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

It Must Be Love wrote:

temporary21 wrote:He faced both of those guys when much younger too. He's thrown both of them by the wayside

What's actually surprising here? He had to win most of his slams against two legends. Now he has nearly seen them off, you expect  a still young set of players with nearly no major wins to suddenly be more of a challenge to him?

That's madness. It's even madder if you think that a valid reason to talk down what he's acheived, because there's no luck to his competition dipping, he's pasted any decent competition to the wall

I think what Eman is talking about is the fact that the players aged 23-27 (who should be peak or near peak ?!) now don't seem to have any all time greats or stars.

Eman wrote:I don't believe in weak eras. It's always tough to win slams and Novak deserves full credit for doing so. However the competition can vary.

Lol. Even if we leave aside the fact I've always said I don't like that term; you know fully well that even people who did use it meant what you just said. It was always in a relative sense, no one was genuinely arguing that compared to your local club level Ljubicic was a weak player.

The difference is that people who use terms like weak era use it deliberately for it's negative connotations and belittling value whereas my intention is not to belittle Djokovic's accomplishments - he'll be remembered for those very numbers and their raw statistical value in any case - but to put them into context. And in absolute terms there is no such thing as a weak era because the competition is always fierce. But what is evident now is that no great players have emerged now for nigh on 10 years - Del Potro would have been one but of course he's spent as much time off the court as on it. Cilic was just lucky (that Fed was flat after the five setter against Monfils) - he's not a star by any stretch of the imagination.

Stan is even older than Murray and Djokovic!

Nore Staat wrote:Federer burst on the scene and started toppling the old guard almost immediately.  He had impact.  Similarly Nadal.  He started winning clay court titles left right and centre and it was clear he was a rising challenge to Federer on the grass and elsewhere.  Djokovic burst on the scene but was held up by Federer - Nadal, they were a bridge too far and so he slotted into number three.  Gradually he has exerted his dominance as he raised his level to Nadal and eventually overcame him - Nadal went pop and he has been toppled.  Same with Federer except it took a little longer to exert a dominance over an aging Federer.

Narrative is important.

You are partially correct but you gloss over some details.

Djokovic was younger than Federer when he started making a serious impact - he was younger when he won his first slam and his first Masters titles, and he also reached the top 10 and the top 3 at a younger age.  Where you are right, and the relative difference between their career statistical compilations, is that the period when Federer really racked up the slams, titles, and rankings and dominated was between the ages of 23 and 27, at a time when Djoko was 18 to 21 - Federer won 11 slams during that age period (2004-2007 for him) and Djoko won 5 (2010-2013 for him).  The comparison with Nadal looks harsher on the young Djokovic, but the older Djokovic fares much better against the older Nadal - either way the age difference of 1 year does not explain their different career trajectories, although you can say that during 2011-2013 they were both near their peaks and honours were pretty even.

Where Djoko differs from Fedal is that in the two years immediately after his big breakthrough (2009-2010) he had a relative slump.  However, this cannot be put exclusively down to Fedal, at least in the slams where he only lost to them in the 2009 and 2010 US Opens, in the latter he beat Fed in the SF, he lost to relative non-entities in the other six.

I suspect that Djoko suffers from the perception that he was generally relatively poor in 2009-2010 - if he had been duking it out and losing narrowly to Fedal in the bigger matches during that period as his awsome 2007-2008 had threatened, he would be more obviously associated with the narrative they created.  Funnily enough, when you look at all three the most significant period were there has been a consistent 'peak v. peak' match up across all surfaces was 2011-2013 Djoko v. Nadal, otherwise 'peak v. peak' meetings between the three have been irregular.

2004 ATP rankings (chasing pack)
#2 Roddick
#3 Hewitt
#4 Safin
#5 Moya

Present ATP rankings
#2 Murray
#3 Federer
#4 Wawrinka
#5 Nadal

Don't see much in it myself.

I think '16 Murray is better than '04 Roddick.
'16 Federer is probably still better than '04 Hewitt.
Safin and Wawrinka are similar, enigmatic, unplayable-on-their-day talents.
'16 Nadal against Moya is tough to compare but I don't think there's much either way.

One can argue against the individual comparisons but does anyone really see much difference in them as a group?

I think you need some rather rose-tinted specs to rate 2004 much different to 2016.

emancipator wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

temporary21 wrote:He faced both of those guys when much younger too. He's thrown both of them by the wayside

What's actually surprising here? He had to win most of his slams against two legends. Now he has nearly seen them off, you expect  a still young set of players with nearly no major wins to suddenly be more of a challenge to him?

That's madness. It's even madder if you think that a valid reason to talk down what he's acheived, because there's no luck to his competition dipping, he's pasted any decent competition to the wall

I think what Eman is talking about is the fact that the players aged 23-27 (who should be peak or near peak ?!) now don't seem to have any all time greats or stars.

Eman wrote:I don't believe in weak eras. It's always tough to win slams and Novak deserves full credit for doing so. However the competition can vary.

Lol. Even if we leave aside the fact I've always said I don't like that term; you know fully well that even people who did use it meant what you just said. It was always in a relative sense, no one was genuinely arguing that compared to your local club level Ljubicic was a weak player.

The difference is that people who use terms like weak era use it deliberately for it's negative connotations and belittling value whereas my intention is not to belittle Djokovic's accomplishments - he'll be remembered for those very numbers and their raw statistical value in any case - but to put them into context. And in absolute terms there is no such thing as a weak era because the competition is always fierce. But what is evident now is that no great players have emerged now for nigh on 10 years - Del Potro would have been one but of course he's spent as much time off the court as on it. Cilic was just lucky (that Fed was flat after the five setter against Monfils) - he's not a star by any stretch of the imagination.

