the form right now, which in terms of absolute level of play is similar to 2012 in my estimation, has won him numerous titles - easily. Ditto for the first half of last year - form wasn't anything special yet wracked up the titles.

Did anyone watch the Miami final ?- god awful tennis.
The IW tournament wasn't too hot either. He's laboured through the last three big tournaments in terms of form but has still won the titles and never looked in danger of losing. Clearly shows a huge gap at the top. The Raonic, Dimitrov generation is the worst since the late nineties (and much worse than that generation too). The next generation after that are too young to make an impact (or perhaps not good enough - since history shows that great players almost always make an early impact - we shall see) leaving the way clear for Djokovic to sweep up. The fact that Djokovic's main competition for the last 2 years has been an old Federer - who himself is still beating everyone else handily - is testament to the sad state of competition.

In essence he has become supremely dominant by just maintaining. Another aspect to this unprecedented dominance is the propensity of slow and medium paced courts which allow him to play the same game everywhere - the game that he's number one at. There's no need to adapt or change style. Even now, on a fast paced court (Dubai, Cincinatti) some players would have a decent chance against him but on the majority uniformly slowish courts, where defence and consistency determines the victor, the best defender in the game, invariably comes out on top.

So for me, impressive, as this run is in terms of results, the actual tennis has for large stretches been pretty uninspiring - and I guess that's reflected in the general uptake. Djokovic is not transcending his sport the way Federer (and he did even before the rivalry with Nadal had started) did. No one's talking about his accomplishments the way people did about Federer despite a 20 month spell that has been as dominant as any equally lengthy Federer span.

ghost

emancipator



Last edited by emancipator on Mon 04 Apr 2016, 7:22 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Typo :))

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down


Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by HM Murdock on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 10:24 am

legendkillarV2 wrote:Settling for mediocrity is what kills quality. Simple as that really.
Indeed.

But when people attack the one player who is bringing the quality, they show that their concern is not the state of the game but rather the identity of the dominant player.

(I'm not saying that this is what you are doing)

HM Murdock

Posts : 4749
Join date : 2011-06-10

Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by Guest on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 10:47 am

CaledonianCraig wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:Won the debate?

This whole thing was born out of why did he win IW. The lack of competition was mentioned, bar all accounts a rather blanketed statement I know. Then we get "you said Weak Era" ner ner. So we are comparing an argument of 3 years being dismissed to 1 tournament? Economies of scale dear boy. It's sensationalised sentiments like that which gave birth to Newscorp!

It goes deeper than that though. Negativity is rife and has been about tennis for a few months now. Multiple threads about no youngsters coming through and stuff bemoaning Murray reaching the Aussie Open Final despite not being at his best and on top of that posters harping on about Federer's prowess at his age also denigrating the current period. Hardly, smacks of positivity about men's tennis just now.

This bickering could easily be stopped with a universal agreement by all tennis fans of all tennis players. That being that tennis going through periodic dips in standards or in-form tennis players be that when Federer ruled the roost or Nadal or Djokovic. On top of that those players can only beat those in front of them and in the long run of their careers everything evens itself out.

Why can't people make negative observations about the game?

Settling for mediocrity is what kills quality. Simple as that really.

I don't think people would take immediate issue with Djokovic dominating, IF there were signs that beyond that there were players who would take up the mantle. We have seen Dimitrov/Raonic/Nishikori in a kind way come through and not really kick on to be 'The New Breed' and because of that people's expectations are lower for the next 'New Breed'

People are sitting on the side of caution. Look at Kyrgios at Wimbledon in 2014. A breakout moment in his career. What has he done since? We are coming up to nearly 2 years since that result and he hasn't backed it up as such.

You see that post in itself sums up my point. It is more than negative observations. Face it - it is a view point that you are not happy with where tennis is just now. Why? Normally, those emotions emanate from dis-satisfaction with things in men's tennis as they stand. All people need to say is admit they aren't happy with standards just now just as people have said standards weren't great in the early 2000s. Fluctuations happen and that is the core point here. Sadly, people refuse to admit it happens.

Not at all. Let me ask you who was showing promise in the early 2000's? Safin/Hewitt and some bloke who's name I can't remember, oh Federer. The signs were good going forward and those players went on to become multi-slam winners. The same at the mid point in the 2000's with Nadal/Djokovic/Murray. Early signs were promising and one could agree they have fulfilled that promise.

You're happy with the state of the game, I am not (in it's entirety). Many on here for years have been looking for that early promise and potential to shine on through and it hasn't. Rather than marvel at longevity of the crop, we wanted to see something behind it to get excited about.

What tennis could end up with is a bunch of Johansson's/Cillic's winning the odd Slam with a 2 week peak Wink

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by Guest on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 10:52 am

HM Murdock wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:Settling for mediocrity is what kills quality. Simple as that really.
Indeed.

But when people attack the one player who is bringing the quality, they show that their concern is not the state of the game but rather the identity of the dominant player.

(I'm not saying that this is what you are doing)

Well the Djokovic/Federer dominance is interesting.

I think the one question not being asked is whether the gap between Djokovic and his competition is greater than that of Federer's in his spell of dominance?

I feel posters can't decide on whether Djokovic is REALLY that good or the rest of the field isn't. Oddly enough Sampras was frowned upon on how he swept up, but never a debate about his competition.

Djokovic simply an enigma. He doesn't attract the adulation of Fedal and yet doesn't attract the hate of either of them generate in some quarters.

Unique chin

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by CaledonianCraig on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 11:06 am

legendkillarV2 wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:Won the debate?

This whole thing was born out of why did he win IW. The lack of competition was mentioned, bar all accounts a rather blanketed statement I know. Then we get "you said Weak Era" ner ner. So we are comparing an argument of 3 years being dismissed to 1 tournament? Economies of scale dear boy. It's sensationalised sentiments like that which gave birth to Newscorp!

It goes deeper than that though. Negativity is rife and has been about tennis for a few months now. Multiple threads about no youngsters coming through and stuff bemoaning Murray reaching the Aussie Open Final despite not being at his best and on top of that posters harping on about Federer's prowess at his age also denigrating the current period. Hardly, smacks of positivity about men's tennis just now.

This bickering could easily be stopped with a universal agreement by all tennis fans of all tennis players. That being that tennis going through periodic dips in standards or in-form tennis players be that when Federer ruled the roost or Nadal or Djokovic. On top of that those players can only beat those in front of them and in the long run of their careers everything evens itself out.

Why can't people make negative observations about the game?

Settling for mediocrity is what kills quality. Simple as that really.

I don't think people would take immediate issue with Djokovic dominating, IF there were signs that beyond that there were players who would take up the mantle. We have seen Dimitrov/Raonic/Nishikori in a kind way come through and not really kick on to be 'The New Breed' and because of that people's expectations are lower for the next 'New Breed'

People are sitting on the side of caution. Look at Kyrgios at Wimbledon in 2014. A breakout moment in his career. What has he done since? We are coming up to nearly 2 years since that result and he hasn't backed it up as such.

You see that post in itself sums up my point. It is more than negative observations. Face it - it is a view point that you are not happy with where tennis is just now. Why? Normally, those emotions emanate from dis-satisfaction with things in men's tennis as they stand. All people need to say is admit they aren't happy with standards just now just as people have said standards weren't great in the early 2000s. Fluctuations happen and that is the core point here. Sadly, people refuse to admit it happens.

Not at all. Let me ask you who was showing promise in the early 2000's? Safin/Hewitt and some bloke who's name I can't remember, oh Federer. The signs were good going forward and those players went on to become multi-slam winners. The same at the mid point in the 2000's with Nadal/Djokovic/Murray. Early signs were promising and one could agree they have fulfilled that promise.

You're happy with the state of the game, I am not (in it's entirety). Many on here for years have been looking for that early promise and potential to shine on through and it hasn't. Rather than marvel at longevity of the crop, we wanted to see something behind it to get excited about.

