Why is Djokovic so dominant?

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.



emancipator

are you sure !!??

emancipator wrote:
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.

But read my reply to you Eman, I even gave a link to a thread where that phrase 'weak era' was never mentioned ! We were literally debating whether fluctuations in competition were a thing, and if they were whether it was a legitimate topic to be debated. I didn't use the term, and have explained why I didn't like it.
And people who did use it were obviously not using it in a absolute sense, this is just getting silly. If people said 'weak era... I could beat Baghdatis' then what you're saying would make sense. Otherwise you're just purposefully misinterpreting it, its just a dodge.  
You said: 'worst competition that I can remember' (about recent 2 years)... are you going to really pretend that it's hugely different to what Socal was saying about the mid-naughties ? If not anything you're being harsher.

You DO realise that calling someones competition weaker, is STILL trying to diminish their acheivements right?
You dont get a free pass because you didnt use two specific words, but described exactly what they meant anyway.
Theres no clever word to describe that, its just "stupid."

This was already dealt with in a previous thread. Perhaps go read that instead of bringing up stuff everyone has already come to terms with

temporary21 wrote:
Theres no clever word to describe that, its just "stupid."

Don't use words like that, it could break the house rules, careful !

emancipator wrote: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.

First off lets address the obvious cop out of claiming that "weak era" is somehow inaccurate or denigrating. I mean by its nature it is a criticism of competition level. Even at my most vociferous, I took pains, pains to point out that dominating the tour at any time is not a mean feat and all these guys even the rollover boys are super talented tennis players. But they are not all time greats, and what you state yourself in this post is that Djokovic won 5 slams once Nadal went lame and fed got older. Ok, that is fine, no one actually debates that it is a factor. The very analysis you make is valid for adding context to various storylines in the sport. And you are using SAME EXACT ARGUMENT THAT I MADE AND WAS DERIDED FOR THAT HAVING CONTEMPORARY GRAND SLAM LEVEL GREATS IS WHAT DETERMINES THE STRENGTH OF COMPETITION.

However here is where the rife and blatant hypocrisy comes in. This type of relativity discussion regarding Federer's obviously weaker competition levels in his heyday was not tolerated by any of his fans ever. No Fed's competition was either as strong as any, or their weakness was unquantifiable and not worthy for discussion. And if you did criticize the obviously sad state of his fast court competition in his heyday you were derided as insane. I thoroughly agree your last line that I put in bold is worthy of discussion to put things into context. But that was the very thing that you guys fought to death if Federer's competition was questioned. So you are smart enough to get it, don't spend a decade denying the existence of: and call it what you like; fluctuations in competition, or relatively weaker periods, or transitional or whatever; and then pretend you had the same standard for Fed's competition. The criticism you guys brook at Djokovic's competition, regardless of using those 2 little words that shall not be spoken, is precisely the criticism that none of you would tolerate when leveled at Fed's fast court competition.

temporary21 wrote:You DO realise that calling someones competition weaker, is STILL trying to diminish their acheivements right?
You dont get a free pass because you didnt use two specific words, but described exactly what they meant anyway.
Theres no clever word to describe that, its just "stupid."

This was already dealt with in a previous thread. Perhaps go read that instead of bringing up stuff everyone has already come to terms with

Bingo. Not just that they use the exact same logic and arguments. IMBL and I would discuss how few titles, masters, and slams Fed's fast court opponents won even when compared to other players and not to Federer. Our point was that facing great players of multiple slam winning capacity at the working end of tournaments is what makes an era tough. Here right before our eyes Emanci uses the exact same argument how Novak went from winning two slams from 2012-14 to winning 5 in the last year and half because why? Well because Nadal went lame and Fed got old. So are you saying that facing great multi-slam champions at or near their peak is what made it tougher for Djokovic before? Hmmm, I wonder who made the logical contrapositive of that argument in regards to Federer and was called insane for doing it? I'll give you a hint his name starts with S and he is incredibly modest.

Haddie-nuff wrote: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

I can, completely. Whilst he's not my cup of tea ice never disputed that Nadal might inspire others.

temporary21 wrote: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.

Just repeating the line won't make it right. And shouting it from behind socal doesn't enhance your status on the forum, except with socal.

And I think the last thing most posters on this forum concern themselves with is your opinion. Sorry.

Well it seems when they both retire we will probably bored to death yet again.. cant see anything on the horizon that is likely to inspire me.. give me a nudge if you do

bogbrush wrote:

temporary21 wrote: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.

Just repeating the line won't make it right. And shouting it from behind socal doesn't enhance your status on the forum, except with socal.

And I think the last thing most posters on this forum concern themselves with is your opinion. Sorry.

Is there something wrong with agreeing with me? I mean you are singling out Temp for agreeing with me but basically we have had BS, IMBL, Temp, and Craig agree with me on the issue of the hypocrisy regarding competition levels. Yet, you seem to have this thing about picking on Temp for agreeing with me. By the way what is wrong with that? I don't accuse others of trying to win your favor if they agree with a position of yours. Just wondering what this line of critique is all about or if it is worth mentioning.

Here is my prediction, I said Novak would win two slams this year. But if he does win the FO like I predicted and then wins wimby and goes into the USO with a chance at the CYGS you will see all Federer fan's become even more rapid and rabid converts to weak era theory. We have already seen the genesis of it over the past months and this thread spells it out.

Again, this isn't about homogenization, this isn't about GOAT, this isn't about who inspires people and fans etc. My criticism is solely that those knocking criticisms of Fed's competition pre 08 are exposing their hypocrisy by now criticizing the lack of Novak's competition, when they claimed competition level was irrelevant for discussion when it came to Fed's contemporaries. Lets not mix in a bunch of unrelated issues. You can go back to disliking Djokovic or his style of play or liking whoever you like; but lets be fair me and IMBL won the weak era/fluctuations LOL! debate. Weak eras and great slam champions making it harder for you to win titles wasn't a myth, if it was why all the new converts?