You must be Sibyla, not sure if she played tennis

barrystar - excellent post.

Fed, Rafa and Novak have had totally different career arcs.

This is one area where I think the h2h have some use. After 40+ matches, Djoko is a little ahead but roughly equal with both Federer and Nadal.

Yes, he's boosted his numbers against weaker versions of them in recent years.

But they padded their numbers against a weaker version of him (before 2011, he trailed Federer 13-6 and Nadal 16-7).

Overall: about equal. If you put peak Fed against peak Nadal against peak Djokovic, I don't think any of them dominate.

HM Murdock wrote:2004 ATP rankings (chasing pack)
#2 Roddick
#3 Hewitt
#4 Safin
#5 Moya

Present ATP rankings
#2 Murray
#3 Federer
#4 Wawrinka
#5 Nadal

Don't see much in it myself.

I think '16 Murray is better than '04 Roddick.
'16 Federer is probably still better than '04 Hewitt.
Safin and Wawrinka are similar, enigmatic, unplayable-on-their-day talents.
'16 Nadal against Moya is tough to compare but I don't think there's much either way.

One can argue against the individual comparisons but does anyone really see much difference in them as a group?

I think you need some rather rose-tinted specs to rate 2004 much different to 2016.

Safin certainly better than Wawrinka.

Also I think the players in 2004 were young and in their primes.

All the players on the 2016 list have seen better years. It would also be interesting to see the rest of the top ten because the current generation drops off a cliff after the top five.

emancipator wrote:Competing yes, but Fed would have been dominating had it not been for Novak. That's not normal for any 33/34 year old - no matter how good he is. And even this year up until he met Novak at the AUS he was totally cruising, probably would have won the tournament without dropping a set - something he only achieved once in his halcyon days.

Novak's improvent in serve is apparent. The FH looks better because it's not being tested or put under pressure. Technically it's the same shot. Volleys make negligible difference to the outcome of his matches and I agree are at most passable. The slice floats and sits up - still hasn't managed the art of the low knifng slice that Federer and Murray can play. Overheads have if anything gotten worse - now he doesn't even attempt to hit winners off them - just plays it safe and guides it in. Movement - we don't know because he's not played any long or taxing, physically strenuous matches for ages - but all other greats have started losing a step around 28/29. Unfortunately, the weakness of the tour means we probably won't find out if Novak is slowing down until he really slows down. I certainly wouldn't say he is far better than 2012 - just looking at the matches he played against Murray and Nadal (AUS), and Federer (WTF) in 2012, well, I haven't seen him play at that level against a well matched competitor for ages. He squeaked through against Fed at the USO when Fed had 23 bps to Novak's 14! He's results are much better butbthen he's trampling some pretty pathetic competition - the mainstay of which is still Federer, four years older and slower than 2012 and nolonger even able to play five competitive sets.

Are we talking about Federer dominating didn't he last win a slam like almost 4 years ago. I mean he has done a fair Wozniacki impersonation in her heyday but he hasn't won anything or a meaningful match from Novak in years. When you have like 40 percent of the points of the top guy you aren't dominating anything.

Your post I am sorry is filled with many errors. His slice BH is not weak, probably one of the most underrated shots he has. He used it torture both Goffin and Nishikori. Pulling them into the net were they were uncomfortable and then lobbing them. Maybe in 2010 or 2011 it was weak it hasn't been weak for a long time. But your perceptions of Novak as the same or worse 2011 is not borne out by the facts. His volleys are also better and he makes 10 or so net approaches a set. Give or take. Also better than 2011/12. And it is an important part of his approach.

Yeah all of Novak's shots are conventional, he already has revolutionized the tour and tennis more than Federer. He invented the hard court slide and made it conventional when it wasn't. If Federer attempted his full split sliding BH he might tear himself in half. No one had heard of gluten or CVAC before Novak. He was the first guy to bring in multiple consulting coaches as well. You guys see conventional I see a revolutionary player

emancipator wrote:Safin certainly better than Wawrinka.

Also I think the players in 2004 were young and in their primes.

All the players on the 2016 list have seen better years. It would also be interesting to see the rest of the top ten because the current generation drops off a cliff after the top five.

The rest of the top ten in 2004 was Henman, Coria, Agassi, Nalbandian, Gaudio.

That section is of the top ten is probably better.

On balance, I think 2004 is ahead of 2016. But I don't think the difference is so stark that dominance in 2016 causes consternation but dominance in 2004 causes celebration. Neither are vintage years.

HM Murdock wrote:

emancipator wrote:Safin certainly better than Wawrinka.

Also I think the players in 2004 were young and in their primes.

All the players on the 2016 list have seen better years. It would also be interesting to see the rest of the top ten because the current generation drops off a cliff after the top five.

The rest of the top ten in 2004 was Henman, Coria, Agassi, Nalbandian, Gaudio.

That section is of the top ten is probably better.

On balance, I think 2004 is ahead of 2016. But I don't think the difference is so stark that dominance in 2016 causes consternation but dominance in 2004 causes celebration. Neither are vintage years.

Laughable, truly laughable. Murray is head and shoulders better than all those weak era sissies. Oh and there is the matter of his 100 matches against fedal as well. I think Murray has almost as many Masters and more Finals appearances than all the rollover clowns combined

socal1976 wrote:

HM Murdock wrote:

emancipator wrote:Safin certainly better than Wawrinka.

Also I think the players in 2004 were young and in their primes.

