Has Djokovic joined the ranks of the tennis greats, whatever that means?

First topic message reminder :

Of course I am highly partial. But I think its time to discuss this issue. Novak has been in the top 3 for the last 5 years. In an era dominated by 2 goat candidates. He has a davis cup, 24 tournament victories, 9 master's series wins, a year end championship, an olympic medal in singles, and a Davis Cup. On the grandslam stage he has been to 4 grandslam finals, with 2 grandslam championships. Not to mention that he is the youngest player in history to make the semis or better of 4 grandslam events. In my mind if he retired tomorrow he would be one of the legends of the game. And his current streak only adds to the luster, he is now the holder of the 3rd longest winning streak in the open era. He is virtually guaranteed of attaining the #1 ranking at least for a few months following his stellar start. Where would you place on his current achievements? I would put him among the very elite of the game. Not top ten of all time in terms of legacy but closing fast. And if he retired tomorrow, he would rank higher in my mind than any of the players that have won 2 slams on the strength of his accomplishing all that he has in the Fedal era and his consistent level of play. As I watched the del potro match, and witnessed the startling level of hitting that Djokovic displayed I was struck with one thought. "I have never seen anybody hit and move like this before, nobody, and I mean nobody". yes there are those players with bigger serves, with better volleys. But when you look at movement and baseline play Djokovic has to rate at the very, very top of the game. He is so good at that style of play that he has bested the very best baseliner/defender we have seen in the modern era and has sent him scurrying for answers in the last fortnight. It is no Djoke to beat federer and Nadal seven straight times. His record against top 5 competition is 10-0, against top ten players it is 13-0. Novak, you are one of the greatest players of all time, a legend of the game and with so much more left to accomplish.

You are right if you predicted that you should be called Nostrafreakingdamus. Although when Novak broke him to go 4-5 I knew it was over for fed and I think he knew it as well.

socal1976 wrote:You are right if you predicted that you should be called Nostrafreakingdamus. Although when Novak broke him to go 4-5 I knew it was over for fed and I think he knew it as well.

I think we all did - the clever bit was to predict what would happen before that though, as I think you acknowledge.

First of all many congratulations to Novak Djokovic who played an unbelievable match last night. A quite superb tennis match with Rafael Nadal playing his part.

Now how Djokovic writes himself down amongst the greats depends on his next two or three years. I mean if he carries on in his current vein of form and slam winning regularly in three years he'll be 28 and possibly with 10+ slams in the bag and who knows after that? It is more likely than not that he will reach ten slam wins as Federer is in the twilight of his career, he has the psychological edge over Nadal and Murray beats himself and outsise of those three I cannot see another realistic challenger at the moment. If he stays fit and motivated he will become a tennis legend over the next two or three years.

I don't believe the best players in the history of the sport playing their best would have beaten Djokovic last night. He was spectacular.

For service returns, we have known Connors and Agassi as the best, but Novak has taken this aspect of the game to a different level.

And, what a delight it was to watch his down-the-line shots from both ends, especially from backhand.

His drop shots had Rafa simply standing and looking!

It is too early to say Novak has joined the ranks of tennis greats like Laver, Emerson, Sampras, and Federer because he has had a couple of good years. But, when you consider Novak in the past year, you wonder how much better could the best ever be? Barring one or two losses, he has dominated the sport with a style of play that is thrilling as well as pleasing to the eye.

Well done, Novak. I am your fan now.

Leff wrote:I don't believe the best players in the history of the sport playing their best would have beaten Djokovic last night. He was spectacular.

For service returns, we have known Connors and Agassi as the best, but Novak has taken this aspect of the game to a different level.

And, what a delight it was to watch his down-the-line shots from both ends, especially from backhand.

His drop shots had Rafa simply standing and looking!

It is too early to say Novak has joined the ranks of tennis greats like Laver, Emerson, Sampras, and Federer because he has had a couple of good years. But, when you consider Novak in the past year, you wonder how much better could the best ever be? Barring one or two losses, he has dominated the sport with a style of play that is thrilling as well as pleasing to the eye.

Well done, Novak. I am your fan now.