What tennis could end up with is a bunch of Johansson's/Cillic's winning the odd Slam with a 2 week peak Wink

Actually, you are off the mark there. I am not happy with things at the moment and don't think I have ever said I was. It isn't brain-blowing to see the dip as Murray's standard has dipped and Nadal's has as well and nobody is stepping up to fill the void. This is one of the fluctuations I speak of and as for early 2000s that was another one as can be seen by how (Federer aside) everyone else in the upper echelons fell away when Djokovic, Nadal and Murray emerged plus (as is now) you had a 30+ bloke in Agassi still one of the most competitive. What stinks to high heaven (more than either of standards now or early 2000s) is the opinions of those unwilling to accept fluctuations exist. They are here now and were present in the early 2000s - sadly some people are still in denial. And believe you me there is no need to be in denial. All any player can do when at the top is win - it is of no consequence to them that the competition may not be as it was or what it will become. In short no asterixes - a slam win is a slam win.
CaledonianCraig
CaledonianCraig

Posts : 17966
Join date : 2011-05-31
Age : 50
Location : Edinburgh

Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by CAS on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 11:06 am

The simple answer is all courts play virtually the same, Novak is the best at the style on the modern day court, he doesn't need to adjust so he just keeps winning and winning.

Watch Madrid 2012 and see what happens when the court surface is change, anarchy!

CAS

Posts : 1313
Join date : 2011-06-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by CAS on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 11:09 am

If clay played the same speed as grass Sampras would have dominated all year round, it's affectively why it's happened.

You can look beyond Novak and look at players like Berdych and Ferrer who can just stay at the top longer than any other players of the past without changing their game on each surface

CAS

Posts : 1313
Join date : 2011-06-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by HM Murdock on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 11:10 am

legendkillarV2 wrote:I feel posters can't decide on whether Djokovic is REALLY that good or the rest of the field isn't.
If Djokovic had risen to the top in the last couple of years, there might be a case for saying its the competition.

But the guy began 2015 with seven slams to his name. He'd beaten Federer, Nadal or both en route to winning six of them. He rose to number 1 when Federer was 29 and Nadal was 25.

He's clearly a superb player.

The competition plays a part but that was always so when players produce numbers like Novak did in 2015. Does anyone think that Federer was facing his toughest opposition in 06? Or Mac facing his toughest in 84?

legendkillarV2 wrote:Djokovic simply an enigma. He doesn't attract the adulation of Fedal and yet doesn't attract the hate of either of them generate in some quarters.
I'm reminded of Derek Smalls from Spinal Tap:

"They're two distinct types of visionaries, it's like fire and ice, basically. I feel my role in the band is to be somewhere in the middle of that, kind of like lukewarm water."

HM Murdock

Posts : 4749
Join date : 2011-06-10

Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by CAS on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 11:15 am

Also because everyone plays the same way when one player becomes the best at it there's not much anyone can do as they can't change the style they have been playing all their careers

CAS

Posts : 1313
Join date : 2011-06-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by Guest on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 11:18 am

CaledonianCraig wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:Won the debate?

This whole thing was born out of why did he win IW. The lack of competition was mentioned, bar all accounts a rather blanketed statement I know. Then we get "you said Weak Era" ner ner. So we are comparing an argument of 3 years being dismissed to 1 tournament? Economies of scale dear boy. It's sensationalised sentiments like that which gave birth to Newscorp!

It goes deeper than that though. Negativity is rife and has been about tennis for a few months now. Multiple threads about no youngsters coming through and stuff bemoaning Murray reaching the Aussie Open Final despite not being at his best and on top of that posters harping on about Federer's prowess at his age also denigrating the current period. Hardly, smacks of positivity about men's tennis just now.

This bickering could easily be stopped with a universal agreement by all tennis fans of all tennis players. That being that tennis going through periodic dips in standards or in-form tennis players be that when Federer ruled the roost or Nadal or Djokovic. On top of that those players can only beat those in front of them and in the long run of their careers everything evens itself out.

Why can't people make negative observations about the game?

Settling for mediocrity is what kills quality. Simple as that really.

I don't think people would take immediate issue with Djokovic dominating, IF there were signs that beyond that there were players who would take up the mantle. We have seen Dimitrov/Raonic/Nishikori in a kind way come through and not really kick on to be 'The New Breed' and because of that people's expectations are lower for the next 'New Breed'

People are sitting on the side of caution. Look at Kyrgios at Wimbledon in 2014. A breakout moment in his career. What has he done since? We are coming up to nearly 2 years since that result and he hasn't backed it up as such.

You see that post in itself sums up my point. It is more than negative observations. Face it - it is a view point that you are not happy with where tennis is just now. Why? Normally, those emotions emanate from dis-satisfaction with things in men's tennis as they stand. All people need to say is admit they aren't happy with standards just now just as people have said standards weren't great in the early 2000s. Fluctuations happen and that is the core point here. Sadly, people refuse to admit it happens.

Not at all. Let me ask you who was showing promise in the early 2000's? Safin/Hewitt and some bloke who's name I can't remember, oh Federer. The signs were good going forward and those players went on to become multi-slam winners. The same at the mid point in the 2000's with Nadal/Djokovic/Murray. Early signs were promising and one could agree they have fulfilled that promise.

You're happy with the state of the game, I am not (in it's entirety). Many on here for years have been looking for that early promise and potential to shine on through and it hasn't. Rather than marvel at longevity of the crop, we wanted to see something behind it to get excited about.

What tennis could end up with is a bunch of Johansson's/Cillic's winning the odd Slam with a 2 week peak Wink

Actually, you are off the mark there. I am not happy with things at the moment and don't think I have ever said I was. It isn't brain-blowing to see the dip as Murray's standard has dipped and Nadal's has as well and nobody is stepping up to fill the void. This is one of the fluctuations I speak of and as for early 2000s that was another one as can be seen by how (Federer aside) everyone else in the upper echelons fell away when Djokovic, Nadal and Murray emerged plus (as is now) you had a 30+ bloke in Agassi still one of the most competitive. What stinks to high heaven (more than either of standards now or early 2000s) is the opinions of those unwilling to accept fluctuations exist. They are here now and were present in the early 2000s - sadly some people are still in denial. And believe you me there is no need to be in denial. All any player can do when at the top is win - it is of no consequence to them that the competition may not be as it was or what it will become. In short no asterixes - a slam win is a slam win.

So...

I am not happy with the state of the game and say as much. You then poo poo that only to state yourself your not happy with the state of the game? There must be a logic I am not following here. What is the objection?

You are still missing the point. I am not concerned with fluctuations. What I am concerned with is the alarming rate in which 'emerging' talents fall away.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by Born Slippy on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 11:25 am

hawkeye wrote:Imagine tennis was a sport such as the long jump were competitors were measured against each other and although the one that jumped the longest on the day came away with the gold medal or equivalent there was also a measure of how well they performed. Again taking the long jump as an example were the world record is 8.95m imagine there were only 2 players (Roger and Rafa) capable of jumping over say 8.9m so if both were in the competition chances are one of them would produce a good enough jump to win. Apart from Novak with a personal best of say 8.5m no other player was capable of jumping over 8m so Novak was always close and always had a good chance of picking up a win if there were no jumps over 8.5m.

But now Roger is old and hasn't jumped over 8m in years and Rafa has had poor form and hasn't jumped over 8m in the last year or so and neither has any other player. Jumps of over 8m are rare...  Novak is still consistently putting in jumps over 8m and that's all that is needed to win. But he has still never jumped over 8.5m. Indeed his personal best over the last couple of years has dropped to 8.3m perhaps because of age but perhaps because he hasn't been challenged. It is worth noting that some of Novak's 8.3m jumps have looked longer than they really are but this is an optical illusion caused by the times when the competition have barely passed the 7m mark Wink

Or maybe it's like the 100m? In 2005 23 year old Justin Gatlin won the World Champs in 9.88 by, at the time the widest ever margin. In 2015, 33 year old Gatlin came 2nd in the final despite running 9.80. If there was no clock, I'm sure there would be people arguing he was past his peak and would have thrashed Bolt in 2005.