All the players on the 2016 list have seen better years. It would also be interesting to see the rest of the top ten because the current generation drops off a cliff after the top five.

The rest of the top ten in 2004 was Henman, Coria, Agassi, Nalbandian, Gaudio.

That section is of the top ten is probably better.

On balance, I think 2004 is ahead of 2016. But I don't think the difference is so stark that dominance in 2016 causes consternation but dominance in 2004 causes celebration. Neither are vintage years.

Laughable, truly laughable. Murray is head and shoulders better than all those weak era sissies. Oh and there is the matter of his 100 matches against fedal as well. I think Murray has almost as many Masters and more Finals appearances than all the rollover clowns combined

Would have to agree socal - you wonder what they were watching back then

socal1976 wrote:

HM Murdock wrote:

emancipator wrote:Safin certainly better than Wawrinka.

Also I think the players in 2004 were young and in their primes.

All the players on the 2016 list have seen better years. It would also be interesting to see the rest of the top ten because the current generation drops off a cliff after the top five.

The rest of the top ten in 2004 was Henman, Coria, Agassi, Nalbandian, Gaudio.

That section is of the top ten is probably better.

On balance, I think 2004 is ahead of 2016. But I don't think the difference is so stark that dominance in 2016 causes consternation but dominance in 2004 causes celebration. Neither are vintage years.

Laughable, truly laughable. Murray is head and shoulders better than all those weak era sissies. Oh and there is the matter of his 100 matches against fedal as well. I think Murray has almost as many Masters and more Finals appearances than all the rollover clowns combined

Name calling and belittling - i guess you must be right. The point was that old Federer would probably also dominate this field given he's lost out on four slams to Novak. Without Novak, Fed would also be posting numbers reminiscent of his heyday - and he is far from the player he used to be.

HM - I think there is also a difference between the class of 04 and 16 in that the former were players in their primes and that in itself brings a whole different psychological dimension. The top 5, '16 players are all on the way down.

The fact that a player 10 years away from his best years on tour, no matter how good that player was, is only being stopped by the dominant number 1 and in who's absence probably would have won four slams in the last 18 months, tells you something is wrong with the level of competition.

Remember, half of Djokovic's losses last year came to a player who is just one year short of the seniors tour.

What name calling? Also social is right Murray has achieved a lot more than any of the old 2004 guard. Suggesting he's weaker is talking blind

i also cannot think of a single person that thinks federer is weak competition to anybody ever. So much is made of his age as though he's dying of a terminal illness. The man is still exceptional, a point he is often given respect for.... Unless we are trying to belittle Novak and then he's a pathetic old man somehow...

There's no right here. However there should at least be some damn consistency. Feds amazing then he's not, competition fluctuates, oh wait it didn't back in 04, but it does now...

There is simply no way to praise fedal for what they did and then NOT do so for Novak, despite doing the exact same things they did.

Sorry, emanci, you know I go a little bonkers at the mention of the rollover guys. Look the facts are the facts. Lets take a peak at fed's three titanic wins v. Djokovic in 2013. One was on a lightening fast Dubai after Djokovic won the AO and it was decided by two super tight sets. You had a win at Cincy where Novak again doesn't do all that great ever, its not just the speed of the court but the humidity and win there as well. And basically what worked out to be a meaningless rubber in the group stage of the Tour finals, which Novak immediately avenged. They were hiccups either before or after big Novak slam appearances and wins mind you. I mean crap Federer lost to a 36 Sampras in an exho in Asia at his peak in 07. All pretty blip level types of losses at lesser events for Novak. All quick three set affairs. Over five, please take Novak anyday at any slam.

I would all like you to note that I was proven right on the weak era discussion. By the way lets not use the cop out of oh "its always tough to dominate the tour". I said the same thing but said that having great players at or near their peak was what was important. Now you guys are all arguing the same thing, I will pm you all with my paypal so you can forward the appropriate royalties.

barrystar wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:Federer burst on the scene and started toppling the old guard almost immediately.  He had impact.  Similarly Nadal.  He started winning clay court titles left right and centre and it was clear he was a rising challenge to Federer on the grass and elsewhere.  Djokovic burst on the scene but was held up by Federer - Nadal, they were a bridge too far and so he slotted into number three.  Gradually he has exerted his dominance as he raised his level to Nadal and eventually overcame him - Nadal went pop and he has been toppled.  Same with Federer except it took a little longer to exert a dominance over an aging Federer.

Narrative is important.

You are partially correct but you gloss over some details.

Djokovic was younger than Federer when he started making a serious impact - he was younger when he won his first slam and his first Masters titles, and he also reached the top 10 and the top 3 at a younger age.  Where you are right, and the relative difference between their career statistical compilations, is that the period when Federer really racked up the slams, titles, and rankings and dominated was between the ages of 23 and 27, at a time when Djoko was 18 to 21 - Federer won 11 slams during that age period (2004-2007 for him) and Djoko won 5 (2010-2013 for him).  The comparison with Nadal looks harsher on the young Djokovic, but the older Djokovic fares much better against the older Nadal - either way the age difference of 1 year does not explain their different career trajectories, although you can say that during 2011-2013 they were both near their peaks and honours were pretty even.

Where Djoko differs from Fedal is that in the two years immediately after his big breakthrough (2009-2010) he had a relative slump.  However, this cannot be put exclusively down to Fedal, at least in the slams where he only lost to them in the 2009 and 2010 US Opens, in the latter he beat Fed in the SF, he lost to relative non-entities in the other six.