Is this a poor attempt at humour?

How about Fed '04 at the USO when he bagelled Hewitt twice?

Or Fed '07 from the AUS open...

Come to think of it.. any top version of Fed from '04-'07 on HC's would have beaten Novak last night.

After all, 30yr old Fed '11 should have done it.

Or maybe Sampras '99, or 94 - he was pretty tasty too.

emancipator wrote:

How about Fed '04 at the USO when he bagelled Hewitt twice?

Or Fed '07 from the AUS open...

Come to think of it.. any top version of Fed from '04-'07 on HC's would have beaten Novak last night.

After all, 30yr old Fed '11 should have done it.

Or maybe Sampras '99, or 94 - he was pretty tasty too.

--------
Don't get me wrong. I have great admiration for Fed and Pete. I was talking about the quality of Novak's tennis last night. Fed had a few relatively easier opponents (Philippousis, Hewitt) and so did Pete (Courier, Pioline, Pioline, Chang, Ivanisevic) in some finals. A top-class opponent brings out the best in you. Last night, Rafa tried so hard and succeeded in winning only one set and even that when Novak was distracted in a couple of games of that set. When Sampras was beating Pioline in the finals, we were yawning (I was). Last night's game was thoroughly enjoyable.

Agree with leff, he makes some very cogent points about Novak's level. Lets remember that he is 10-1 against the goat candidates this year. Of course he hasn't displayed the consistent long term success that we witnessed with Pete and Fed, but he is still young and maybe he will. But if you compare the level he is playing at right now it matches up extremely well with Mac 84 and Fed 06. Fed is a difficult matchup for Novak, and true that fed is older but still he hasn't fallen off the face of the earth he is still in the top 3 and capable of brilliant performances and he seem to save his best matches for Novak.

Leff wrote:I don't believe the best players in the history of the sport playing their best would have beaten Djokovic last night. He was spectacular.

I cannot agree with that. Not in the slightest. I agree that the match was physically spectacular...and the most physical I have seen by a long way. But that is simply because those two wanted to engage in what they can do best: slugging it out by pushing each others right and left....at the very expense of better shot making. They push the ball back but do not have the pace of shots of the better shot makers. So many people say teh same thing of players beating Rafa: "woahhh Garcia lopez, Melzer, Dodig or whoever played amazingly well to beat Nadal."...No, they did not play outstanding. They simply executed well and long enough to win the match. They all lose the next round in most cases.

As I said, on Monday, this was similar to a Barhami exhibition when he keeps pushing the ball back to his opponent while talking to the line judge and grabbing his chair. It's impressive but that is due to a slower pace. Same between Djoko and Nadal. They are more interested in killing themselves physically than pulling winners. And that was even more obvious when Djoko got tired and decided to go for winners. Then we realised he could hit harder like almost every other players on the tour.

The only thing that Federer achieved on Saturday was to show that he can cause Djokovic much more trouble than Nadal cause unlike this latter, Fed can take away time from Djokovic. The players who do that to Djokovic can reach higher tennis levels than him.

The problem is essentially doing it for 3 or 5 sets.

See Tenez when you compare the US open final to a bahrami exhibition match where two broken down old men play for giggles and entertainment it really doesn't lend credibility to the rest of your argument. You found the fed-djoko semi entertaining I assume, and many other fans found both the final and semi entertaining. Other legends have stated that the level of the current game is very high. And your obsession with physicality as the predominate factor in success is misplaced, if your repeat this thesis 1000 times more it won't make it more logically sound.

I am curious to see how many of us are keen to re-watch any of the Nadal Djoko matches this year.

I'd be surprised if many.

I didn't really think Novak had to play spectacularly well to beat Rafa. Rafa played poorly in the 1st and 4th sets and only a bit better in the 2nd.

It had some dramatic rallies and a few tense games with multiple deuces, but if Djoko had served out on the third it would have been a fairly straightforward victory. As it was, the 4th set was remarkably straightforward.

Djoko hit 55 unforced errors 4 sets. Only 35 in 5 sets in the semi, albeit with more winners in the final.