Born Slippy

Posts : 4360
Join date : 2012-05-05

Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by CaledonianCraig on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 11:35 am

legendkillarV2 wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:Won the debate?

This whole thing was born out of why did he win IW. The lack of competition was mentioned, bar all accounts a rather blanketed statement I know. Then we get "you said Weak Era" ner ner. So we are comparing an argument of 3 years being dismissed to 1 tournament? Economies of scale dear boy. It's sensationalised sentiments like that which gave birth to Newscorp!

It goes deeper than that though. Negativity is rife and has been about tennis for a few months now. Multiple threads about no youngsters coming through and stuff bemoaning Murray reaching the Aussie Open Final despite not being at his best and on top of that posters harping on about Federer's prowess at his age also denigrating the current period. Hardly, smacks of positivity about men's tennis just now.

This bickering could easily be stopped with a universal agreement by all tennis fans of all tennis players. That being that tennis going through periodic dips in standards or in-form tennis players be that when Federer ruled the roost or Nadal or Djokovic. On top of that those players can only beat those in front of them and in the long run of their careers everything evens itself out.

Why can't people make negative observations about the game?

Settling for mediocrity is what kills quality. Simple as that really.

I don't think people would take immediate issue with Djokovic dominating, IF there were signs that beyond that there were players who would take up the mantle. We have seen Dimitrov/Raonic/Nishikori in a kind way come through and not really kick on to be 'The New Breed' and because of that people's expectations are lower for the next 'New Breed'

People are sitting on the side of caution. Look at Kyrgios at Wimbledon in 2014. A breakout moment in his career. What has he done since? We are coming up to nearly 2 years since that result and he hasn't backed it up as such.

You see that post in itself sums up my point. It is more than negative observations. Face it - it is a view point that you are not happy with where tennis is just now. Why? Normally, those emotions emanate from dis-satisfaction with things in men's tennis as they stand. All people need to say is admit they aren't happy with standards just now just as people have said standards weren't great in the early 2000s. Fluctuations happen and that is the core point here. Sadly, people refuse to admit it happens.

Not at all. Let me ask you who was showing promise in the early 2000's? Safin/Hewitt and some bloke who's name I can't remember, oh Federer. The signs were good going forward and those players went on to become multi-slam winners. The same at the mid point in the 2000's with Nadal/Djokovic/Murray. Early signs were promising and one could agree they have fulfilled that promise.

You're happy with the state of the game, I am not (in it's entirety). Many on here for years have been looking for that early promise and potential to shine on through and it hasn't. Rather than marvel at longevity of the crop, we wanted to see something behind it to get excited about.

What tennis could end up with is a bunch of Johansson's/Cillic's winning the odd Slam with a 2 week peak Wink

Actually, you are off the mark there. I am not happy with things at the moment and don't think I have ever said I was. It isn't brain-blowing to see the dip as Murray's standard has dipped and Nadal's has as well and nobody is stepping up to fill the void. This is one of the fluctuations I speak of and as for early 2000s that was another one as can be seen by how (Federer aside) everyone else in the upper echelons fell away when Djokovic, Nadal and Murray emerged plus (as is now) you had a 30+ bloke in Agassi still one of the most competitive. What stinks to high heaven (more than either of standards now or early 2000s) is the opinions of those unwilling to accept fluctuations exist. They are here now and were present in the early 2000s - sadly some people are still in denial. And believe you me there is no need to be in denial. All any player can do when at the top is win - it is of no consequence to them that the competition may not be as it was or what it will become. In short no asterixes - a slam win is a slam win.

So...

I am not happy with the state of the game and say as much. You then poo poo that only to state yourself your not happy with the state of the game? There must be a logic I am not following here. What is the objection?

You are still missing the point. I am not concerned with fluctuations. What I am concerned with is the alarming rate in which 'emerging' talents fall away.

Well the point here is more far-reaching. Go back a number of years and it was a very sore point if people dared suggest the early 2000s had anything wrong with it and that centred around weak era usage to describe it (not one I agree with by the way I prefer fluctuations). It sent some apopleptic to suggest Federer was dominant against players at a time when standards were questioned. Now those people denied such a dip at that time and denied such a thing actually exists but now those same people are now trying to apply the same argument to the here and now despite once denying such a thing existed. That is my sole point here.

You aren't happy with the state of the game and I accept that freely and you are certainly entitled to your opinion. If I came across as OTT the other day then I apologize but back to my point here and that fluctuations in standards/state of the game happens. It has happened many times before, is happening now and will happen again. I don't see why certain people (not you) cannot agree on that simple point.
CaledonianCraig
CaledonianCraig

Posts : 17966
Join date : 2011-05-31
Age : 50
Location : Edinburgh

Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by bogbrush on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 12:11 pm

CAS wrote:If clay played the same speed as grass Sampras would have dominated all year round, it's affectively why it's happened.

You can look beyond Novak and look at players like Berdych and Ferrer who can just stay at the top longer than any other players of the past without changing their game on each surface
Exactly.

The fact that career Slams, RG/W doubles, etc have become routine bears this out.

The specialists are no more.
bogbrush
bogbrush

Posts : 11169
Join date : 2011-04-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by bogbrush on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 12:13 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:Won the debate?

This whole thing was born out of why did he win IW. The lack of competition was mentioned, bar all accounts a rather blanketed statement I know. Then we get "you said Weak Era" ner ner. So we are comparing an argument of 3 years being dismissed to 1 tournament? Economies of scale dear boy. It's sensationalised sentiments like that which gave birth to Newscorp!

It goes deeper than that though. Negativity is rife and has been about tennis for a few months now. Multiple threads about no youngsters coming through and stuff bemoaning Murray reaching the Aussie Open Final despite not being at his best and on top of that posters harping on about Federer's prowess at his age also denigrating the current period. Hardly, smacks of positivity about men's tennis just now.

This bickering could easily be stopped with a universal agreement by all tennis fans of all tennis players. That being that tennis going through periodic dips in standards or in-form tennis players be that when Federer ruled the roost or Nadal or Djokovic. On top of that those players can only beat those in front of them and in the long run of their careers everything evens itself out.
Actually my negativity is nothing at all to what posters on 606v2 say. It's about what boring fare tennis is right now.
bogbrush
bogbrush

Posts : 11169
Join date : 2011-04-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by CaledonianCraig on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 12:22 pm

bogbrush wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:Won the debate?

This whole thing was born out of why did he win IW. The lack of competition was mentioned, bar all accounts a rather blanketed statement I know. Then we get "you said Weak Era" ner ner. So we are comparing an argument of 3 years being dismissed to 1 tournament? Economies of scale dear boy. It's sensationalised sentiments like that which gave birth to Newscorp!

It goes deeper than that though. Negativity is rife and has been about tennis for a few months now. Multiple threads about no youngsters coming through and stuff bemoaning Murray reaching the Aussie Open Final despite not being at his best and on top of that posters harping on about Federer's prowess at his age also denigrating the current period. Hardly, smacks of positivity about men's tennis just now.

This bickering could easily be stopped with a universal agreement by all tennis fans of all tennis players. That being that tennis going through periodic dips in standards or in-form tennis players be that when Federer ruled the roost or Nadal or Djokovic. On top of that those players can only beat those in front of them and in the long run of their careers everything evens itself out.
Actually my negativity is nothing at all to what posters on 606v2 say. It's about what boring fare tennis is right now.