I suspect that Djoko suffers from the perception that he was generally relatively poor in 2009-2010 - if he had been duking it out and losing narrowly to Fedal in the bigger matches during that period as his awsome 2007-2008 had threatened, he would be more obviously associated with the narrative they created.  Funnily enough, when you look at all three the most significant period were there has been a consistent 'peak v. peak' match up across all surfaces was 2011-2013 Djoko v. Nadal, otherwise 'peak v. peak' meetings between the three have been irregular.

Good point about his 2009 - 2010 "slump".  It wasn't much of a slump but Djokovic noted he had problems, hay - fever, exhaustion especially in hot weather.  In the end he put it down to his diet, gluten.  I think during that period he started to over-analysis just a little.  He also had family problems - I think his dad was controlling and Djokovic had to mature and break free and find and put in place a support team that he was comfortable with.  That said the competition from Federer and Nadal were formidable.

sportslover wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

HM Murdock wrote:

emancipator wrote:Safin certainly better than Wawrinka.

Also I think the players in 2004 were young and in their primes.

All the players on the 2016 list have seen better years. It would also be interesting to see the rest of the top ten because the current generation drops off a cliff after the top five.

The rest of the top ten in 2004 was Henman, Coria, Agassi, Nalbandian, Gaudio.

That section is of the top ten is probably better.

On balance, I think 2004 is ahead of 2016. But I don't think the difference is so stark that dominance in 2016 causes consternation but dominance in 2004 causes celebration. Neither are vintage years.

Laughable, truly laughable. Murray is head and shoulders better than all those weak era sissies. Oh and there is the matter of his 100 matches against fedal as well. I think Murray has almost as many Masters and more Finals appearances than all the rollover clowns combined

Would have to agree socal - you wonder what they were watching back then

SL, it was as competitive as watching the Washington Generals play the Harlem Globetrotters. The most unwatchable was Roddick, when he won the USO all us USA tennis fans thought well imagine what he will be able to do when he learns how to play tennis. Never in the history of the sport was a more one dimensional and raw tennis player the winner of such a trophy. Then Fed just blew up and took it to another level. Nalby was the most fun to watch both in a hot dog eating contest and in terms of his shots.

socal1976 wrote:

sportslover wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

HM Murdock wrote:

emancipator wrote:Safin certainly better than Wawrinka.

Also I think the players in 2004 were young and in their primes.

All the players on the 2016 list have seen better years. It would also be interesting to see the rest of the top ten because the current generation drops off a cliff after the top five.

The rest of the top ten in 2004 was Henman, Coria, Agassi, Nalbandian, Gaudio.

That section is of the top ten is probably better.

On balance, I think 2004 is ahead of 2016. But I don't think the difference is so stark that dominance in 2016 causes consternation but dominance in 2004 causes celebration. Neither are vintage years.

Laughable, truly laughable. Murray is head and shoulders better than all those weak era sissies. Oh and there is the matter of his 100 matches against fedal as well. I think Murray has almost as many Masters and more Finals appearances than all the rollover clowns combined

Would have to agree socal - you wonder what they were watching back then

SL, it was as competitive as watching the Washington Generals play the Harlem Globetrotters. The most unwatchable was Roddick, when he won the USO all us USA tennis fans thought well imagine what he will be able to do when he learns how to play tennis. Never in the history of the sport was a more one dimensional and raw tennis player the winner of such a trophy. Then Fed just blew up and took it to another level. Nalby was the most fun to watch both in a hot dog eating contest and in terms of his shots.

"Nalby was the most fun to watch both in a hot dog eating contest and in terms of his shots." Yes Fat Dave was fun to watch even up until the end when he nearly took out an official at Queens!. As for Old Roger there are still a few of his "Fan Boys" who still think he is good for more Slams - i'n their dreams I'm afraid.

sportslover wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

sportslover wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

HM Murdock wrote:

emancipator wrote:Safin certainly better than Wawrinka.

Also I think the players in 2004 were young and in their primes.

All the players on the 2016 list have seen better years. It would also be interesting to see the rest of the top ten because the current generation drops off a cliff after the top five.

The rest of the top ten in 2004 was Henman, Coria, Agassi, Nalbandian, Gaudio.

That section is of the top ten is probably better.

On balance, I think 2004 is ahead of 2016. But I don't think the difference is so stark that dominance in 2016 causes consternation but dominance in 2004 causes celebration. Neither are vintage years.

Laughable, truly laughable. Murray is head and shoulders better than all those weak era sissies. Oh and there is the matter of his 100 matches against fedal as well. I think Murray has almost as many Masters and more Finals appearances than all the rollover clowns combined

Would have to agree socal - you wonder what they were watching back then

SL, it was as competitive as watching the Washington Generals play the Harlem Globetrotters. The most unwatchable was Roddick, when he won the USO all us USA tennis fans thought well imagine what he will be able to do when he learns how to play tennis. Never in the history of the sport was a more one dimensional and raw tennis player the winner of such a trophy. Then Fed just blew up and took it to another level. Nalby was the most fun to watch both in a hot dog eating contest and in terms of his shots.

"Nalby was the most fun to watch both in a hot dog eating contest and in terms of his shots." Yes Fat Dave was fun to watch even up until the end when he nearly took out an official at Queens!. As for Old Roger there are still a few of his "Fan Boys" who still think he is good for more Slams - i'n their dreams I'm afraid.

How can Roger's performances in recent years be called quote "dominating" is beyond me. I mean when was the last slam he won, Agassi won 3 slams after 30. Is what Roger is doing today being competitive much better or worse than what Andre did? I mean when you are like 9000 points behind the guy who is in the lead how can you be said to be dominating anything?