Hmmmmm.

This thread is still bouncing around. If it would please socal, he is nearly there in terms of being considered a great. I know he is tied with Courier on the Slam count, but 1 more and I will consider him a great without any arguments.

He nearly has the record for win % in a season. Obviously there is still more tennis to be played. Considering he has only lost twice this year is the more remarkable. Like I said in a previous post he will become a great. We just have to sit back and wait.

Think of this season like a fine wine which will mature and become more appreciated with time.

Tenez wrote:I am curious to see how many of us are keen to re-watch any of the Nadal Djoko matches this year.

I'd be surprised if many.

What would be the point. May as well watch the same point over and over.

To be fair, repeated tennis matches are rarely a great watch as my memory during a match is so good that even on 2nd viewing I recall most of the score sequences and plays. That said, I can handle a repeated great McEnroe or Federer performance any day.

with 3 slams in a year. He is on the threshold and it is just a matter of time when he will be counted amongst the likes of Wilander, Lendl, Edberg and Becker. Still some work is left to reach to next echleons.

It depends really on who you have more admiration for. Those who think Federer has the most complete game will naturally say Federer is the GOAT and vice versa for Nadal admirers.

I was talking to a hardcore Nadal fan and the opinion was that Nadal was already the GOAT because of the career slam, olympic gold, masters and the Davis Cup.

Granted he has a long list of achievements and really Federer should have got the gold medal in 04 had he not slipped up against Berdych. However, with regard to the Davis Cup, that is a TEAM effort. Spain and now Serbia (and France) have so many players in the top 40 that its no surprise they are a force when it comes to DC ties.

Djokovic still has a long way to go. If he carries on the way he is then it will certainly be the case. The question is whether he can maintain longevity. Federer took just 6 years to surpass Sampras who took 12 years to accumulate 14 slams. At the end of the day greatness should not only be measured in terms of records and stats. It is the player on and off the court and in that sense to me Federer is way ahead of the pack. Would you consider Agassi to be one of the GOATs because he has a career slam and a gold medal in light of the revelations in his autobiography?

Again it depends on what you consider "greatness". For me you have to factor in longevity to an extent, so if Djokovic were to go off the boil next year (or at the end of this one) I would still rank him slightly short of greatness. Having said that, if he wins RG at any point in his career he will be a great, and if he adds three or four other slams to his collection he will be a great too.

To me, "greatness" is based on longevity and the ability to win titles on all types of surfaces against players with different styles.

Leff wrote:

emancipator wrote:

How about Fed '04 at the USO when he bagelled Hewitt twice?

Or Fed '07 from the AUS open...

Come to think of it.. any top version of Fed from '04-'07 on HC's would have beaten Novak last night.

After all, 30yr old Fed '11 should have done it.

Or maybe Sampras '99, or 94 - he was pretty tasty too.

--------
Don't get me wrong. I have great admiration for Fed and Pete. I was talking about the quality of Novak's tennis last night. Fed had a few relatively easier opponents (Philippousis, Hewitt) and so did Pete (Courier, Pioline, Pioline, Chang, Ivanisevic) in some finals. A top-class opponent brings out the best in you. Last night, Rafa tried so hard and succeeded in winning only one set and even that when Novak was distracted in a couple of games of that set. When Sampras was beating Pioline in the finals, we were yawning (I was). Last night's game was thoroughly enjoyable.

Leff, your original point was that none of the past legends playing AT THEIR BEST would have beaten Novak in the USO final given the way he was playing.

So essentially you're saying that that was the highest level of tennis you've ever seen.

I completely disagree.. Federer has played at a higher level on numerous occasions. I've already cited a few examples, but one only needs to look to the WTF last year where Roger basically dismantled ALL the other top players. His level at that tournament was clearly better than Novak's at the USO. When RF plays at his best, the match is completely on his raquet. The ONLY exception to that would be Nadal playing at his best on clay.

Roger brings more to the court than Novak. More diversity, a better serve, better FH, better net play, better transition game, better footwork. At his peak he was just as fast as the top two today. His defence was incredible, something he doesn't get as much credit for because he didn't need to defend as much as Novak or Rafa have to do. His offense is the best ever seen from the baseline. He is the most complete player in the history of the game.