But what causes that boredom though? Standards? Styles? Quality? Or a bit of each?
CaledonianCraig
CaledonianCraig

Posts : 17966
Join date : 2011-05-31
Age : 50
Location : Edinburgh

Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by temporary21 on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 12:37 pm

Not boring to me at all... It's boring to fedal heads im sure. But it's nice to see a new top dog start chasing records again, and see some new guys make their marks

If you can get past the fact that tennis has moved on from the 1980's the quality is still pretty good

temporary21

Posts : 5092
Join date : 2014-09-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by Born Slippy on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 12:40 pm

bogbrush wrote:
Born Slippy wrote:
bogbrush wrote:
Born Slippy wrote:No it doesn't. It reflects very positively on Federer. He has managed to maintain the hunger, desire and fitness to keep himself very close to his peak level. I've shown previously that his record against younger guys he played against in his mid to late 20s is more or less identical to his combined record against them more recently. The Federer of today would, in my view, still easily be able to dominate 04-06.

That's not to say that I don't share concerns over the guys in the 22-26 age group. They clearly are a weak cohort. However, Federer of today would be at or near the top in any era - it's a bizarre stick for fans of Federer to seek to beat them with.
Really? I guess guys in the last few years who've beaten him, like Cilic, Kyriagos, Seppi, Monfils, Isner, Ramos-Vanolis, etc. are all better than the guys who Federer routinely trounced in his pomp.

Honestly, facts always come in handy in these discussions.

Yes, you are right, all of those guys have dominated him recently. Oh no, wait a second, they have one-off victories mixed in with getting routinely trounced by him. Is that dissimilar to Volandri, Gasquet, Del Potro, Canas (twice!) and Blake who got wins over him during his mid 20s?

Fed isn't quite as good now but the dip in his standard is, in my view, relatively small. That said, no way would Fed 2015 lose to Canas or Volandri. He's learnt how to deal with that sort of player.

The only defeat I think would look totally out of place in his peak years would be Seppi in a slam. However, I do suspect there was something up with him health wise in that match. It was just as much an outlier in 2014-15 as it would have been in 2004-05.
Yes, and how many 'one-off' victories did guys have over him in 2005 or 2006?

This is like hearing how he was fine & dandy in the Summer of 2008, yet lost at the Olympics to his personal bunny, James Blake.

So we have to narrow Federer's "peak" to a 2 year period? He was riding the crest of a wave at that time but, physically, it strikes me as highly unlikely that he was any more "peak" in those two years than say in 2004 and 2007.

As for the Blake loss, in the two grand slams the match was sandwiched between he lost one of the greatest finals of all time in 5 sets (to a player who he had narrowly beaten in 5 sets the year before) and then won the next one. Hardly evidence of any real physical issue.

Obviously, he didn't play at his best against Blake. However, it strikes me that he was much more likely to have been struggling slightly from the devastation of being beaten by Rafa on Centre Court rather than any physical issue. Understandably, his motivation was probably slightly down having lost the number 1 ranking and his Wimbledon title. It was to his enormous credit that he picked himself up again for the US Open.

Born Slippy

Posts : 4360
Join date : 2012-05-05

Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by Born Slippy on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 12:40 pm

temporary21 wrote:Not boring to me at all... It's boring to fedal heads im sure. But it's nice to see a new top dog start chasing records again, and see some new guys make their marks

If you can get past the fact that tennis has moved on from the 1980's the quality is still pretty good

Agree with this entirely.

Born Slippy

Posts : 4360
Join date : 2012-05-05

Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by It Must Be Love on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 1:15 pm

Guys guys, let's not talk about what's 'boring', it will raise the tension on this forum for no reason.

Instead let's focus on how people who argued for 5 years that there's nothing called fluctuation in competition and derided me and Socal 'conspiracy theorists' for saying that the it may be easier/harder to dominate in certain time periods; are now suggesting that Djokovic aside the tour is weaker as the current 23-27yo generation are not upto it.
What's going to be funnier, the hypocrisy or the literary gymnastics to try and hide it ?

It Must Be Love

Posts : 2563
Join date : 2013-08-14

Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by Guest on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 1:19 pm

Why is Djokovic so dominant?
1) He is the GOAT, the greatest of all time.
2) He is the greatest tennis player at the moment.
3) It's a weak era.
4) He is the most consistent player at the moment.
5) He is the player best able to cope with predictable court conditions.
6) He is the player whose game is best suited for medium to slow court conditions.
7) He has the greatest mental strength.
8) He takes a holistic approach to tennis.
9) All of the above.
10) None of the above.
11) Some of the above.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by temporary21 on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 1:23 pm

I pick choices 1-11 at the same time

temporary21

Posts : 5092
Join date : 2014-09-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by It Must Be Love on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 1:25 pm

bogbrush wrote:Emancipator is quite right; Federer is almost eligible for the Seniors tour and remains the only player who seems able to compete with the #1; he beats him more than anyone else and takes sets off him at Slam finals. That a near-Senior occupies this position reflects very poorly on the rest of the tour.

emancipator wrote:The Raonic, Dimitrov generation is the worst since the late nineties (and much worse than that generation too). The next generation after that are too young to make an impact (or perhaps not good enough - since history shows that great players almost always make an early impact - we shall see) leaving the way clear for Djokovic to sweep up. The fact that Djokovic's main competition for the last 2 years has been an old Federer - who himself is still beating everyone else handily - is testament to the sad state of competition.

legendkiller wrote:Settling for mediocrity is what kills quality. Simple as that really.

I don't think people would take immediate issue with Djokovic dominating, IF there were signs that beyond that there were players who would take up the mantle. We have seen Dimitrov/Raonic/Nishikori in a kind way come through and not really kick on to be 'The New Breed' and because of that people's expectations are lower for the next 'New Breed'

It Must Be Love

Posts : 2563
Join date : 2013-08-14

Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by Guest on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 1:28 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:Guys guys, let's not talk about what's 'boring', it will raise the tension on this forum for no reason.

Instead let's focus on how people who argued for 5 years that there's nothing called fluctuation in competition and derided me and Socal 'conspiracy theorists' for saying that the it may be easier/harder to dominate in certain time periods; are now suggesting that Djokovic aside the tour is weaker as the current 23-27yo generation are not upto it.
What's going to be funnier, the hypocrisy or the literary gymnastics to try and hide it ?

How about....

Defining what the causes are in this 'fluctuation' you speak of?

How is it measured against past years?
What the key drivers and factors are?
How is it quantified?

Then if you can actually provide something that addresses all that, I might join Jahu in the queue for your coronation of forum handjobs.

Importantly take note of what was documented on the ill-fated GOAT debate, because the points made there actually bear a lot of relevance to why people do not support it.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by It Must Be Love on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 1:37 pm

legendkillarV2 wrote:

How about....

Defining what the causes are in this 'fluctuation' you speak of?
Or maybe ask that to Bogbrush, emancipator... oh no wait I forgot it's only asked to people who've argued this for years- people who suddenly decided it's correct now Djokovic is dominating don't have to answer. I'll do so now below anyway, but note the irony.

legendkiller wrote:How is it measured against past years?
What the key drivers and factors are?
How is it quantified?
How is it measured/quantified ?- Well how can we tell for example that Federer is worse now than he was 7 years ago ? How can we tell our current generation of 23-27yo are worse than generation older than them ? You can base it on some stats and observations. For example our 23-27yo generation are meant to be at their prime, but none are in top 5.

Key drivers and factors?- Many, but I can name one big one: how frequently 'superstars' are born is basically down to luck, isn't it ? The universe may send us two all time greats on the same day, but then none for another 5 years.
Another factor is injury- if many top players get injured then the competition becomes easier. Del Potro for example.

legendkiller wrote:Then if you can actually provide something that addresses all that, I might join Jahu in the queue for your coronation of forum handjobs.
Bring your tent and sleeping bag, this is a Wimbledon style queue.

It Must Be Love

Posts : 2563
Join date : 2013-08-14

Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by HM Murdock on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 2:10 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:how frequently 'superstars' are born is basically down to luck, isn't it ? The universe may send us two all time greats on the same day, but then none for another 5 years.
This is the biggest flaw in your approach.