This is a pretty hopeless era* though

*Saying that I reckon if old man Federer was transported back to 2004-07 hed probably still clean house handsomely.

He doesnt like authority, and the fact I call him on it. Thats all. Its his problem and he needs to deal with it himself.

Ill make it clear, I side with socal and co because hes 100% percent correct. Your bias has made you completely wrong on this one im afraid.

More backhanded insults out of spite, or calling backup wont ever change that one matey.

kingraf wrote:This is a pretty hopeless era* though

*Saying that I reckon if old man Federer was transported back to 2004-07 hed probably still clean house handsomely.

By the way this mythical Fed domination we hear about is one slam in six years. Wawrinka his two slams in the last two years is he dominating the tour? I agree Fed would still even at this age clean up that period, probably so would Murray, but Fed can't do it now because he is facing an all time great at or near his peak powers, something he didn't have on the fast surfaces circa 04-07.

PS I am agreeing with you of my own free volition and in no way am I trying to curry favor with Kingraf or any other poster by holding this position. I have not been coerced, bribed, drugged, blackmailed, or brainwashed. I Socal of sound body and reasonably sound mind (at least before the cocktail hour) hold this position of my own independent mental faculties without any undue influence. I do not wish for any renumeration or reciprocity for my assent hereinto your logic and reasoning. I do not hold you in anyway responsible for any consideration, legal or otherwise, implied or explicit.

temporary21 wrote:He doesnt like authority, and the fact I call him on it. Thats all. Its his problem and he needs to deal with it himself.

Ill make it clear, I side with socal and co because hes 100% percent correct. Your bias has made you completely wrong on this one im afraid.

More backhanded insults out of spite, or calling backup wont ever change that one matey.

I mean frankly if you look at the behavior of those that are uncomfortable continuing this conversation you can tell who is right. We have seen lots of attempts at disseminating and diversion by trying to convolute things like homogenization, GOAT debates, and accusations of currying favor with one poster or the other. But what we don't hear is an actual logical defense of the substance of the allegation, which is why is it relevant to discuss Djokovic's weakened combination when you deemed it so offensive and illogical to do it to Federer's competition. That is the crux of this whole discussion that all the personal attacks and attempts at diversion can't cover up. It is the proverbial pink elephant in the room no one wants to mention. (at least not the ones who spent a decade arguing against it, I can't get enough)

Its actually because real discussion is the furthest thing from his mind. Credit to emancipator, I dont think hes right but he at least tries to talk about tennis on a tennis forum.

Thats why arguments go in circles like this. If people wanted a real conclusion this wouldn't happen. Id say its frustrating, but its more distracting nowadays. Hes right, nobody cares what I , or anyone has to say, weve better things to do, the masters, for example

socal1976 wrote:
I mean frankly if you look at the behavior of those that are uncomfortable continuing this conversation you can tell who is right. We have seen lots of attempts at disseminating and diversion by trying to convolute things like homogenization, GOAT debates, and accusations of currying favor with one poster or the other. But what we don't hear is an actual logical defense of the substance of the allegation, which is why is it relevant to discuss Djokovic's weakened combination when you deemed it so offensive and illogical to do it to Federer's competition. That is the crux of this whole discussion that all the personal attacks and attempts at diversion can't cover up. It is the proverbial pink elephant in the room no one wants to mention. (at least not the ones who spent a decade arguing against it, I can't get enough)

Socal, how dare you.
To prove you wrong, and show how principled and consistent everyone apart from you and me are, I've picked a poster at random and will just copy and paste two quotes, one from last year and one from yesterday.

"No, not possible to measure precludes the answer being a (possible competition is harder) or b (not possible ). Think about it, how on Earth can you answer when the answer itself is unknowable?
To provide an answer is akin to religious belief; faith in something that cannot be proven. As I am probably the Worlds most atheist atheist - a position I arrived at having decided that that every reason for religious belief is a symptom of psychological disorder - I'm not likely to plumb for those."

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.

It is funny how Fed’s fans react irritably since last year, looks like children lose their toys. I must say they act much worse than Nadal’s fans core. Cheer up, BB, emancipator!

Yeah, IMBL that quote you produced isn't even the worst case scenario of the 180 we have seen. They seem to make all the same arguments but have a problem with the two words "weak era" used in conjunction. But lets remember that it wasn't just semantics, your post clearly shows that they felt and stated that competition level faced was irrelevant, unquantifiable, and not worth discussing. And if you did discuss you were crazy.

paulcz wrote:It is funny how Fed’s fans react irritably since last year, looks like children lose their toys. I must say they act much worse than Nadal’s fans core. Cheer up, BB, emancipator!

It isn't just since last year this fight predates even the existence of this website.

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

temporary21 wrote: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.

Just repeating the line won't make it right. And shouting it from behind socal doesn't enhance your status on the forum, except with socal.

And I think the last thing most posters on this forum concern themselves with is your opinion. Sorry.

Is there something wrong with agreeing with me? I mean you are singling out Temp for agreeing with me but basically we have had BS, IMBL, Temp, and Craig agree with me on the issue of the hypocrisy regarding competition levels. Yet, you seem to have this thing about picking on Temp for agreeing with me. By the way what is wrong with that? I don't accuse others of trying to win your favor if they agree with a position of yours. Just wondering what this line of critique is all about or if it is worth mentioning.

Just observing little tempo leaping out from behind you every now and then to agree.

It's kind of cute.

temporary21 wrote:He doesnt like authority, and the fact I call him on it. Thats all. Its his problem and he needs to deal with it himself.

Ill make it clear, I side with socal and co because hes 100% percent correct. Your bias has made you completely wrong on this one im afraid.

More backhanded insults out of spite, or calling backup wont ever change that one matey.