Infact, it's quite clear that you got carried away with the emotion of the moment, because THIS final, whilst entertaining, was most definitely not on a par with even some of Novak's previous performances this year; I would point you to the AUS open semi-final against Roger, where the level from both players was truely high. This final, as many posters have alluded to, was a war of attrition from the baseline. It was survial of the fittest. That's not to say that the players didn't produce a high level. of course they did, but the incredible element in this match was the physicality, athleticism and staying power, not the shotmaking or 'genius'.

Tenez what is this stuff about how Nadal and Djokovic matches aren't entertaining. Madrid 09 was spectacular and Miami this year was a sensational match. The majority fans enjoyed this final as well. I just don't get you and your thinking.

For me I have a hard and fast and very inclusive rule for greatness, I generally looked at the guys who have won 3 or more slams as great. I consider Kuerten a bit borderline because he didn't only on clay but I would still rate as a great of the game giving some slack because of his injury. I consider Arthur Ashe, Vilas, Courier and Djokovic greats as well. Maybe Rafa and Roger has spoiled you guys because it seems like unless someone has 6 more slams nobody gives them credit. If you look at those in the open era that have won more than 3 slams you are talking about 15-20 players out of the thousands of players in the last 40 some years is pretty select company. I know that is a more permissive standard than other people a three time or more grandslam champ has proven that they are worthy multi slam champs.

That is a superb post emancipator. Wish we had a star system. Maybe, to avoid flood voting, one should be allowed to star a finite number of posts only. I very much like dogged determination and breadth of knowledge of Tenez and Socal1976. Hope I am not committing breach of any convention by mentioning names.

socal1976 wrote:Tenez what is this stuff about how Nadal and Djokovic matches aren't entertaining. Madrid 09 was spectacular and Miami this year was a sensational match. The majority fans enjoyed this final as well. I just don't get you and your thinking.

I started to watch and play tennis for the eye/hand coordination skills the game can provide. Typically those skills can beat the more physical players. Now those physical players AND their teams (noticed how they both congratulate their teams now after the match? ) have pushed the bar so high that the eye/hand skills are not that important.

Look at this clip, in particular rally starting at 2.30s. Djoko knows Nadal is on his knees, yet he refuses to go for lines and take a risk. On the contrary, he tempts Nadal on running even more to make sure Nadal doesn't get too much rest with short points.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va-Iy5YI170

Those things escape you, I know but those guys are not gamblers, except when they are 2 MPs down, more like bankers and they are banking on their fitness to win. Not on winners, even if they are easy to pull. That's not the goal here.

Also Just watch how far back is Nadal returning Nole's serve. Doesn;t he have a better eye for the ball? Shoudln't he be able to take the ball earlier and rush Nole a bit like Fed was trying to do? No. He prefers to stand back and exocet himself towards the ball and use his big arms to make up for the weakening ball.

Terrible tennis, shot making wise.

Manojchandra wrote:That is a superb post emancipator. Wish we had a star system. Maybe, to avoid flood voting, one should be allowed to star a finite number of posts only. I very much like dogged determination and breadth of knowledge of Tenez and Socal1976. Hope I am not committing breach of any convention by mentioning names.

That hurts! Being put in the same league as Socal and Fognini!

Come on Tenez. You know what I mean. I am just a simple tennis lover.

Manojchandra wrote:That is a superb post emancipator. Wish we had a star system. Maybe, to avoid flood voting, one should be allowed to star a finite number of posts only. I very much like dogged determination and breadth of knowledge of Tenez and Socal1976. Hope I am not committing breach of any convention by mentioning names.

Thanks Mano; I think there is a tendency to get carried away with the here and now..

I guess it's part of the sensationalist world in which we live..

Everything has to be bigger, better, stronger..

Just like the politcians: succesive governments will keep telling us that things have improved under their tenure; in that case life must be infinitely better than it was 10 or 20 years ago - I'm not so sure about that!