Players become 'superstars' by winning slams. If two players come along at the same time, they win fewer slams.

If Boris Becker didn't exist, Ivan Lendl could have had 11 slams, including the career slam.

Is Lendl a worse player because Becker existed?

If Federer didn't exist, Andy Roddick could have 5 slams, 7 Masters and a load of weeks at #1.

But because Federer exists, Roddick is a one slam wonder.

HM Murdock

Posts : 4749
Join date : 2011-06-10

Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by It Must Be Love on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 2:33 pm

HM Murdock wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:how frequently 'superstars' are born is basically down to luck, isn't it ? The universe may send us two all time greats on the same day, but then none for another 5 years.
This is the biggest flaw in your approach.

Players become 'superstars' by winning slams. If two players come along at the same time, they win fewer slams.

If Boris Becker didn't exist, Ivan Lendl could have had 11 slams, including the career slam.

Is Lendl a worse player because Becker existed?

If Federer didn't exist, Andy Roddick could have 5 slams, 7 Masters and a load of weeks at #1.

But because Federer exists, Roddick is a one slam wonder.
!!
I've always argued that HM. In fact I remember making pretty much the exact same point a while ago.
If not for Federer, Baghdatis and Gonzalez would have been Grand Slam Champions! Ljubicic would have probably got to world number 1. Roddick, as you say would have won many more Slams.
And if not for Djokovic, Federer now would be winning Slams! Who's to say Federer's declined?! Maybe he's got better and is just being brutally stopped because Djokovic has taken tennis to such levels that even peak Federer can't deal with it.
Like any debate, people will have a mixture of stats and observations. I can't prove our 23-27 year old generation are not great. Maybe the age where people are in their prime in tennis has changed to 28-32, and it's just natural. Or, you can believe as I do, that Raonic/Dimi generation are just not as good as their older peers.

Also one other thing HM, you point out what you think is a flaw in my approach, despite the fact I've made the same critique probably verbatim in the past; but you're 'silent, no comment' on what has to be one of the biggest most obvious hypocritical U-turns I've ever seen with people who have vehemently to the point of fury argued that Socal and me are delusional for even considering the level of the tour, suddenly now using that logic as soon as Djokovic is number 1 !

It Must Be Love

Posts : 2563
Join date : 2013-08-14

Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by CaledonianCraig on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 2:53 pm

Fluctuations happen, The fact that the here and now is being tagged in various ways is evidence in itself. How you quantify it is all about opinion but sticking your head in the sand doesn't make it go away. And fluctuations have been going on from the dawn of tennis and will continue ad infinitum.
CaledonianCraig
CaledonianCraig

Posts : 17966
Join date : 2011-05-31
Age : 50
Location : Edinburgh

Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by hawkeye on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 3:09 pm

Born Slippy wrote:
hawkeye wrote:Imagine tennis was a sport such as the long jump were competitors were measured against each other and although the one that jumped the longest on the day came away with the gold medal or equivalent there was also a measure of how well they performed. Again taking the long jump as an example were the world record is 8.95m imagine there were only 2 players (Roger and Rafa) capable of jumping over say 8.9m so if both were in the competition chances are one of them would produce a good enough jump to win. Apart from Novak with a personal best of say 8.5m no other player was capable of jumping over 8m so Novak was always close and always had a good chance of picking up a win if there were no jumps over 8.5m.

But now Roger is old and hasn't jumped over 8m in years and Rafa has had poor form and hasn't jumped over 8m in the last year or so and neither has any other player. Jumps of over 8m are rare...  Novak is still consistently putting in jumps over 8m and that's all that is needed to win. But he has still never jumped over 8.5m. Indeed his personal best over the last couple of years has dropped to 8.3m perhaps because of age but perhaps because he hasn't been challenged. It is worth noting that some of Novak's 8.3m jumps have looked longer than they really are but this is an optical illusion caused by the times when the competition have barely passed the 7m mark Wink

Or maybe it's like the 100m? In 2005 23 year old Justin Gatlin won the World Champs in 9.88 by, at the time the widest ever margin. In 2015, 33 year old Gatlin came 2nd in the final despite running 9.80. If there was no clock, I'm sure there would be people arguing he was past his peak and would have thrashed Bolt in 2005.

How "fast" do you reckon Kei, Raonic and Murray were "running" recently? Looked quite slow to me and I reckon I have seen them "run faster" in the past despite their personal bests never being anywhere close to the world records set by Rafa and Roger. Djokovic is not Bolt because he has been running for years but it's only now when he doesn't have to run close to world record times that he is winning. If Bolt had a similar couple of years to Rafa and Blake or Gay won everything by putting in their usual times then Bolt would of course still be the fastest.

hawkeye

Posts : 5425
Join date : 2011-06-12

Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by HM Murdock on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 4:10 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:you're 'silent, no comment' on what has to be one of the biggest most obvious hypocritical U-turns I've ever seen with people who have vehemently to the point of fury argued that Socal and me are delusional for even considering the level of the tour, suddenly now using that logic as soon as Djokovic is number 1 !
A ridiculous comment. I've not made a U turn. I've always thought the standard of opposition can vary and I still do.

The reason I'm not fixated on this mundane fact in the same way that you are, is that I'm not obsessed with trying to prove that one player is better than another.

And even I were, I wouldn't do it in this intellectually illiterate way. Look at the premise your argument is built on:

"A lower quality of opponent indicates a lower quality of winner"

This statement is not logical. The opposite is sensible - a higher quality opponent is a good indication of a higher quality of winner - but a weaker opponent does not indicate anything about the winner. It's like saying the person who came top of a class whose average grade was B must have got a better score than the person who came top of a class whose average grade was C.

It's a total non sequitur but it is exactly what drives this assessment of era strength - the idea that the level of play that won X slams in one era would not have won X slams in another era.

I don't know why you can't see this.

HM Murdock

Posts : 4749
Join date : 2011-06-10

Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by It Must Be Love on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 4:22 pm

HM Murdock wrote:
A ridiculous comment. I've not made a U turn. I've always thought the standard of opposition can vary and I still do.
I know ! I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about those who have- read what I said again. You've been consistent on this issue (agreeing with me and Socal mostly), it's those who were apoplectic with the idea who are now embracing it with Djokovic at the helm that I'm calling out.


HM Murdoch wrote:And even I were, I wouldn't do it in this intellectually illiterate way. Look at the premise your argument is built on:

"A lower quality of opponent indicates a lower quality of winner"
I'm afraid I've never said such a thing. Djokovic is playing world class tennis right now, my point would be that it's easier for him now to rack up many Slam titles than in the past. He's such a great player he'd be in contention for every tournament he entered anyway, but harder competition would make it less likely that he'll be hoarding up Slams for the next few years. Socal is a Djokovic fan and saying the same thing.

HM Murdoch wrote:
It's a total non sequitur but it is exactly what drives this assessment of era strength - the idea that the level of play that won X slams in one era would not have won X slams in another era.
I actually try and avoid giving exact numbers, as I recognise it's a qualitative rather than quantitative discussion and it's almost silly to say we can be precise. But- you yourself said a few days ago that if the Big 3's peak all coincided- you thought there wouldn't be much to separate their stats in those peak years.

It Must Be Love

Posts : 2563
Join date : 2013-08-14

Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by bogbrush on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 4:29 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:
bogbrush wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:Won the debate?

This whole thing was born out of why did he win IW. The lack of competition was mentioned, bar all accounts a rather blanketed statement I know. Then we get "you said Weak Era" ner ner. So we are comparing an argument of 3 years being dismissed to 1 tournament? Economies of scale dear boy. It's sensationalised sentiments like that which gave birth to Newscorp!

It goes deeper than that though. Negativity is rife and has been about tennis for a few months now. Multiple threads about no youngsters coming through and stuff bemoaning Murray reaching the Aussie Open Final despite not being at his best and on top of that posters harping on about Federer's prowess at his age also denigrating the current period. Hardly, smacks of positivity about men's tennis just now.