HM Murdock wrote:2004 ATP rankings (chasing pack)
#2 Roddick
#3 Hewitt
#4 Safin
#5 Moya

Present ATP rankings
#2 Murray
#3 Federer
#4 Wawrinka
#5 Nadal

Don't see much in it myself.

I think '16 Murray is better than '04 Roddick.
'16 Federer is probably still better than '04 Hewitt.
Safin and Wawrinka are similar, enigmatic, unplayable-on-their-day talents.
'16 Nadal against Moya is tough to compare but I don't think there's much either way.

One can argue against the individual comparisons but does anyone really see much difference in them as a group?

I think you need some rather rose-tinted specs to rate 2004 much different to 2016.

Have to say I see the 2004 group as substantially weaker. The only one I would see as similar would be Safin/Stan. Moyà had not really been relevant for about 6 years by that point (despite the fact we can all agree 2000-04 was a relatively weak period). Even in his current state, Rafa is far superior to that Moyà.

Bjorn Borg didn't bother with the Australian Open. He could easily have won 6 if he had put his mind to it: 11+6 = 17. And all this by the age of 26.

But the fact he wasn't able to put his mind to it suggests he wasn't enjoying it that much.

socal1976 wrote:Sorry, emanci, you know I go a little bonkers at the mention of the rollover guys. Look the facts are the facts. Lets take a peak at fed's three titanic wins v. Djokovic in 2013. One was on a lightening fast Dubai after Djokovic won the AO and it was decided by two super tight sets. You had a win at Cincy where Novak again doesn't do all that great ever, its not just the speed of the court but the humidity and win there as well. And basically what worked out to be a meaningless rubber in the group stage of the Tour finals, which Novak immediately avenged. They were hiccups either before or after big Novak slam appearances and wins mind you. I mean crap Federer lost to a 36 Sampras in an exho in Asia at his peak in 07. All pretty blip level types of losses at lesser events for Novak. All quick three set affairs. Over five, please take Novak anyday at any slam.

Nonsense.

Equating an exho with a hero to a competitive match against a player he reportedly dislikes? Dismissing a loss as a blip because it was a loss? Circular "logic".

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.

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

That's not to say that I don't share concerns over the guys in the 22-26 age group. They clearly are a weak cohort. However, Federer of today would be at or near the top in any era - it's a bizarre stick for fans of Federer to seek to beat them with.

Born Slippy wrote: The Federer of today would, in my view, still easily be able to dominate 04-06.

Interesting thought.

I don't see him producing seasons of 92-5. Those sort of numbers need a player with the foot speed of the younger Fed.

But I still think he'd be #1. I find it hard to imagine the likes of Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko and teenage Rafa getting better results than him over the course of a whole year.

The weird thing about the current state of affairs is that 3 years ago, everyone would have expected Djokovic, Nadal and Murray to have pulled clear of Federer by 2016. He is, after all, 5-6 years older than them. That should matter when the older man is 34.

The fact that only one of the three has done so is very odd.

So we have agreed that Federer is weak competition to Djokovic, and because he is, Novaks domination doesn't matter...
Sounds to me like none of of you have actually watched either of them play to me...

The careers of Roger, Rafa and Novak have similarities to Connors, McEnroe and Lendl.

Connors the main man who was slowly taken over by McEnroe by his younger contemporary and seemed to be the one hi would go on to dominate, Lendl struggling to get to grips with his rivals before finally clicking and becoming even more dominant than McEnroe.

Lendl reminds me of Novak in terms of how dominat he was but did also have slips ups but his consistency was unreal, once he put it altogether he came out of the shadows of Borg, Connors and McEnroe.

Connors like Federer was still able to compete at the very top and beat all of his younger rivals even into his 30s, raising his legendary status in many people's eyes.

HM Murdock wrote:

Born Slippy wrote: The Federer of today would, in my view, still easily be able to dominate 04-06.

Interesting thought.

I don't see him producing seasons of 92-5. Those sort of numbers need a player with the foot speed of the younger Fed.

But I still think he'd be #1. I find it hard to imagine the likes of Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko and teenage Rafa getting better results than him over the course of a whole year.

The weird thing about the current state of affairs is that 3 years ago, everyone would have expected Djokovic, Nadal and Murray to have pulled clear of Federer by 2016. He is, after all, 5-6 years older than them. That should matter when the older man is 34.

The fact that only one of the three has done so is very odd.

The same can also really be said for the likes of Tsonga, Berdych and Ferrer. Their records haven't noticeably improved against him. It's only odd though if you choose to believe that Fed is substantially poorer.

Its almost as though people think playing well into your mid thirties is without any precedent. Agassi did it just ten years ago. IN FACT he nearly beat a prime Fed at the age of 35 in a US open final, with a very bad back.

Forget the age, the man is still playing like a top 4 player because his body and will are still there to let him do it.

Dont be fooled into thinking he only beats Fed through fatigue, this current Novak is more than a match for Federer tennis wise, no matter what vintage Fed you cherry pick.

This old man talk is just an excuse to try and make Djokovics achievements look bad, "hes only done this because his best competition is a 35 year old"

In reality, its "The man has acheived all he has whilst taking it from two GOAT candidates still playing like GOAT candidates, because, ultimately, hes their natural successor, and taken tennis to a new level."

Did we all really think that noone would eventually play better than Roger? After that was said about Sampras, and EVERY other great?

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

That's not to say that I don't share concerns over the guys in the 22-26 age group. They clearly are a weak cohort. However, Federer of today would be at or near the top in any era - it's a bizarre stick for fans of Federer to seek to beat them with.