Tenez wrote:

Manojchandra wrote:That is a superb post emancipator. Wish we had a star system. Maybe, to avoid flood voting, one should be allowed to star a finite number of posts only. I very much like dogged determination and breadth of knowledge of Tenez and Socal1976. Hope I am not committing breach of any convention by mentioning names.

That hurts! Being put in the same league as Socal and Fognini!

Thank Manojchandra, Tenez is knowledgeable but completely wrong in his analysis 99 percent of the time. Yet, I actually enjoy his stubborn refusal to let facts and logic get in the way of his agenda. You are a welcome addition, Tenez is very entertaining however in small doses.

Tenez, maybe you didn't watch novak out hit roger in that semi but it was pretty obvious to me. He hit as many winners as roger with half as many errors. If hitting 25 or so more errors with same amount of winners is a sign of Roger's superior skill he can keep it.

emancipator wrote:

Leff, your original point was that none of the past legends playing AT THEIR BEST would have beaten Novak in the USO final given the way he was playing.

So essentially you're saying that that was the highest level of tennis you've ever seen.

I completely disagree.. Federer has played at a higher level on numerous occasions. I've already cited a few examples, but one only needs to look to the WTF last year where Roger basically dismantled ALL the other top players. His level at that tournament was clearly better than Novak's at the USO. When RF plays at his best, the match is completely on his raquet. The ONLY exception to that would be Nadal playing at his best on clay.

Roger brings more to the court than Novak. More diversity, a better serve, better FH, better net play, better transition game, better footwork. At his peak he was just as fast as the top two today. His defence was incredible, something he doesn't get as much credit for because he didn't need to defend as much as Novak or Rafa have to do. His offense is the best ever seen from the baseline. He is the most complete player in the history of the game.

Infact, it's quite clear that you got carried away with the emotion of the moment, because THIS final, whilst entertaining, was most definitely not on a par with even some of Novak's previous performances this year; I would point you to the AUS open semi-final against Roger, where the level from both players was truely high. This final, as many posters have alluded to, was a war of attrition from the baseline. It was survial of the fittest. That's not to say that the players didn't produce a high level. of course they did, but the incredible element in this match was the physicality, athleticism and staying power, not the shotmaking or 'genius'.

Nice and compelling argument. Good job there defending your point of view.

Leff wrote:

emancipator wrote:

Leff, your original point was that none of the past legends playing AT THEIR BEST would have beaten Novak in the USO final given the way he was playing.

So essentially you're saying that that was the highest level of tennis you've ever seen.

I completely disagree.. Federer has played at a higher level on numerous occasions. I've already cited a few examples, but one only needs to look to the WTF last year where Roger basically dismantled ALL the other top players. His level at that tournament was clearly better than Novak's at the USO. When RF plays at his best, the match is completely on his raquet. The ONLY exception to that would be Nadal playing at his best on clay.

Roger brings more to the court than Novak. More diversity, a better serve, better FH, better net play, better transition game, better footwork. At his peak he was just as fast as the top two today. His defence was incredible, something he doesn't get as much credit for because he didn't need to defend as much as Novak or Rafa have to do. His offense is the best ever seen from the baseline. He is the most complete player in the history of the game.

Infact, it's quite clear that you got carried away with the emotion of the moment, because THIS final, whilst entertaining, was most definitely not on a par with even some of Novak's previous performances this year; I would point you to the AUS open semi-final against Roger, where the level from both players was truely high. This final, as many posters have alluded to, was a war of attrition from the baseline. It was survial of the fittest. That's not to say that the players didn't produce a high level. of course they did, but the incredible element in this match was the physicality, athleticism and staying power, not the shotmaking or 'genius'.

Nice and compelling argument. Good job there defending your point of view.

Hello

Manojchandra wrote:Come on Tenez. You know what I mean. I am just a simple tennis lover.

Yes I should feel good but frankly. Don;t listen to Socal. He doesn't know much. Some people here have a good eye for the game. he is not one of them. Trust me. he will say some good things at times but they are probably down to luck...a bit like Djoko's MP return!