This bickering could easily be stopped with a universal agreement by all tennis fans of all tennis players. That being that tennis going through periodic dips in standards or in-form tennis players be that when Federer ruled the roost or Nadal or Djokovic. On top of that those players can only beat those in front of them and in the long run of their careers everything evens itself out.
Actually my negativity is nothing at all to what posters on 606v2 say. It's about what boring fare tennis is right now.

But what causes that boredom though? Standards? Styles? Quality? Or a bit of each?
Boringness.

What I've gone on about for a few years; endless idebtikit rallies and homogenised surfaces and no new players.
bogbrush
bogbrush

Posts : 11169
Join date : 2011-04-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by bogbrush on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 4:32 pm

temporary21 wrote:Not boring to me at all... It's boring to fedal heads im sure. But it's nice to see a new top dog start chasing records again, and see some new guys make their marks

If you can get past the fact that tennis has moved on from the 1980's the quality is still pretty good
Quite the opposite. You may see everything from the perspective of a fedal head but I'm looking longer term.

Apart from a few recent glimmers I'm bored with the sane names, the same boring style (and lack of variety).
bogbrush
bogbrush

Posts : 11169
Join date : 2011-04-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by bogbrush on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 4:35 pm

Born Slippy wrote:
As for the Blake loss, in the two grand slams the match was sandwiched between he lost one of the greatest finals of all time in 5 sets (to a player who he had narrowly beaten in 5 sets the year before) and then won the next one. Hardly evidence of any real physical issue.

Obviously, he didn't play at his best against Blake. However, it strikes me that he was much more likely to have been struggling slightly from the devastation of being beaten by Rafa on Centre Court rather than any physical issue. Understandably, his motivation was probably slightly down having lost the number 1 ranking and his Wimbledon title. It was to his enormous credit that he picked himself up again for the US Open.  
This doesn't even have the virtue of being logical.

What kind of mental pygmy do you think he is? He's so sad he loses to someone he can beat in his sleep in an event he wanted to win for his country?
bogbrush
bogbrush

Posts : 11169
Join date : 2011-04-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by CaledonianCraig on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 4:44 pm

bogbrush wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:
bogbrush wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:Won the debate?

This whole thing was born out of why did he win IW. The lack of competition was mentioned, bar all accounts a rather blanketed statement I know. Then we get "you said Weak Era" ner ner. So we are comparing an argument of 3 years being dismissed to 1 tournament? Economies of scale dear boy. It's sensationalised sentiments like that which gave birth to Newscorp!

It goes deeper than that though. Negativity is rife and has been about tennis for a few months now. Multiple threads about no youngsters coming through and stuff bemoaning Murray reaching the Aussie Open Final despite not being at his best and on top of that posters harping on about Federer's prowess at his age also denigrating the current period. Hardly, smacks of positivity about men's tennis just now.

This bickering could easily be stopped with a universal agreement by all tennis fans of all tennis players. That being that tennis going through periodic dips in standards or in-form tennis players be that when Federer ruled the roost or Nadal or Djokovic. On top of that those players can only beat those in front of them and in the long run of their careers everything evens itself out.
Actually my negativity is nothing at all to what posters on 606v2 say. It's about what boring fare tennis is right now.

But what causes that boredom though? Standards? Styles? Quality? Or a bit of each?
Boringness.

What I've gone on about for a few years; endless idebtikit rallies and homogenised surfaces and no new players.

So how long have you suffered from this boredom? Just curious as homogenisation has been around now for about 10 years or more? And I take it you suffered these same pangs of boredom for rally lengths in the serve dominated era as well?
CaledonianCraig
CaledonianCraig

Posts : 17966
Join date : 2011-05-31
Age : 50
Location : Edinburgh

Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by HM Murdock on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 4:48 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:
HM Murdoch wrote:
It's a total non sequitur but it is exactly what drives this assessment of era strength - the idea that the level of play that won X slams in one era would not have won X slams in another era.
I actually try and avoid giving exact numbers, as I recognise it's a qualitative rather than quantitative discussion and it's almost silly to say we can be precise. But- you yourself said a few days ago that if the Big 3's peak all coincided- you thought there wouldn't be much to separate their stats in those peak years.
But the logical flaw still persists.

You are assessing the quality of Federer by looking at the quality of his opponents.

If he beats Djokovic, one can safely conclude his level of play would also beat Mrs Miggins of Acacia Avenue.

If he beats Mrs Miggins of Acacia Avenue, that gives us no indication as to whether his level would beat Djokovic.

HM Murdock

Posts : 4749
Join date : 2011-06-10

Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by It Must Be Love on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 4:51 pm

HM Murdock wrote:You are assessing the quality of Federer by looking at the quality of his opponents.
Look at what me and Socal are saying now- neither of us are arguing Djokovic has got worse because his competition has. It's just easier for him to wrack up a higher percentage of the big tournaments than previously.

HM Murdock wrote:
If he beats Djokovic, one can safely conclude his level of play would also beat Mrs Miggins of Acacia Avenue.

If he beats Mrs Miggins of Acacia Avenue, that gives us no indication as to whether his level would beat Djokovic.
Correct !

It Must Be Love

Posts : 2563
Join date : 2013-08-14

Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by temporary21 on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 4:54 pm

Sounds to me like you dont watch very much tennis at all. New guys HAVE come in and we are getting some excelent matches. Youre telling me that Wawrinka Djokovic Fo, or the Wimbledon final or Zverez v Nadal was boring? No new guys in any of that? just all long rallies?

You dont like watching the car crash tennis that is Nick Kyrgios either?

B*ollocks. Put simply, tennis has moved on from 30 years ago, and for the better. Perhaps your waining interest is directly related to Rogers waning fortunes too, in which case maybe this isnt the sport for you any longer

temporary21

Posts : 5092
Join date : 2014-09-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by HM Murdock on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 5:06 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:
HM Murdock wrote:You are assessing the quality of Federer by looking at the quality of his opponents.
Look at what me and Socal are saying now- neither of us are arguing Djokovic has got worse because his competition has. It's just easier for him to wrack up a higher percentage of the big tournaments than previously.

HM Murdock wrote:
If he beats Djokovic, one can safely conclude his level of play would also beat Mrs Miggins of Acacia Avenue.

If he beats Mrs Miggins of Acacia Avenue, that gives us no indication as to whether his level would beat Djokovic.
Correct !
I'm not talking about Djokovic. The whole trend of assessing eras came about in the context of Federer in his prime.

The fact that the likes of Roddick were not as good as Rafa and Novak tells us nothing about Federer's level when he played Roddick.

So what do you think we learn by declaring one set of opponents to be weaker?

HM Murdock

Posts : 4749
Join date : 2011-06-10

Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by It Must Be Love on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 5:15 pm

HM Murdock wrote:
I'm not talking about Djokovic. The whole trend of assessing eras came about in the context of Federer in his prime.

The fact that the likes of Roddick were not as good as Rafa and Novak tells us nothing about Federer's level when he played Roddick.

So what do you think we learn by declaring one set of opponents to be weaker?

I'm not going to go into the Federer mid-naughties debate as we've had it too many times. I didn't try to raise that, I was simply pointing out how people always claimed to believe one thing, then sneakily changed their opinion when Djokovic was number 1, now doing logical and literary gymnastics that olympians would be proud of to avoid admitting it.
The point you made are valid, I'd just add the same logic applies to Federer as does to Djokovic.
I can't give a blanket answer in terms of what precisely it tells us, as you'd have to look at each case on a separate basis and make a judgement with stats, evidence, as well as observation. If a player just faced players like Roddick in Grand Slam finals, then it would be harder to make a judgement. If he faced both Roddick and other better players, it gives us more info to put each win into context. I don't want to have the same debate that we've had many times before, so that's as much as I'll say.