Really? I guess guys in the last few years who've beaten him, like Cilic, Kyriagos, Seppi, Monfils, Isner, Ramos-Vanolis, etc. are all better than the guys who Federer routinely trounced in his pomp.

Honestly, facts always come in handy in these discussions.

HM Murdock wrote:

Born Slippy wrote: The Federer of today would, in my view, still easily be able to dominate 04-06.

Interesting thought.

I don't see him producing seasons of 92-5. Those sort of numbers need a player with the foot speed of the younger Fed.

But I still think he'd be #1. I find it hard to imagine the likes of Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko and teenage Rafa getting better results than him over the course of a whole year.

The weird thing about the current state of affairs is that 3 years ago, everyone would have expected Djokovic, Nadal and Murray to have pulled clear of Federer by 2016. He is, after all, 5-6 years older than them. That should matter when the older man is 34.

The fact that only one of the three has done so is very odd.

It is, though this has a lot to do with Nadal being so badly exposed by the changes in power hitting by others, and by murray being hugely all over the place.

temporary21 wrote:In reality, its "The man has acheived all he has whilst taking it from two GOAT candidates still playing like GOAT candidates, because, ultimately, hes their natural successor, and taken tennis to a new level."

I'm very cautious about declaring Novak to be a new level for tennis.

Parts of his game arguably are. He's the best defender I've seen and I think the way he slides on a hard court to hit those open stance shots is a new development for tennis. One can make a case for him having the best return of serve ever too.

But overall? Given that a 34 year old Fed still gives him trouble on a fast surface, one has to think his 25 year old incarnation would beat him more often than not.

But I don't think even peak Fed would topple Novak from his citadels like RLA and Miami.

They're very different players.

bogbrush wrote:It is, though this has a lot to do with Nadal being so badly exposed by the changes in power hitting by others

And by the unexplained loss of power in his own game crisis of confidence...

temporary21 wrote:Its almost as though people think playing well into your mid thirties  is without any precedent. Agassi did it just ten years ago. IN FACT he nearly beat a prime Fed at the age of 35 in a US open final, with a very bad back.

Forget the age, the man is still playing like a top 4 player because his body and will are still there to let him do it.

Dont be fooled into thinking he only beats Fed through fatigue, this current Novak is more than a match for Federer tennis wise, no matter what vintage Fed you cherry pick.

This old man talk is just an excuse to try and make Djokovics achievements look bad, "hes only done this because his best competition is a 35 year old"

In reality, its "The man has acheived all he has whilst taking it from two GOAT candidates still playing like GOAT candidates, because, ultimately, hes their natural successor, and taken tennis to a new level."

Did we all really think that noone would eventually play better than Roger? After that was said about Sampras, and EVERY other great?

If this was 10 years ago it would be called a rollover cr@p generation.

Today, fluctuation.

HM Murdock wrote:

bogbrush wrote:It is, though this has a lot to do with Nadal being so badly exposed by the changes in power hitting by others

And by the unexplained loss of power in his own game crisis of confidence...

Watch him play HM. He is hitting the ball harder than ever. He's lost his consistency, before he could hit the same forehand 6 times in a row, now it's 3 times before he frames it into the crowd. His movement is also slower, and that of course has a knock on effect in getting yourself set up for a shot.

Things is lk, id reverse what you said there. A lot of people would call 2004 the fluctuation caused by Roger, and this gen the cr@p one that Novak has been lucky to take advantage of

In the end which one it is depends on whether youre a fanboy of Fed or Novak, which is why its a bunch of sh*t in the end anyway.

"Given that a 34 year old Fed still gives him trouble on a fast surface"

You dont watch this supposed weak ass 34 year old Fed then? Hes still brilliant, a win against him is a still a huge scalp.

There is simply no way to get people to swallow that Fed is sh*t in anyway.

Why on earth do people think that Federer will somehow buck the trend of hundreds of years of sports history, in that future players will eventually exceed them? Because hes pretty?

Its no disrespect to Roger, he was one of the two greatest of his time, but he will ultimately be superseded by a player who took the bar he set and raise it. Hes still there anyway.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

temporary21 wrote:Its almost as though people think playing well into your mid thirties  is without any precedent. Agassi did it just ten years ago. IN FACT he nearly beat a prime Fed at the age of 35 in a US open final, with a very bad back.

Forget the age, the man is still playing like a top 4 player because his body and will are still there to let him do it.

Dont be fooled into thinking he only beats Fed through fatigue, this current Novak is more than a match for Federer tennis wise, no matter what vintage Fed you cherry pick.

This old man talk is just an excuse to try and make Djokovics achievements look bad, "hes only done this because his best competition is a 35 year old"

In reality, its "The man has acheived all he has whilst taking it from two GOAT candidates still playing like GOAT candidates, because, ultimately, hes their natural successor, and taken tennis to a new level."

Did we all really think that noone would eventually play better than Roger? After that was said about Sampras, and EVERY other great?

If this was 10 years ago it would be called a rollover cr@p generation.

Today, fluctuation.

What ?! They're not mutually exclusive.
They're both describing different things; the current generation between 23-27 who should be peaking seem to be a 'rollover generation'- and thus there is a fluctuation in level of competition- it is easier than previously. I'm not going to bring up the obvious hypocrisy just yet, I want to see how 'principled' people react to it.

temporary21 wrote:Things is lk, id reverse what you said there. A lot of people would call 2004 the fluctuation caused by Roger, and this gen the cr@p one that Novak has been lucky to take advantage of

In the end which one it is depends on whether youre a fanboy of Fed or Novak, which is why its a bunch of sh*t in the end anyway.

"Given that a 34 year old Fed still gives him trouble on a fast surface"

You dont watch this supposed weak ass 34 year old Fed then? Hes still brilliant, a win against him is a still a huge scalp.

There is simply no way to get people to swallow that Fed is sh*t in anyway.

Why on earth do people think that Federer will somehow buck the trend of hundreds of years of sports history, in that future players will eventually exceed them? Because hes pretty?

Its no disrespect to Roger, he was one of the two greatest of his time, but he will ultimately be superseded by a player who took the bar he set and raise it. Hes still there anyway.

I had this argument ages ago in which I asked what the difference was between Roger beating a 35 year old Slam winner in a Slam final as compared with Djokovic beating a 35 year old Slam winner in a final.

No-one produced a sensible answer, so I gave up.

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

temporary21 wrote:Its almost as though people think playing well into your mid thirties  is without any precedent. Agassi did it just ten years ago. IN FACT he nearly beat a prime Fed at the age of 35 in a US open final, with a very bad back.

Forget the age, the man is still playing like a top 4 player because his body and will are still there to let him do it.

Dont be fooled into thinking he only beats Fed through fatigue, this current Novak is more than a match for Federer tennis wise, no matter what vintage Fed you cherry pick.

This old man talk is just an excuse to try and make Djokovics achievements look bad, "hes only done this because his best competition is a 35 year old"

In reality, its "The man has acheived all he has whilst taking it from two GOAT candidates still playing like GOAT candidates, because, ultimately, hes their natural successor, and taken tennis to a new level."

Did we all really think that noone would eventually play better than Roger? After that was said about Sampras, and EVERY other great?

If this was 10 years ago it would be called a rollover cr@p generation.

Today, fluctuation.

What ?! They're not mutually exclusive.
They're both describing different things; the current generation between 23-27 who should be peaking seem to be a 'rollover generation'- and thus there is a fluctuation in level of competition- it is easier than previously. I'm not going to bring up the obvious hypocrisy just yet, I want to see how 'principled' people react to it.

I was talking about how a certain viewpoint (not yours) takes that stance I stated

legendkillarV2 wrote:
I was talking about how a certain viewpoint (not yours) takes that stance I stated

I think Socal agrees with every word I'm saying, he just puts it in a light hearted way with some funny exaggerated analogies.

It Must Be Love wrote:

HM Murdock wrote:

bogbrush wrote:It is, though this has a lot to do with Nadal being so badly exposed by the changes in power hitting by others

And by the unexplained loss of power in his own game crisis of confidence...

Watch him play HM. He is hitting the ball harder than ever. He's lost his consistency, before he could hit the same forehand 6 times in a row, now it's 3 times before he frames it into the crowd. His movement is also slower, and that of course has a knock on effect in getting yourself set up for a shot.

Maybe he's lost consistency because he's hitting the ball harder than ever. I mean, that does tend to happen if you try to operate outside your zone of competence.

And why is he hitting the ball harder than ever? Could it be because other players are blasting him (he says it enough himself) and he's trying to compete with them?

Which brings you back to my diagnosis of the problem.

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

HM Murdock wrote:

bogbrush wrote:It is, though this has a lot to do with Nadal being so badly exposed by the changes in power hitting by others

And by the unexplained loss of power in his own game crisis of confidence...

Watch him play HM. He is hitting the ball harder than ever. He's lost his consistency, before he could hit the same forehand 6 times in a row, now it's 3 times before he frames it into the crowd. His movement is also slower, and that of course has a knock on effect in getting yourself set up for a shot.

Maybe he's lost consistency because he's hitting the ball harder than ever. I mean, that does tend to happen if you try to operate outside your zone of competence.

And why is he hitting the ball harder than ever? Could it be because other players are blasting him (he says it enough himself) and he's trying to compete with them?

Which brings you back to my diagnosis of the problem.

OK, but HM was insinuating something there which I was addressing.
As for Nadal, well he's got worse, he's lost footspeed, before fore example he could turn over his backhand onto his forehand so easily and dominate play- but now he's slower it's much easier to pin him down on the backhand.
Also I don't think Nadal has a problem with people blasting him, he has an issue with everyone, he lost to Cuevas who's a total lightweight remember- he actually looks more comfortable at times against someone like Isner/Anderson compared to someone like Cuevas where he looked totally tortured.

It Must Be Love wrote:

HM Murdock wrote:

bogbrush wrote:It is, though this has a lot to do with Nadal being so badly exposed by the changes in power hitting by others

And by the unexplained loss of power in his own game crisis of confidence...

Watch him play HM. He is hitting the ball harder than ever. He's lost his consistency, before he could hit the same forehand 6 times in a row, now it's 3 times before he frames it into the crowd. His movement is also slower, and that of course has a knock on effect in getting yourself set up for a shot.

I was speaking more of a general loss of power than just weaker shots. I agree that he certainly looks slower nowadays.

I'm really surprised you think he's hitting shots harder than ever though. They look all wrong to me, his depth has been all over the place.

I won't dig my heels in on the point because you've watched him a lot more than I have. But I had a completely different view of it to you!

legendkillarV2 wrote:

temporary21 wrote:Things is lk, id reverse what you said there. A lot of people would call 2004 the fluctuation caused by Roger, and this gen the cr@p one that Novak has been lucky to take advantage of

In the end which one it is depends on whether youre a fanboy of Fed or Novak, which is why its a bunch of sh*t in the end anyway.

"Given that a 34 year old Fed still gives him trouble on a fast surface"

You dont watch this supposed weak ass 34 year old Fed then? Hes still brilliant, a win against him is a still a huge scalp.

There is simply no way to get people to swallow that Fed is sh*t in anyway.

Why on earth do people think that Federer will somehow buck the trend of hundreds of years of sports history, in that future players will eventually exceed them? Because hes pretty?

Its no disrespect to Roger, he was one of the two greatest of his time, but he will ultimately be superseded by a player who took the bar he set and raise it. Hes still there anyway.

I had this argument ages ago in which I asked what the difference was between Roger beating a 35 year old Slam winner in a Slam final as compared with Djokovic beating a 35 year old Slam winner in a final.

No-one produced a sensible answer, so I gave up.

Correct lk. There is NO real difference, both were old but still playing top top tennis. The only slight difference is that Agassis ranking had dropped because his back has nearly gone by then, but he didnt play like it that day.
Despite that, we still get arguments from other posters (not you) that competition levels fluctuation is relevant to one guys great success but not the other. Which is a clear disrespect due to blind player bias, which is getting real dull to me.

Nadal ALWAYS hit the ball with more power than anybody, he put it in spin, which was a tactical decision as it put other power hitters out of their comfort zone.

In particular it was a consistently successful for a whole decade against his main rival, and never had to even slightly adjust it because of that.

The new gen doesnt struggle with that level of spin, so its harder to use. Despite that, weve seen Rafa hit the ball flat as a pancake in 2013 and be massively successful then too.

Perhaps, just plausibly, hes lost his passion for hurting himself everyday to keep going. Playing into your 30's is just as much about maintaining your interest as everything else

Once again this is certain people demonstrating that theyve never actually watched Nadal play with their eyes open, or blindly slagging him off because of what he did to Federer for so many years. Again, its getting dull.

HM Murdock wrote:
I was speaking more of a general loss of power than just weaker shots. I agree that he certainly looks slower nowadays.

I'm really surprised you think he's hitting shots harder than ever though. They look all wrong to me, his depth has been all over the place.

I won't dig my heels in on the point because you've watched him a lot more than I have. But I had a completely different view of it to you!

You're right about his depth, there's no consistency there- sometimes playing too short and sometimes over compensating and hitting the ball way long. In Indian Wells, I think against Zverev, they did a slow-mo of Nadal missing a forehand down the line. He didn't get to the ball in time, and then he tried to compensate, and at the end his technique went horribly wrong and predictable the ball ended up in the net.
Also you can hit the ball with a lot of power, but still not close to the lines so not moving your opponent around. So it can appear he's losing power, when that's not actually the issue.
(HM, to make it relatable to the player you support- think of Djokovic. He has the frame to easily be a 'big hitter' and hit the ball much harder and more power than he does; but he retrains himself and instead plays very intelligently, trying to control each point with great angle and depth.)

temporary21 wrote:"Given that a 34 year old Fed still gives him trouble on a fast surface"

You dont watch this supposed weak ass 34 year old Fed then? Hes still brilliant, a win against him is a still a huge scalp.

You've misapplied that quote.

If Fed can threaten on a fast court at age 34, it's entirely sensible to think he'd be an even bigger threat with the speed and explosive energy of a 25 year old.

If we're to judge if tennis has "moved on", we have to compare it against a previous best.

"Roger Federer" is not a fixed point!

temporary21 wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

temporary21 wrote:Things is lk, id reverse what you said there. A lot of people would call 2004 the fluctuation caused by Roger, and this gen the cr@p one that Novak has been lucky to take advantage of

In the end which one it is depends on whether youre a fanboy of Fed or Novak, which is why its a bunch of sh*t in the end anyway.

"Given that a 34 year old Fed still gives him trouble on a fast surface"

You dont watch this supposed weak ass 34 year old Fed then? Hes still brilliant, a win against him is a still a huge scalp.

There is simply no way to get people to swallow that Fed is sh*t in anyway.

Why on earth do people think that Federer will somehow buck the trend of hundreds of years of sports history, in that future players will eventually exceed them? Because hes pretty?

Its no disrespect to Roger, he was one of the two greatest of his time, but he will ultimately be superseded by a player who took the bar he set and raise it. Hes still there anyway.

I had this argument ages ago in which I asked what the difference was between Roger beating a 35 year old Slam winner in a Slam final as compared with Djokovic beating a 35 year old Slam winner in a final.

No-one produced a sensible answer, so I gave up.

Correct lk. There is NO real difference, both were old but still playing top top tennis. The only slight difference is that Agassis ranking had dropped because his back has nearly gone by then, but he didnt play like it that day.
Despite that, we still get arguments from other posters (not you) that competition levels fluctuation is relevant to one guys great success but not the other. Which is a clear disrespect due to blind player bias, which is getting real dull to me.

Indeed. No difference at all. Both guys at the same stage of their respective careers, though beating one of them was frowned upon as being no competition and the other was serenaded as if he was St George himself slaying the mighty dragon.

He was better at 25, but not by so much that 34 year old Fed is a hack who only got there because of rubbish players and a lucky Djokovic.

Besides put this Novak against 25 years old Roger. Novak probably has the edge, SOLELY because hes the man who has built on the foundations that 25 year old Fed laid

HM Murdock wrote:

temporary21 wrote:"Given that a 34 year old Fed still gives him trouble on a fast surface"

You dont watch this supposed weak ass 34 year old Fed then? Hes still brilliant, a win against him is a still a huge scalp.

You've misapplied that quote.

If Fed can threaten on a fast court at age 34, it's entirely sensible to think he'd be an even bigger threat with the speed and explosive energy of a 25 year old.

If we're to judge if tennis has "moved on", we have to compare it against a previous best.

"Roger Federer" is not a fixed point!

Least we forget the racquet change