Authority? What is that of which you speak?

temporary21 wrote: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.

I am still waiting for those who have had said the Djokovic domination of 2014-present was down to weak competition...

I would guess I would still be waiting this time next decade...

We've had a couple. But ill leave that one t socal...

legendkillarV2 wrote:

temporary21 wrote: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.

I am still waiting for those who have had said the Djokovic domination of 2014-present was down to weak competition...

I would guess I would still be waiting this time next decade...

Err, I'm guessing you haven't read Emancipator's comments then:

"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."

Born Slippy wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

temporary21 wrote: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.

I am still waiting for those who have had said the Djokovic domination of 2014-present was down to weak competition...

I would guess I would still be waiting this time next decade...

Err, I'm guessing you haven't read Emancipator's comments then:

"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."

Yes but if you look very very closely, Emancipator said 'worst competition that I can remember', he didn't actually say 'weak era' which is so totally completely different.

temporary21 wrote:We've had a couple. But ill leave that one t socal...

.... to misrepresent.

bogbrush wrote:

temporary21 wrote:We've had a couple. But ill leave that one t socal...

.... to misrepresent.

Go on then Bogbrush, instead of randomly being negative towards Temporary, defend yourself !
How is you saying 'that a near-Senior occupies this position reflects very poorly on the rest of the tour' or Emancipator saying 'worst competition that I can remember' different from me saying that there's fluctuation in competition?
We both know fully well you've taken a vehemently furious position on this topic, arguing that competition isn't something that can be discussed, I have the specific quotes !

Its because he knows he has no defence. Hes been soundly beaten in the debate so hes just looking to take potshots. Its not like its the first time...

I'll provide a multiple choice options list to make Bogbrush's next post easier:

a) Randomly insult temp and call him 'little tempo' again
b) Say that 'fluctuation in competition' is totally different from 'reflects very poorly on rest of tour' or 'worst competition I've ever seen', because Socal once used the phrase 'weak era' and called Nalbandian fat which changes everything
c) Pretend he never took a position on this issue in the past (WARNING: I have quotes!)
d) Pretend he never said anything on the level of the current tour on this thread, and sidetrack by talking about how 'boring' it is, hoping no one realises (WARNING: I have quotes!)

Great thing is hes completely wasting his time. I have him on ignore, which means I never have to listen to his cr@p. More importantly, it stops him being able to give out nasty little pm's when being told he couldnt do something as he used to.

Means I can focus on those wanting to talk real tennis, and not just aggro. I only notice when he breaks the house rules.

temporary21 wrote:Great thing is hes completely wasting his time. I have him on ignore, which means I never have to listen to his cr@p. More importantly, it stops him being able to give out nasty little pm's when being told he couldnt do something as he used to.

Means I can focus on those wanting to talk real tennis, and not just aggro. I only notice when he breaks the house rules.

Brilliant! Now I don't need to get pestered by the amateur moderator!

(note, my nasty pms were sound advice. It wasn't taken, as was sadly obvious from the subsequent moderation meltdown).

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

temporary21 wrote:We've had a couple. But ill leave that one t socal...

.... to misrepresent.

Go on then Bogbrush, instead of randomly being negative towards Temporary, defend yourself !
How is you saying 'that a near-Senior occupies this position reflects very poorly on the rest of the tour' or Emancipator saying 'worst competition that I can remember' different from me saying that there's fluctuation in competition?
We both know fully well you've taken a vehemently furious position on this topic, arguing that competition isn't something that can be discussed, I have the specific quotes !

I mean it reflects very poorly on them because they really should be consigning him to history. The best explanation for this I can find is that tennis has become so homogenised, and the modern forumula of the game so tightly restricted to a narrow band of tedious rallying that Federers different style is outside of their expected range of play. Socal has said much the same as the reason Djokovic is still having trouble with him.

It really is very sad that instead of a broad range of styles coming forward, we're getting the one size fits all courts game.

It's no wonder, therefore, that the greatest exponent of that style of game - perhaps ever - is dominating the game. If only he was facing old fashioned clay specialists one week, then super-fast court specialists the next, he'd be getting a much more varied challenge.

I hope that's all easy to understand.

bogbrush wrote:
I mean it reflects very poorly on them because they really should be consigning him to history. The best explanation for this I can find is that tennis has become so homogenised, and the modern forumula of the game so tightly restricted to a narrow band of tedious rallying that Federers different style is outside of their expected range of play. Socal has said much the same as the reason Djokovic is still having trouble with him.

Bogbrush, this is the full quote of what you said:

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.

Your explanation does not match what you just said.
Federer plays on exactly the same homogenised surfaces as they do, and you are saying the fact the competition can't displace Federer at this age reflects poorly on them.
It's very clearly a critique of the competition Djokovic is facing. Whether it's because their styles are not varied enough, or any other reason; what you are ultimately saying is that the generation younger than 30 should be doing a better job at providing competition for Djokovic.
Really clutching at straws here.

Born Slippy wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

temporary21 wrote: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.

I am still waiting for those who have had said the Djokovic domination of 2014-present was down to weak competition...

I would guess I would still be waiting this time next decade...

Err, I'm guessing you haven't read Emancipator's comments then:

"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."

Well you overestimated your prediction of timeframe there LK, you didn't have to wait a decade for that evidence you just had to read a couple of posts on the very thread you were commenting on. "Weakest competition I have ever seen" being a factor in assessing Djokovic's success, is exactly the factor the Fed fans refused to assess when discussing Federer's success. But go on tell us how "weakest competition I have ever seen" is functional different than "weak era". And tell us why competition level Fed faced in 04-07 wasn't a "factor" worth assessing in light of Fed's domination and how it is now.

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

temporary21 wrote:We've had a couple. But ill leave that one t socal...

.... to misrepresent.

Go on then Bogbrush, instead of randomly being negative towards Temporary, defend yourself !
How is you saying 'that a near-Senior occupies this position reflects very poorly on the rest of the tour' or Emancipator saying 'worst competition that I can remember' different from me saying that there's fluctuation in competition?
We both know fully well you've taken a vehemently furious position on this topic, arguing that competition isn't something that can be discussed, I have the specific quotes !

I mean it reflects very poorly on them because they really should be consigning him to history. The best explanation for this I can find is that tennis has become so homogenised, and the modern forumula of the game so tightly restricted to a narrow band of tedious rallying that Federers different style is outside of their expected range of play. Socal has said much the same as the reason Djokovic is still having trouble with him.

It really is very sad that instead of a broad range of styles coming forward, we're getting the one size fits all courts game.

It's no wonder, therefore, that the greatest exponent of that style of game - perhaps ever - is dominating the game. If only he was facing old fashioned clay specialists one week, then super-fast court specialists the next, he'd be getting a much more varied challenge.

I hope that's all easy to understand.

Right no one was talking about homogenization and changing the game but you on this thread, and for a good reason it doesn't make the 180 degree logical pretzel the OP made and you are making any less or more hypocritical frankly. The competition level you maintained irrelevant for judging Fed's accomplishments and domination is now relevant for downplaying Novak's. Great you have been consistent for years about homogenization. But pointing that out doesn't make your position on competition level being irrelevant to discussing a player's accomplishments in Fed's heyday to now agreeing with Emanci, when he says that fed and Nadal falling off is obviously a factor in Novak's dominance. Great your position on this issue is still equally inconsistent and internally flawed. If you would like to do a different thread where people can talk about the ancillary and unrelated issue of homogenization then you are free to. I think it is apparent though that you and the rest of the fed fan/fluctuation deniers (lol!) can't now make the logical Uturn you crave to make without getting rightful accusations of hypocrisy on the issue.

As I predicted if Novak starts to really threaten Roger's glory records we will see lots of Fed fan, one time deniers of the relevance of competition level get real critical of Novak's competition level, when they would never tolerate the same criticism of Roger's in his heyday. Of course they won't come out and put the words "weak" and "era" together or call Kei and Raonic the rollover generation. That would be too obvious even for them.

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:
I mean it reflects very poorly on them because they really should be consigning him to history. The best explanation for this I can find is that tennis has become so homogenised, and the modern forumula of the game so tightly restricted to a narrow band of tedious rallying that Federers different style is outside of their expected range of play. Socal has said much the same as the reason Djokovic is still having trouble with him.

Bogbrush, this is the full quote of what you said:

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.

Your explanation does not match what you just said.
Federer plays on exactly the same homogenised surfaces as they do, and you are saying the fact the competition can't displace Federer at this age reflects poorly on them.
It's very clearly a critique of the competition Djokovic is facing. Whether it's because their styles are not varied enough, or any other reason; what you are ultimately saying is that the generation younger than 30 should be doing a better job at providing competition for Djokovic.
Really clutching at straws here.

Ooh that's embarrassing for you!

There I am telling you the problem Federer presents us that he brings a different set of skills to the court and so presents a different challenge, and you think it's saying the other players are rubbish.

You do realise you're not making logical connections, don't you?

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

temporary21 wrote:We've had a couple. But ill leave that one t socal...

.... to misrepresent.

Go on then Bogbrush, instead of randomly being negative towards Temporary, defend yourself !
How is you saying 'that a near-Senior occupies this position reflects very poorly on the rest of the tour' or Emancipator saying 'worst competition that I can remember' different from me saying that there's fluctuation in competition?
We both know fully well you've taken a vehemently furious position on this topic, arguing that competition isn't something that can be discussed, I have the specific quotes !

I mean it reflects very poorly on them because they really should be consigning him to history. The best explanation for this I can find is that tennis has become so homogenised, and the modern forumula of the game so tightly restricted to a narrow band of tedious rallying that Federers different style is outside of their expected range of play. Socal has said much the same as the reason Djokovic is still having trouble with him.

It really is very sad that instead of a broad range of styles coming forward, we're getting the one size fits all courts game.

It's no wonder, therefore, that the greatest exponent of that style of game - perhaps ever - is dominating the game. If only he was facing old fashioned clay specialists one week, then super-fast court specialists the next, he'd be getting a much more varied challenge.

I hope that's all easy to understand.

Right no one was talking about homogenization and changing the game but you on this thread, and for a good reason it doesn't make the 180 degree logical pretzel the OP made and you are making any less or more hypocritical frankly. The competition level you maintained irrelevant for judging Fed's accomplishments and domination is now relevant for downplaying Novak's. Great you have been consistent for years about homogenization. But pointing that out doesn't make your position on competition level being irrelevant to discussing a player's accomplishments in Fed's heyday to now agreeing with Emanci, when he says that fed and Nadal falling off is obviously a factor in Novak's dominance. Great your position on this issue is still equally inconsistent and internally flawed. If you would like to do a different thread where people can talk about the ancillary and unrelated issue of homogenization then you are free to. I think it is apparent though that you and the rest of the fed fan/fluctuation deniers (lol!) can't now make the logical Uturn you crave to make without getting rightful accusations of hypocrisy on the issue.

As I predicted if Novak starts to really threaten Roger's glory records we will see lots of Fed fan, one time deniers of the relevance of competition level get real critical of Novak's competition level, when they would never tolerate the same criticism of Roger's in his heyday. Of course they won't come out and put the words "weak" and "era" together or call Kei and Raonic the rollover generation. That would be too obvious even for them.

Soooo, people don't say the thing you desperately crave they would, so you decide thats what they mean anyway?
But in a lot of words, clumsily phrased, so people get bored before they can read it all.

bogbrush wrote:
There I am telling you the problem Federer presents us that he brings a different set of skills to the court and so presents a different challenge, and you think it's saying the other players are rubbish.

Um, you do realise I have quoted what you yourself said 2 days ago ?
You never said anything about 'different', you said:

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.

It's only once you said this, and me and Socal pointed out how laughably hypocritical your stance is, that you quickly changed your line and started going on about how 'oh I just think the tour is boring now' or 'oh I just talking about a different sort of challenge, it's not like 'reflects very poorly' is a negative slight at all'

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:
But pointing that out doesn't make your position on competition level being irrelevant to discussing a player's accomplishments in Fed's heyday to now agreeing with Emanci, when he says that fed and Nadal falling off is obviously a factor in Novak's dominance. Great your position on this issue is still equally inconsistent and internally flawed.

Soooo, people don't say the thing you desperately crave they would, so you decide thats what they mean anyway?
But in a lot of words, clumsily phrased, so people get bored before they can read it all.

Except Socal isn't having to imagine this stuff, he can just read the quotes from you and Emancipator !
Emancipator: "The past 1.5 years is is the worst competition I've ever seen"

Emancipator I must admit truly does have supernatural powers, we thought he was kidding, but his Houdini act after Socal spotted the double standards and hypocrisy has been so astounding even magicians would be proud.

Atleast Emancipator's position makes sense now though. I mean even Djokovic fans are agreeing with what he's saying. Bogbrush, even if me or Socal do suffer from a bout of amnesia and suddenly forget your big U-turn; what is the grand exceptional point you're making ?
Would you really disagree with Emancipator and even most Djokovic fans when they say that the competition now is easier than half a decade ago ? You don't believe in Tenez's theory that Federer and Nadal are still peaking, so you must think that the current generation aged 23-27 are providing as much of a challenge as Federer and Nadal closer to their prime ! What cerebral position are you going to hold ?!!
Randomly insult Temp like you did this morning, start going on about homogenisation, admit you've been totally hypocritical for so many years, or try to insist that the competition for Djokovic isn't weaker than when Fedal were closer to their primes ?

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

temporary21 wrote:We've had a couple. But ill leave that one t socal...

.... to misrepresent.

Go on then Bogbrush, instead of randomly being negative towards Temporary, defend yourself !
How is you saying 'that a near-Senior occupies this position reflects very poorly on the rest of the tour' or Emancipator saying 'worst competition that I can remember' different from me saying that there's fluctuation in competition?
We both know fully well you've taken a vehemently furious position on this topic, arguing that competition isn't something that can be discussed, I have the specific quotes !

I mean it reflects very poorly on them because they really should be consigning him to history. The best explanation for this I can find is that tennis has become so homogenised, and the modern forumula of the game so tightly restricted to a narrow band of tedious rallying that Federers different style is outside of their expected range of play. Socal has said much the same as the reason Djokovic is still having trouble with him.

It really is very sad that instead of a broad range of styles coming forward, we're getting the one size fits all courts game.

It's no wonder, therefore, that the greatest exponent of that style of game - perhaps ever - is dominating the game. If only he was facing old fashioned clay specialists one week, then super-fast court specialists the next, he'd be getting a much more varied challenge.

I hope that's all easy to understand.

On that note then the same can be said of early 2000's when Agassi hung around and was competitive into his mid 30s (like Federer now). Blame it on what you want but facts are that tennis standards rise and fall. I prefer the term fluctuations rather than weak era but fact that we have general malaise about standards right now is categorical proof of fluctuations. If people just admitted it we could all move on and get back to discussing tennis. And this has sweet FA about demeaning any player beit Sampras, Federer, Nadal or Djokovic or the countless other players who have played through fluctuating periods.

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

temporary21 wrote:We've had a couple. But ill leave that one t socal...

.... to misrepresent.

Go on then Bogbrush, instead of randomly being negative towards Temporary, defend yourself !
How is you saying 'that a near-Senior occupies this position reflects very poorly on the rest of the tour' or Emancipator saying 'worst competition that I can remember' different from me saying that there's fluctuation in competition?
We both know fully well you've taken a vehemently furious position on this topic, arguing that competition isn't something that can be discussed, I have the specific quotes !

I mean it reflects very poorly on them because they really should be consigning him to history. The best explanation for this I can find is that tennis has become so homogenised, and the modern forumula of the game so tightly restricted to a narrow band of tedious rallying that Federers different style is outside of their expected range of play. Socal has said much the same as the reason Djokovic is still having trouble with him.

It really is very sad that instead of a broad range of styles coming forward, we're getting the one size fits all courts game.

It's no wonder, therefore, that the greatest exponent of that style of game - perhaps ever - is dominating the game. If only he was facing old fashioned clay specialists one week, then super-fast court specialists the next, he'd be getting a much more varied challenge.

I hope that's all easy to understand.

Right no one was talking about homogenization and changing the game but you on this thread, and for a good reason it doesn't make the 180 degree logical pretzel the OP made and you are making any less or more hypocritical frankly. The competition level you maintained irrelevant for judging Fed's accomplishments and domination is now relevant for downplaying Novak's. Great you have been consistent for years about homogenization. But pointing that out doesn't make your position on competition level being irrelevant to discussing a player's accomplishments in Fed's heyday to now agreeing with Emanci, when he says that fed and Nadal falling off is obviously a factor in Novak's dominance. Great your position on this issue is still equally inconsistent and internally flawed. If you would like to do a different thread where people can talk about the ancillary and unrelated issue of homogenization then you are free to. I think it is apparent though that you and the rest of the fed fan/fluctuation deniers (lol!) can't now make the logical Uturn you crave to make without getting rightful accusations of hypocrisy on the issue.

As I predicted if Novak starts to really threaten Roger's glory records we will see lots of Fed fan, one time deniers of the relevance of competition level get real critical of Novak's competition level, when they would never tolerate the same criticism of Roger's in his heyday. Of course they won't come out and put the words "weak" and "era" together or call Kei and Raonic the rollover generation. That would be too obvious even for them.

Soooo, people don't say the thing you desperately crave they would, so you decide thats what they mean anyway?
But in a lot of words, clumsily phrased, so people get bored before they can read it all.

I see the strategy, very smart. Just be so nasty and insulting with digs like Little Tempo (straight out of the Donald Trump debate playbook) that people will forget how you hypocritically would call people crazy for having digs at Fed's contemporaries. Now competition level doesn't seem to be inconsequential anymore with Djokovic dominating. I mean if you can't rely on facts or logic to win an argument pull out the insults and smoke screen tactics. Wow, you really can't admit you are wrong, you go from a reasonable person to angry 12 year old when you don't actually have much to say.

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:
There I am telling you the problem Federer presents us that he brings a different set of skills to the court and so presents a different challenge, and you think it's saying the other players are rubbish.

Um, you do realise I have quoted what you yourself said 2 days ago ?
You never said anything about 'different', you said:

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.

It's only once you said this, and me and Socal pointed out how laughably hypocritical your stance is, that you quickly changed your line and started going on about how 'oh I just think the tour is boring now' or 'oh I just talking about a different sort of challenge, it's not like 'reflects very poorly' is a negative slight at all'

Oh blimey, do I have to explain this in short words?

Yes, it to reflects poorly on them to be losing out to such a senior player. It goes to show there's so little capacity amongst them to cope with him, but he does play a game they are not exposed to.

You can keep trying to turn this into a weak era debate but it's really not happening. Sorry.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

temporary21 wrote:We've had a couple. But ill leave that one t socal...

.... to misrepresent.

Go on then Bogbrush, instead of randomly being negative towards Temporary, defend yourself !
How is you saying 'that a near-Senior occupies this position reflects very poorly on the rest of the tour' or Emancipator saying 'worst competition that I can remember' different from me saying that there's fluctuation in competition?
We both know fully well you've taken a vehemently furious position on this topic, arguing that competition isn't something that can be discussed, I have the specific quotes !

I mean it reflects very poorly on them because they really should be consigning him to history. The best explanation for this I can find is that tennis has become so homogenised, and the modern forumula of the game so tightly restricted to a narrow band of tedious rallying that Federers different style is outside of their expected range of play. Socal has said much the same as the reason Djokovic is still having trouble with him.

It really is very sad that instead of a broad range of styles coming forward, we're getting the one size fits all courts game.

It's no wonder, therefore, that the greatest exponent of that style of game - perhaps ever - is dominating the game. If only he was facing old fashioned clay specialists one week, then super-fast court specialists the next, he'd be getting a much more varied challenge.

I hope that's all easy to understand.

On that note then the same can be said of early 2000's when Agassi hung around and was competitive into his mid 30s (like Federer now). Blame it on what you want but facts are that tennis standards rise and fall. I prefer the term fluctuations rather than weak era but fact that we have general malaise about standards right now is categorical proof of fluctuations. If people just admitted it we could all move on and get back to discussing tennis. And this has sweet FA about demeaning any player beit Sampras, Federer, Nadal or Djokovic or the countless other players who have played through fluctuating periods.

You're all obsessed with weak era discussions, and pinning them on others.

Get past it. The current game is as boring as f***, and played to a very high level. It's hardly surprising the one really original player near the top gives the rest so many problems.

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

temporary21 wrote:We've had a couple. But ill leave that one t socal...

.... to misrepresent.

Go on then Bogbrush, instead of randomly being negative towards Temporary, defend yourself !
How is you saying 'that a near-Senior occupies this position reflects very poorly on the rest of the tour' or Emancipator saying 'worst competition that I can remember' different from me saying that there's fluctuation in competition?
We both know fully well you've taken a vehemently furious position on this topic, arguing that competition isn't something that can be discussed, I have the specific quotes !

I mean it reflects very poorly on them because they really should be consigning him to history. The best explanation for this I can find is that tennis has become so homogenised, and the modern forumula of the game so tightly restricted to a narrow band of tedious rallying that Federers different style is outside of their expected range of play. Socal has said much the same as the reason Djokovic is still having trouble with him.

It really is very sad that instead of a broad range of styles coming forward, we're getting the one size fits all courts game.

It's no wonder, therefore, that the greatest exponent of that style of game - perhaps ever - is dominating the game. If only he was facing old fashioned clay specialists one week, then super-fast court specialists the next, he'd be getting a much more varied challenge.

I hope that's all easy to understand.

Right no one was talking about homogenization and changing the game but you on this thread, and for a good reason it doesn't make the 180 degree logical pretzel the OP made and you are making any less or more hypocritical frankly. The competition level you maintained irrelevant for judging Fed's accomplishments and domination is now relevant for downplaying Novak's. Great you have been consistent for years about homogenization. But pointing that out doesn't make your position on competition level being irrelevant to discussing a player's accomplishments in Fed's heyday to now agreeing with Emanci, when he says that fed and Nadal falling off is obviously a factor in Novak's dominance. Great your position on this issue is still equally inconsistent and internally flawed. If you would like to do a different thread where people can talk about the ancillary and unrelated issue of homogenization then you are free to. I think it is apparent though that you and the rest of the fed fan/fluctuation deniers (lol!) can't now make the logical Uturn you crave to make without getting rightful accusations of hypocrisy on the issue.

As I predicted if Novak starts to really threaten Roger's glory records we will see lots of Fed fan, one time deniers of the relevance of competition level get real critical of Novak's competition level, when they would never tolerate the same criticism of Roger's in his heyday. Of course they won't come out and put the words "weak" and "era" together or call Kei and Raonic the rollover generation. That would be too obvious even for them.

Soooo, people don't say the thing you desperately crave they would, so you decide thats what they mean anyway?
But in a lot of words, clumsily phrased, so people get bored before they can read it all.

I see the strategy, very smart. Just be so nasty and insulting with digs like Little Tempo (straight out of the Donald Trump debate playbook) that people will forget how you hypocritically would call people crazy for having digs at Fed's contemporaries.  Now competition level doesn't seem to be inconsequential anymore with Djokovic dominating. I mean if you can't rely on facts or logic to win an argument pull out the insults and smoke screen tactics. Wow, you really can't admit you are wrong, you go from a reasonable person to angry 12 year old when you don't actually have much to say.

I think you just redefined irony.

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

temporary21 wrote:We've had a couple. But ill leave that one t socal...

.... to misrepresent.

Go on then Bogbrush, instead of randomly being negative towards Temporary, defend yourself !
How is you saying 'that a near-Senior occupies this position reflects very poorly on the rest of the tour' or Emancipator saying 'worst competition that I can remember' different from me saying that there's fluctuation in competition?
We both know fully well you've taken a vehemently furious position on this topic, arguing that competition isn't something that can be discussed, I have the specific quotes !

I mean it reflects very poorly on them because they really should be consigning him to history. The best explanation for this I can find is that tennis has become so homogenised, and the modern forumula of the game so tightly restricted to a narrow band of tedious rallying that Federers different style is outside of their expected range of play. Socal has said much the same as the reason Djokovic is still having trouble with him.

It really is very sad that instead of a broad range of styles coming forward, we're getting the one size fits all courts game.

It's no wonder, therefore, that the greatest exponent of that style of game - perhaps ever - is dominating the game. If only he was facing old fashioned clay specialists one week, then super-fast court specialists the next, he'd be getting a much more varied challenge.

I hope that's all easy to understand.

On that note then the same can be said of early 2000's when Agassi hung around and was competitive into his mid 30s (like Federer now). Blame it on what you want but facts are that tennis standards rise and fall. I prefer the term fluctuations rather than weak era but fact that we have general malaise about standards right now is categorical proof of fluctuations. If people just admitted it we could all move on and get back to discussing tennis. And this has sweet FA about demeaning any player beit Sampras, Federer, Nadal or Djokovic or the countless other players who have played through fluctuating periods.

You're all obsessed with weak era discussions, and pinning them on others.

Get past it. The current game is as boring as f***, and played to a very high level. It's hardly surprising the one really original player near the top gives the rest so many problems.

Stop trying to put words into things. I am talking fluctuations and so are you though you are trying to mask them in terms that hold no water ie boring tennis, homogenisation of surfaces etc etc. Fluctuations happen. They are happening now, have happened countless times in the past and always will happen. Those that deny it are living in some kind of alternate reality.

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

temporary21 wrote:We've had a couple. But ill leave that one t socal...

.... to misrepresent.

Go on then Bogbrush, instead of randomly being negative towards Temporary, defend yourself !
How is you saying 'that a near-Senior occupies this position reflects very poorly on the rest of the tour' or Emancipator saying 'worst competition that I can remember' different from me saying that there's fluctuation in competition?
We both know fully well you've taken a vehemently furious position on this topic, arguing that competition isn't something that can be discussed, I have the specific quotes !

I mean it reflects very poorly on them because they really should be consigning him to history. The best explanation for this I can find is that tennis has become so homogenised, and the modern forumula of the game so tightly restricted to a narrow band of tedious rallying that Federers different style is outside of their expected range of play. Socal has said much the same as the reason Djokovic is still having trouble with him.

It really is very sad that instead of a broad range of styles coming forward, we're getting the one size fits all courts game.

It's no wonder, therefore, that the greatest exponent of that style of game - perhaps ever - is dominating the game. If only he was facing old fashioned clay specialists one week, then super-fast court specialists the next, he'd be getting a much more varied challenge.

I hope that's all easy to understand.

Right no one was talking about homogenization and changing the game but you on this thread, and for a good reason it doesn't make the 180 degree logical pretzel the OP made and you are making any less or more hypocritical frankly. The competition level you maintained irrelevant for judging Fed's accomplishments and domination is now relevant for downplaying Novak's. Great you have been consistent for years about homogenization. But pointing that out doesn't make your position on competition level being irrelevant to discussing a player's accomplishments in Fed's heyday to now agreeing with Emanci, when he says that fed and Nadal falling off is obviously a factor in Novak's dominance. Great your position on this issue is still equally inconsistent and internally flawed. If you would like to do a different thread where people can talk about the ancillary and unrelated issue of homogenization then you are free to. I think it is apparent though that you and the rest of the fed fan/fluctuation deniers (lol!) can't now make the logical Uturn you crave to make without getting rightful accusations of hypocrisy on the issue.

As I predicted if Novak starts to really threaten Roger's glory records we will see lots of Fed fan, one time deniers of the relevance of competition level get real critical of Novak's competition level, when they would never tolerate the same criticism of Roger's in his heyday. Of course they won't come out and put the words "weak" and "era" together or call Kei and Raonic the rollover generation. That would be too obvious even for them.

Soooo, people don't say the thing you desperately crave they would, so you decide thats what they mean anyway?
But in a lot of words, clumsily phrased, so people get bored before they can read it all.

I see the strategy, very smart. Just be so nasty and insulting with digs like Little Tempo (straight out of the Donald Trump debate playbook) that people will forget how you hypocritically would call people crazy for having digs at Fed's contemporaries.  Now competition level doesn't seem to be inconsequential anymore with Djokovic dominating. I mean if you can't rely on facts or logic to win an argument pull out the insults and smoke screen tactics. Wow, you really can't admit you are wrong, you go from a reasonable person to angry 12 year old when you don't actually have much to say.

I think you just redefined irony.

Here is a first.... I couldn't agree more

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

temporary21 wrote:We've had a couple. But ill leave that one t socal...

.... to misrepresent.