It Must Be Love

Posts : 2563
Join date : 2013-08-14

Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by socal1976 on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 5:22 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:Guys guys, let's not talk about what's 'boring', it will raise the tension on this forum for no reason.

Instead let's focus on how people who argued for 5 years that there's nothing called fluctuation in competition and derided me and Socal 'conspiracy theorists' for saying that the it may be easier/harder to dominate in certain time periods; are now suggesting that Djokovic aside the tour is weaker as the current 23-27yo generation are not upto it.
What's going to be funnier, the hypocrisy or the literary gymnastics to try and hide it ?

Its funny how irrelevant the competition was when Federer was beating Baggy and Gonzo in slam finals and romping over everyone with a handful of losses all year. Now all of sudden Djokovic's dominance is down to his lack of competition, or at least it is one of the reasons given. Wait a minute up until 2015 competition levels were irrelevant I thought and we could only go by objective criteria. We don't hear a certain individual making the famous there are 4 slams every year so the competition is the same and any fluctuation isn't worth talking about if it even exists. Like I said this is the most dramatic 180 since Kaitlynn Jenner.

I like you am extremely bemused, we should have a victory party replete with ticker tape and sailor's kissing strange women on the street. Seriously, nothing like the potentiality of a Novak slam to make Federer fans true believers of the existence of fluctuations "lol!"

socal1976

Posts : 14212
Join date : 2011-03-18
Location : southern california

Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by socal1976 on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 5:28 pm

temporary21 wrote:Sounds to me like you dont watch very much tennis at all. New guys HAVE come in and we are getting some excelent matches. Youre telling me that Wawrinka Djokovic Fo, or the Wimbledon final or Zverez v Nadal was boring? No new guys in any of that? just all long rallies?

You dont like watching the car crash tennis that is Nick Kyrgios either?

B*ollocks. Put simply, tennis has moved on from 30 years ago, and for the better. Perhaps your waining interest is directly related to Rogers waning fortunes too, in which case maybe this isnt the sport for you any longer

I hate to say it but you nailed it. I said this a long time ago, and I know I can be tough on Fed fans. Many of them are knowledgeable, great people, and are actual tennis fans. Federer fans though are not necessarily tennis fans, they are first and foremost Fed fans. When feds stops many will stop being fans of the game, some who have been turned on will remain; but Fed fans don't necessarily like tennis that much when Roger isn't winning and playing. When Novak leaves I will have a new favorite, just like I did with Agassi, Becker, Connors etc. There is a certain percentage of fed fans that are tennis fans like someone who only watches Barca is a football fan. Nothing wrong with it, I am not an elitist. I watch and follow many activities only in passing or only to follow a certain team or star.

socal1976

Posts : 14212
Join date : 2011-03-18
Location : southern california

Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by bogbrush on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 6:07 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:
bogbrush wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:
bogbrush wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:Won the debate?

This whole thing was born out of why did he win IW. The lack of competition was mentioned, bar all accounts a rather blanketed statement I know. Then we get "you said Weak Era" ner ner. So we are comparing an argument of 3 years being dismissed to 1 tournament? Economies of scale dear boy. It's sensationalised sentiments like that which gave birth to Newscorp!

It goes deeper than that though. Negativity is rife and has been about tennis for a few months now. Multiple threads about no youngsters coming through and stuff bemoaning Murray reaching the Aussie Open Final despite not being at his best and on top of that posters harping on about Federer's prowess at his age also denigrating the current period. Hardly, smacks of positivity about men's tennis just now.

This bickering could easily be stopped with a universal agreement by all tennis fans of all tennis players. That being that tennis going through periodic dips in standards or in-form tennis players be that when Federer ruled the roost or Nadal or Djokovic. On top of that those players can only beat those in front of them and in the long run of their careers everything evens itself out.
Actually my negativity is nothing at all to what posters on 606v2 say. It's about what boring fare tennis is right now.

But what causes that boredom though? Standards? Styles? Quality? Or a bit of each?
Boringness.

What I've gone on about for a few years; endless idebtikit rallies and homogenised surfaces and no new players.

So how long have you suffered from this boredom? Just curious as homogenisation has been around now for about 10 years or more? And I take it you suffered these same pangs of boredom for rally lengths in the serve dominated era as well?
I must have said 100 times that the sport was boring me to death until Federer came along and rejuvenated it. Along with McEnroe, he is the player who took what can be a very boring sport to watch (but not play) and made it fascinating to watch for me. I mostly find tennis pretty bad spectating, at least on TV. I loved playing it, but often find watching it terribly repetitive.

It's the same with most sport for me. I can only handle football in tiny doses.

I think part of the problem many posters have with understanding my position is that I support Federer not because of who he is but because of what he gives me. I can easily see why that makes it tough for you to get me, because your primary reason to support Murray is nationality.
bogbrush
bogbrush

Posts : 11169
Join date : 2011-04-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by bogbrush on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 6:14 pm

temporary21 wrote:Sounds to me like you dont watch very much tennis at all. New guys HAVE come in and we are getting some excelent matches. Youre telling me that Wawrinka Djokovic Fo, or the Wimbledon final or Zverez v Nadal was boring? No new guys in any of that? just all long rallies?

You dont like watching the car crash tennis that is Nick Kyrgios either?

B*ollocks. Put simply, tennis has moved on from 30 years ago, and for the better. Perhaps your waining interest is directly related to Rogers waning fortunes too, in which case maybe this isnt the sport for you any longer
Yeah, you can sometimes find a good match, and if you look hard enough there's a few shoots of newness, but on the whole tennis is about repetition. With most players, you see a few rallies, you've seen them all.

Perhaps your interest is in trying to find a new friend? I mean, if we're going to tell each other why we say what we do that's as good as any other idea.

By the way, it's a big improvement on the awful thought policing though!
bogbrush
bogbrush

Posts : 11169
Join date : 2011-04-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by Guest on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 6:28 pm

Hello

Very Happy

Some interesting debate.

Some of these charges of hypocrisy because some observers didn't declare a particular era to be a 'weak era' but are now voicing their reservations about the strength of the competition at the top, are quite frankly cringeworthy and show a distinct lack of ability to understand the nuances of a discussion.

Not declaring an era as 'weak' is not tantamount to denying the existence of variation in competition. That's called building straw men. Then loudly 'calling out' people based on those straw men is a little disingenuous if intentioned (which in some cases it certainly is because certain posters only exist to 'win' the debate at all costs) and careless at the very least, if not (not reading properly or fully attempting to understand the points being made).

It is a given that competition varies over time. That's like saying the weather changes over time. No one would or has denied this. What was previously debated was the dismissal of an entire generation of players as 'weak' by some simply because it suited their agenda and then the deliberately evocative usage of language to label players of that generation in such pejorative terms that any meaningful discussion became pointless.

So just to make the point crystal clear. Anyone who opposes the labelling of a whole generation of players as a 'weak era', a 'rollover' generation, 'sissies' etc, etc, is not suddenly denying the blindingly obvious reality that competition can vary.

Djokovic has now had almost two years of the worst competition that I can remember (from at least the middle of 2014). Do they constitute a 'weak era' or a bunch of 'sissies'? No; they're still elite tennis players and he (Novak) deserves credit for his amazing results - but certainly it is a factor in assessing this almost unprecedented stretch of domination.

I agree very much with CAS too, the conditions do favour him and the fact that at least two generations of players have come through who only know how to play one way, from the baseline, with vary little variation, does make it easier to dominate. I think Federer also benefitted hugely from this, in comparison to say, Sampras, but in Federer's early years of domination there was a greater degree of variation in the prevailing conditions and this was reflected in the presence, yet, of surface specialists and different styles of play.

As Jimmy Connors put it: "In an era of specialists, you're either a clay court specialist, a grass court specialist, or a hard court specialist...or you're Roger Federer."

ghost

emancipator

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by Guest on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 6:35 pm

As for the almost desperate attempt to stifle debate by simply declaring Djokovic as the 'best player I've ever seen' and therefore you all better accept it too - well, thanks for that, but we're quite capable of making up our own minds.