Hand/eye talent and physical prowess are not mutually exclusive by the way. Tenez, I dont think its good form to be telling new posters who you think are knowledgeable or not forum members.

I agree that Novak at USO is not the highest level of tennis EVER played. Federer has played better agreed, and I believe even Nadal has also produced some sublime perfromances on clay too. However, my own opinion for best ever tennis is Sampras in the 99 Wimbledon final vs Agassi. For sheer attacking, brutal ruthless tennis, for me that hasnt been topped yet.

If Djokovic finishes the year with only one loss (I am not counting the retirement) then that is a record that will probably never be beaten, ensuring his status as one of the all time greats. Furthermore, to achieve such a feat while two of the best players of all time are active, competitive and healthy is the stuff of legend. Even if he doesn't win another slam. IMO.

As for the standard of tennis, no one that I have seen in tennis history could live with Djokovic '11 at his best. He has an answer to everything. His defence is impregnable and his attacks are lethal.

Nadal raised the bar but Djokovic has taken tennis into a whole new dimension IMO.

icecold wrote:If Djokovic finishes the year with only one loss (I am not counting the retirement) then that is a record that will probably never be beaten, ensuring his status as one of the all time greats. Furthermore, to achieve such a feat while two of the best players of all time are active, competitive and healthy is the stuff of legend. Even if he doesn't win another slam. IMO.

As for the standard of tennis, no one that I have seen in tennis history could live with Djokovic '11 at his best. He has an answer to everything. His defence is impregnable and his attacks are lethal.

Nadal raised the bar but Djokovic has taken tennis into a whole new dimension IMO.

I'd have to disagree..

If 30 yr old Roger Federer can hold match points against him in one slam and beat him in another, I think it's a safe bet to say that 24/5 yr old Fed could most definitely 'live with him'.

I would make peak Fed a strong favourite on every surface bar slow HC's where it would be pretty even.

I would also add that '08 Nadal would be a favourite against him on grass and clay.

Peak Sampras would be a heavy favourite on grass and strong favourite on fast HC's.

Peak Agassi would be a favourite against him on slow HC's.

I can't speak for the older players.

In short, Novak's achievements have been outstanding this year, but the overall level of tennis is most definitely not something we haven't seen before.

Tenez wrote:

Manojchandra wrote:Come on Tenez. You know what I mean. I am just a simple tennis lover.

Yes I should feel good but frankly. Don;t listen to Socal. He doesn't know much. Some people here have a good eye for the game. he is not one of them. Trust me. he will say some good things at times but they are probably down to luck...a bit like Djoko's MP return!

Tenez

emancipator wrote:

icecold wrote:If Djokovic finishes the year with only one loss (I am not counting the retirement) then that is a record that will probably never be beaten, ensuring his status as one of the all time greats. Furthermore, to achieve such a feat while two of the best players of all time are active, competitive and healthy is the stuff of legend. Even if he doesn't win another slam. IMO.

As for the standard of tennis, no one that I have seen in tennis history could live with Djokovic '11 at his best. He has an answer to everything. His defence is impregnable and his attacks are lethal.

Nadal raised the bar but Djokovic has taken tennis into a whole new dimension IMO.

I'd have to disagree..

If 30 yr old Roger Federer can hold match points against him in one slam and beat him in another, I think it's a safe bet to say that 24/5 yr old Fed could most definitely 'live with him'.

I would make peak Fed a strong favourite on every surface bar slow HC's where it would be pretty even.

I am not convinced Federer 06 is better than Federer today. Fed learnt a lot playing against those new guys over the last 5 years. He had to learn to hit a FH and a BH off very spiny balls that no one could produce then with natural strings. Though I agree he lost some of his mouvement and more importantly his explosiveness he now has gained confidence in playing those guys. Does anyone remember how terrible Fed played v Nadal at their first FO match? Federer simply could not time his BH AND FH.

What I however think is that had Fed learnt to play tennis against those guys instead of Goran, Rafter, Kraji and Pete, he woudl have easily enginered the FH and BH to handle those spinny shots and helped by younge r legs would have left Nadal and Djoko in their tracks like he did of all the players of his generation.

[quote="sportslover"]

Tenez wrote:

Manojchandra wrote:Come on Tenez. You know what I mean. I am just a simple tennis lover.

Yes I should feel good but frankly. Don;t listen to Socal. He doesn't know much. Some people here have a good eye for the game. he is not one of them. Trust me.

That's being uncalled for.

Tenez wrote:

emancipator wrote:

icecold wrote:If Djokovic finishes the year with only one loss (I am not counting the retirement) then that is a record that will probably never be beaten, ensuring his status as one of the all time greats. Furthermore, to achieve such a feat while two of the best players of all time are active, competitive and healthy is the stuff of legend. Even if he doesn't win another slam. IMO.

As for the standard of tennis, no one that I have seen in tennis history could live with Djokovic '11 at his best. He has an answer to everything. His defence is impregnable and his attacks are lethal.

Nadal raised the bar but Djokovic has taken tennis into a whole new dimension IMO.

I'd have to disagree..

If 30 yr old Roger Federer can hold match points against him in one slam and beat him in another, I think it's a safe bet to say that 24/5 yr old Fed could most definitely 'live with him'.

I would make peak Fed a strong favourite on every surface bar slow HC's where it would be pretty even.

I am not convinced Federer 06 is better than Federer today. Fed learnt a lot playing against those new guys over the last 5 years. He had to learn to hit a FH and a BH off very spiny balls that no one could produce then with natural strings. Though I agree he lost some of his mouvement and more importantly his explosiveness he now has gained confidence in playing those guys. Does anyone remember how terrible Fed played v Nadal at their first FO match? Federer simply could not time his BH AND FH.

What I however think is that had Fed learnt to play tennis against those guys instead of Goran, Rafter, Kraji and Pete, he woudl have easily enginered the FH and BH to handle those spinny shots and helped by younge r legs would have left Nadal and Djoko in their tracks like he did of all the players of his generation.

To some extent I agree that Fed has learnt to handle Nadal's heavy topspin better than he used to however to suggest that overall he is a better player than he used to be is quite frankly, absurd.

Fed 06 would beat this version 2,3,2 without breaking a sweat.

His loss of movement is the biggest deficiency in his game; it affects his entire game, meaning that he can't get to balls that he used to reach, thus he shanks or replies with weaker shots off balls that, in the past, he could hit winners off all day.

TBH I can't be bothered to explain the many different ways in which Fed has declined; I suggest you watch some youtube videos of him in action from 05-06 and then decide if he is still a better player than he used to be.

socal1976 wrote:Tenez, maybe you didn't watch novak out hit roger in that semi but it was pretty obvious to me. He hit as many winners as roger with half as many errors. If hitting 25 or so more errors with same amount of winners is a sign of Roger's superior skill he can keep it.

Well atleast he didn't hide from Nadal in RG like Djokovic has so many times....

What are you talking about JM, he never gets put on Nadal's side of the bracket is that hiding? After two straight sets wins against Nadal on clay this year I don't think he was hiding from Nadal, he gets to play Nadal in that final this year we are talking about Laverovic.

icecold wrote:If Djokovic finishes the year with only one loss (I am not counting the retirement) then that is a record that will probably never be beaten, ensuring his status as one of the all time greats. Furthermore, to achieve such a feat while two of the best players of all time are active, competitive and healthy is the stuff of legend. Even if he doesn't win another slam. IMO.

As for the standard of tennis, no one that I have seen in tennis history could live with Djokovic '11 at his best. He has an answer to everything. His defence is impregnable and his attacks are lethal.

Nadal raised the bar but Djokovic has taken tennis into a whole new dimension IMO.

Great post icecold, I think it would be a great match between Roger of 06 and Djoko 11 in terms of level of competition. But in ten matches I would take Novak 11 by the slightest of margins. Novak beat Roger and Rafa in 09 and 10 when he was nowhere near the player he is today. I also don't think Roger has degraded quite as much, he is certainly now still a very competent and great champion, he is just having to compete against two greats in their prime while he is slightly passed his prime. Maybe a notch or lower.

Djoko cannot regarded as a great yet, although what can be said is that he's had one of the greatest - if not THE greatest - seasons in the Open era.
The fact is that in practically all his finals he's had to beat one of the top four, or, in fact, the number one (earlier) or the number two (now).
If you'd heard that Djoko, or any of the other big four, had had this kind of season you would probably have reckoned that one of the top guys had been injured or there had been some giant killing and that the big seeds had been knocked out by someone else.
That's not been the case. As far as the future lies, Djoko will have to - and may well do - win multiple slams to be considered a great. How many do you have to win - seven, eight, nine ? Who knows ? But he's still six behind Rafa who is still six behind Rog, so there's some way to go yet.

Sir fred, i tend to be a little bit more inclusive in terms of who I call great. I think to a certain extent Nadal and Fed have spoiled us and have pushed the bar way high. I think 3 slams is pretty much the entry point of greatness in the open era. In the 44 year history of the open era I think there have been 18 or 19 3 slam winners. That is pretty exclusive company considering the tens of thousands of people that have played professional tennis in that time period.

I can see Nole retiring with 8 slams like Lendl and Agassi.

Great is an overused word, and when it is applied too early then it becomes meaningless. If Novak is labelled 'great' at this juncture, then what superlatives do you use for Roger and Rafa - super great?

Novak has had a 'great' season - one of the best ever, and we may well be looking at one of tennis's greats but none of us can know that for certain at the moment unless we have prophetic powers.

Socal
Three slams is no mean achievement. But IMHO the bar should be pushed higher for greatness. Not sure what the number should be but six sounds pretty good and would bring in people like Becker and Edberg. Gosh, what would Murray give to have but ONE slam ?!
Makes me laugh to hear players described as one-slam wonders. Reckon they were only too pleased to get the one slam under their belt. Likewise the guys who were top for only a few weeks. Rafter was number one for just one week, I think. But any story about them, including their obituaries, will start "Former world number one..." No mean epitaph.

As far as I'm concerned, simply by having 2011 under his belt, Nole has the automatic "tennis great" status.
God willing, he'll add more slams to his nae, but in his case, quality supercedes quantity.
those who can't already see it will see it in a couple of years, in the meantime, GO NOLEEEEEEE

Not sure quality does supercede quantity. No one's doubting that Nole has had arguably the best year by a male player in the Open era. BUT CAN HE GO ON FROM HERE ? Quite possibly he can. Fed, for example, won three slams in a year three times so Nole has something to go for. Sustaining superiority and having to overcome all sorts of hurdles - injuries, new players, different surfaces, bigger balls etc etc - is the true hallmark of greatness.

sirfredperry wrote: No one's doubting that Nole has had arguably the best year by a male player in the Open era. BUT CAN HE GO ON FROM HERE ?

I do! 3 slams, 1 slam final and 1 Year End Masters is still better than Djoko's thus far!

sirfredperry wrote:Not sure quality does supercede quantity. No one's doubting that Nole has had arguably the best year by a male player in the Open era. BUT CAN HE GO ON FROM HERE ? Quite possibly he can. Fed, for example, won three slams in a year three times so Nole has something to go for. Sustaining superiority and having to overcome all sorts of hurdles - injuries, new players, different surfaces, bigger balls etc etc - is the true hallmark of greatness.

Me too; he didn't even make all 4 finals, which has been done a number of time by others.

And especially since it now seems he's going to miss out on a bunch of events with injury.

This Goldfish thing that observers have really drives me nuts. Anyone remember John McEnroe 1984? Maybe I'll hear one or two voices, but the honest answer from many on here will be that they didn't know commentators could have great years.

sirfredperry wrote:Not sure quality does supercede quantity. No one's doubting that Nole has had arguably the best year by a male player in the Open era. BUT CAN HE GO ON FROM HERE ? Quite possibly he can. Fed, for example, won three slams in a year three times so Nole has something to go for. Sustaining superiority and having to overcome all sorts of hurdles - injuries, new players, different surfaces, bigger balls etc etc - is the true hallmark of greatness.

Agreed. I have no doubt Nole will continue to roll it in the next few years.