Go on then Bogbrush, instead of randomly being negative towards Temporary, defend yourself !
How is you saying 'that a near-Senior occupies this position reflects very poorly on the rest of the tour' or Emancipator saying 'worst competition that I can remember' different from me saying that there's fluctuation in competition?
We both know fully well you've taken a vehemently furious position on this topic, arguing that competition isn't something that can be discussed, I have the specific quotes !

I mean it reflects very poorly on them because they really should be consigning him to history. The best explanation for this I can find is that tennis has become so homogenised, and the modern forumula of the game so tightly restricted to a narrow band of tedious rallying that Federers different style is outside of their expected range of play. Socal has said much the same as the reason Djokovic is still having trouble with him.

It really is very sad that instead of a broad range of styles coming forward, we're getting the one size fits all courts game.

It's no wonder, therefore, that the greatest exponent of that style of game - perhaps ever - is dominating the game. If only he was facing old fashioned clay specialists one week, then super-fast court specialists the next, he'd be getting a much more varied challenge.

I hope that's all easy to understand.

On that note then the same can be said of early 2000's when Agassi hung around and was competitive into his mid 30s (like Federer now). Blame it on what you want but facts are that tennis standards rise and fall. I prefer the term fluctuations rather than weak era but fact that we have general malaise about standards right now is categorical proof of fluctuations. If people just admitted it we could all move on and get back to discussing tennis. And this has sweet FA about demeaning any player beit Sampras, Federer, Nadal or Djokovic or the countless other players who have played through fluctuating periods.

You're all obsessed with weak era discussions, and pinning them on others.

Get past it. The current game is as boring as f***, and played to a very high level. It's hardly surprising the one really original player near the top gives the rest so many problems.

Stop trying to put words into things. I am talking fluctuations and so are you though you are trying to mask them in terms that hold no water ie boring tennis, homogenisation of surfaces etc etc. Fluctuations happen. They are happening now, have happened countless times in the past and always will happen. Those that deny it are living in some kind of alternate reality.

And here is the other part, fluctuations happen, fluctuations are relevant, and yes you can discuss them sensibly in relation to tennis without being crazy. It is just another topic that people can discuss and support their own argument. I would suggest to the weak era/fluctuation deniers to just do the adult thing, admit competition level isn't irrelevant, and that they were wrong to denounce such line of thinking as crazy. Then they can go and complain about Djokovic's competition all they like without me and IMBL rightly pointing out their hypocrisy. But unfortunately what this thread proves is that the deniers can't be fair, and can't admit they have ever made a mistake and that someone else was right and they were wrong.

I would stop, but this debate is actually too amusing.  

Bogbrush wrote:Yes, it to reflects poorly on them to be losing out to such a senior player. It goes to show there's so little capacity amongst them to cope with him, but he does play a game they are not exposed to.

Emancipator wrote a long OP and some others, talking about various things as well as how Djokovic's competition for the past 2 years has been weaker (infact he said worst competition he'd ever seen).
You wrote a post saying you agreed with Emancipator and that it reflects very poorly on the rest of the tour that the biggest threat to the world number 1 is a guy who's 'nearly old enough to be on the seniors tour'. The implication of this in the context is laughably obvious.
Socal pointed out that you, who has argued vehemently and angrily over the past years that fluctuation in competition can never be seriously considered, are totally hypocritical. Same to Emancipator.
After this, instead of addressing Socal's point, you started going on about how boring the tour is and how it lacks variety. Then after that you started trying to confuse the two points- and make it seem like you'd been talking about variety all along.
And even if you did actually have amnesia and forget what you said, your current position is still ultimately about fluctuation in standards- Djokovic can trouble Federer; and players who are currently at/close to their prime (you've said before aged 23-27 is around prime, vs Tenez) with a similar gamestyle to Djokovic can't trouble Federer, or trouble Djokovic as much as Fedal at their prime- you are inherently accepting that the new generation are weaker in comparison.

It Must Be Love wrote:I would stop, but this debate is actually too amusing.  

Bogbrush wrote:Yes, it to reflects poorly on them to be losing out to such a senior player. It goes to show there's so little capacity amongst them to cope with him, but he does play a game they are not exposed to.

Emancipator wrote a long OP and some others, talking about various things as well as how Djokovic's competition for the past 2 years has been weaker (infact he said worst competition he'd ever seen).
You wrote a post saying you agreed with Emancipator and that it reflects very poorly on the rest of the tour that the biggest threat to the world number 1 is a guy who's 'nearly old enough to be on the seniors tour'. The implication of this in the context is laughably obvious.
Socal pointed out that you, who has argued vehemently and angrily over the past years that fluctuation in competition can never be seriously considered, are totally hypocritical. Same to Emancipator.
After this, instead of addressing Socal's point, you started going on about how boring the tour is and how it lacks variety. Then after that you started trying to confuse the two points- and make it seem like you'd been talking about variety all along.
And even if you did actually have amnesia and forget what you said, your current position is still ultimately about fluctuation in standards- if Djokovic can trouble Federer; and players who are currently at/close to their prime (you've said before aged 23-27 is around prime, vs Tenez) with a similar gamestyle to Djokovic can't trouble Federer, or trouble Djokovic as much as Fedal at their prime- you are inherently accepting that the new generation are weaker in comparison.

Great post. But their position was much broader than just denying weak era. I mean you can deny that fed faced a weak era and still hold that competition level in slams is relevant. Their position, especially BB's went far beyond that. In its purest distillation it was a denial that competition level could be quantified, discussed, or was a relevant factor in the least. This was in stark contrast to mine and your position that the greatest challenge was always in having other great multislam level players at or near peak at the end of slams. Their position was a win against Phillipousis=Nadal in a grandslam final. And that one win is not even 1 percent or .1 percent more telling than the other. Doing the post hoc autopsy you really realize how bizarre the apologists position truly was and is.