Nevertheless, I agree with BB, it's a slight improvement on the thought policing Very Happy

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by Haddie-nuff on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 6:40 pm

I must have said 100 times that the sport was boring me to death until Federer came along and rejuvenated it. Along with McEnroe, he is the player who took what can be a very boring sport to watch (but not play) and made it fascinating to watch for me. I mostly find tennis pretty bad spectating, at least on TV. I loved playing it, but often find watching it terribly repetitive.


So why can you not appreciate that is how some of us felt when Rafa came along.. who previously were fans of Bjorg and the game was being dominated by Sampras who bored the pants of me and many like me.

Different strokes for different folks Rolling Eyes

Haddie-nuff

Posts : 6902
Join date : 2011-02-27
Location : Returned to Spain

Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by temporary21 on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 6:42 pm

Still does not explain the anger such a suggestion garners about 2004-2006, but is apparently a ok now.

Change the word Djokovic to Fedrerer and 2014 to 2004. It is the EXACT same situation and makes the exact same sense.

Socals called it here im afraid, he is admittedly beating the dead horse to mush, but hes bang on the money

This surface homogeny is another cop out, pulled out from the usual bag of tricks. Do I have to remind you of who Novak beat the last two Wimbledons? A man who doesnt get near the RG final anymore.

Like Roger. Surfaces look the same because Novak makes them look the same by how well he adapts, not because they actually are. Do we have to dredge up the fact that Federer won all his wimbledons on the changed grass too?

Again its ALL about the player, this essentially amounts to a tangent of the GOAT cr@p, looking to degrade players they hate for no good reason. By all means keep going, debate is nice, but dont expect us to take any of you seriously.

temporary21

Posts : 5092
Join date : 2014-09-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by It Must Be Love on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 6:47 pm

Not so fast...

emancipator wrote:Some of these charges of hypocrisy because some observers didn't declare a particular era to be a 'weak era' but are now voicing their reservations about the strength of the competition at the top, are quite frankly cringeworthy and show a distinct lack of ability to understand the nuances of a discussion.
Nope, the debate was mainly about fluctuation, and I didn't like the term 'weak era' as it was too absolute.
http://www.606v2.com/t58467p300-do-things-necessarily-need-to-be-competitive-at-the-top
That's just one thread I plucked out, but frankly there are many like these so it's not hard to find, but there's not even a mention of the word 'weak era'.
People were saying how competition doesn't fluctuate, or that if it does it's only in the very short term and not medium term, or that it does but we can't say precisely how so it can't possibly be relevant in a discussion... etc. If you want I can simply post the quotes from that thread

emancipator wrote:Djokovic has now had almost two years of the worst competition that I can remember (from at least the middle of 2014). Do they constitute a 'weak era' or a bunch of 'sissies'? No; they're still elite tennis players and he (Novak) deserves credit for his amazing results - but certainly it is a factor in assessing this almost unprecedented stretch of domination.
'worst competition that I can remember'
'no, not a weak era, they're still elite tennis players'
This is first case language gymnastics. Even those who used the term weak era (not me) were obviously meaning it in a relative term to other professionals, it's not like anyone on the forum claimed to be able to beat Ljubicic.
The idea 'worst competition that I can remember' is somehow massively distinct from what people were implying when they said 'weak era' is hilarious.

It Must Be Love

Posts : 2563
Join date : 2013-08-14

Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by temporary21 on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 6:51 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:Not so fast...

emancipator wrote:Some of these charges of hypocrisy because some observers didn't declare a particular era to be a 'weak era' but are now voicing their reservations about the strength of the competition at the top, are quite frankly cringeworthy and show a distinct lack of ability to understand the nuances of a discussion.
Nope, the debate was mainly about fluctuation, and I didn't like the term 'weak era' as it was too absolute.
http://www.606v2.com/t58467p300-do-things-necessarily-need-to-be-competitive-at-the-top
That's just one thread I plucked out, but frankly there are many like these so it's not hard to find, but there's not even a mention of the word 'weak era'.
People were saying how competition doesn't fluctuate, or that if it does it's only in the very short term and not medium term, or that it does but we can't say precisely how so it can't possibly be relevant in a discussion... etc. If you want I can simply post the quotes from that thread

emancipator wrote:Djokovic has now had almost two years of the worst competition that I can remember (from at least the middle of 2014). Do they constitute a 'weak era' or a bunch of 'sissies'? No; they're still elite tennis players and he (Novak) deserves credit for his amazing results - but certainly it is a factor in assessing this almost unprecedented stretch of domination.
'worst competition that I can remember'
'no, not a weak era, they're still elite tennis players'
This is first case language gymnastics. Even those who used the term weak era (not me) were obviously meaning it in a relative term to other professionals, it's not like anyone on the forum claimed to be able to beat Ljubicic.
The idea 'worst competition that I can remember' is somehow massively distinct from what people were implying when they said 'weak era' is hilarious.
This a billion times; the competition is weak, so we can slag off Novak, but this is NO way has a parallel with similar discussions Feds competition has had for years, youre not allowed to do that without getting big words like strawman... for some reason we all know.

This is ridiculously transparent, ill leave you all to it I think, but dont start breaking the house rules, those STILL apply.

temporary21

Posts : 5092
Join date : 2014-09-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by Guest on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 7:04 pm

I've already explained the difference in terminology.

When you declare something to be a 'weak era' or 'rollover' generation etc, it's an attempt to completely discredit the accomplishments of a player.

There's a distinct difference between that and stating clearly that player X has fantastic achievements but there is a context to those achievements, and that is that he has been assisted by the lack of emergence of any great players over the last decade.

Or do you disagree with that statement?

Djokovic won the grand total of 2 slams from the start of 2012 until the summer of 2014. In the subsequent 18 months he's won 5 slams. Coincidentally in that same period Nadal went lame and Federer was on the road back from injury but obviously getting older.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by Guest on Thu 07 Apr 2016, 7:05 pm

temporary21 wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:Not so fast...

emancipator wrote:Some of these charges of hypocrisy because some observers didn't declare a particular era to be a 'weak era' but are now voicing their reservations about the strength of the competition at the top, are quite frankly cringeworthy and show a distinct lack of ability to understand the nuances of a discussion.
Nope, the debate was mainly about fluctuation, and I didn't like the term 'weak era' as it was too absolute.
http://www.606v2.com/t58467p300-do-things-necessarily-need-to-be-competitive-at-the-top
That's just one thread I plucked out, but frankly there are many like these so it's not hard to find, but there's not even a mention of the word 'weak era'.
People were saying how competition doesn't fluctuate, or that if it does it's only in the very short term and not medium term, or that it does but we can't say precisely how so it can't possibly be relevant in a discussion... etc. If you want I can simply post the quotes from that thread

emancipator wrote:Djokovic has now had almost two years of the worst competition that I can remember (from at least the middle of 2014). Do they constitute a 'weak era' or a bunch of 'sissies'? No; they're still elite tennis players and he (Novak) deserves credit for his amazing results - but certainly it is a factor in assessing this almost unprecedented stretch of domination.
'worst competition that I can remember'
'no, not a weak era, they're still elite tennis players'
This is first case language gymnastics. Even those who used the term weak era (not me) were obviously meaning it in a relative term to other professionals, it's not like anyone on the forum claimed to be able to beat Ljubicic.
The idea 'worst competition that I can remember' is somehow massively distinct from what people were implying when they said 'weak era' is hilarious.
This a billion times; the competition is weak, so we can slag off Novak, but this is NO way has a parallel with similar discussions Feds competition has had for years, youre not allowed to do that without getting big words like strawman... for some reason we all know.

This is ridiculously transparent, ill leave you all to it I think, but dont start breaking the house rules, those STILL apply.

Take a deep breath.. it's just a discussion

No one died Very Happy

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why is Djokovic so dominant?

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 6 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum