Roland Garros 2023

First topic message reminder :

Alcaraz and Djokovic drawn in the same half.

Alcaraz projected to meet Norrie in R4.
FAA projected to meet Tsitsipas in R4 - also projected to meet Alcaraz in the 1/4 finals.

Djokovic projected to meet 2023 Monte Carlo champion Rublev in the 1/4 finals.

Ruud projected to meet Rune in the 1/4 finals.

Medvedev projected to meet Sinner/Zverev in the 1/4 finals.

Alcaraz carrying on and even has BPs in the opening Djoko service game of the 4th but Novak hangs on.

Then Novak breaks and you feel the end is nigh.

Well, Carlos did at least get a game in that 4th set but it ended 6-1 and the match to Novak.

A pity about the cramps as it was shaping up to be a terrific struggle.

It definitely had the feel of a 5 setter coming, it was a very even match. Even in 2nd set alcaraz looked like he might take it 6-3 and then Djokovic missed that big chance on break point at 5-5 and could have potentially stolen the set against the odds before Alcaraz then broke. Even start of 3rd set was very Even, the big thing was Djokovic was taking Alcaraz to Deuce in a huge amount of games. Alcaraz was getting so many quick games on serve vs other opponents but the djokovic return and backhand was making life very difficult for Alcaraz. That's probably what contributed to the cramp how hard he was having to work and run in every game

There's a definite feeling of anti-climax after the Djoko match. Would Alcaraz have gone on to win? We'll never know.

What we do know is that Djoko now has a great chance of winning the first three Slams of the year as I expect him to take the title in Paris and he'll be clear favourite at Wimbledon.

So, for me, the calendar Slam is on - and what an achievement that would be, especially at the age of 36. Of course, there's a long way to go and anything can happen in a match as we saw, alas, today.

As I write, Ruud has taken the first set 6-3 v Zverev. Whatever happens, I can't look beyond Djokovic on Sunday. What a rock solid competitor the guy is.

Fair play sirfredperry, you did say Djokovic was capable of the upset. We will never know what would have happened but Djokovic was playing very well and to his credit he was pulling Alcaraz into a dogfight, so many games were going to Deuce. Even as the injury struck i felt Djokovic was still playing very well so he very well may have still won it. I would say it was a shock to the system for alcaraz having to work so hard on his own service games and I think both players would have created lots of chances. Djokovic has phenomenal stamina so the one time I would never doubt him is if it went to 5th set decider. A real shame for Alcaraz but conditioning is a key part of the game and I think sometimes he really doesn't need to track down some lost cause balls. It's obviously the type of player he is but playing that way constantly will lead to injuries.

What a win by Ruud, 6-3 6-4 6-0. Did not see that coming!!!

I would have preferred to see Zverev in the final but it's all academic, anyway, as I can't see Djoko losing on Sunday.

Has there ever been a tougher opponent in a five-set match in the Open Era than Djoko? Rafa, certainly, on clay. But overall the accolade must go to Djoko and facing him when he's 36 years old is, amazingly, STILL as difficult as ever.

The two words you constantly hear when people are talking about Novak are rock and solid. I remember watching him as a teenager and thinking how incredibly focused he was.

His diffidence and inconsistent play at early stages of Slams can lure critics into thinking his days of supremacy are over. But come the business end of Slams he puts on his game face. The concentration is there, the solidity is there, the consistency is there.

The debate of the GOAT will persist as long as those who saw the Big Three are still alive. Rafa's piratical competitiveness and his sensational clay-court record have been incredible. Roger played sublime tennis and was probably the best-loved tennis player of all time.

But like him or not, Djoko, with more Slams likely to be captured, is the greatest of them all.

Well said SFP, I grew to massively admire all the big 3 over the years. I think they all brought something so different in terms of both personality and playing style. I think what stands out with Djokovic is his phenomenal consistency on every single surface (hard, grass, clay and indoors). His movement is remarkable but his will to win and the way he adapts his game to different opponents is just incredible. As you say though he has that ability in early rounds of slams to overcome and win even when not playing well but peaks in latter stages.

Federer had the most outrageous natural ability, Nadal had an unrivalled never say die attitude and Djokovic has been a master of consistency, technical proficiency and amazing mental strength

I've always got to go for the guy who had the greater ability and made the game look so ridiculously easy at his absolute best. I grudgingly appreciate both Nadal and Djokovic but the way in which he played means Federer is the greatest for me, numbers help but they aren't the be all and end all.

To compare it to cricket; Muralitharan has the numbers but no one will ever convince me that Shane Warne wasn't the greater spin bowler.

SR - The Murali-Warne comparison is apt. Djoko should now go on to win the most Slams but that does not necessarily settle the GOAT debate. Realistically, the debate will NEVER be settled as, for fans, it relies on style and popularity as much as stark statistics.

To broaden the comparisons. Can Harry Kane be considered a great footballer given he's not won a trophy? One of the finest England footballers was Tom Finney. He's generally regarded as a great player. He never won anything.

In cricket, Alastair Cook is England's highest Test runscorer. Cook is much admired but only a few would say he has been his country's greatest batsman. His record will almost certainly pass to Joe Root who many WOULD consider to be among the very best. And so yet another sporting GOAT debate will begin....

Swiatek takes the title. It looked like a cakewalk for the Pole at 6-2, 3-0 but Muchova suddenly got going and we had a match.

Having levelled by taking the second set 7-5, Muchova twice was a break up in the final set only to be pegged back each time.

Even then, at 4-4, Muchova's lob on break point was just out and Swiatek held and then broke for 6-4 and the match.

Iga now has three French titles and four Slams in all and has thoroughly embraced the number one position which was thrust upon her when Barty jacked it in.

She has also brought a sense of consistency and top player rivalry to the women's game following a period when it seemed almost anybody could rock up and walk away with a GS title.

Very difficult to see anything other than a fairly straightforward win for Djoko today.

Ruud has done really well to make the final having had a poor start to the season. But it looks for all the world like he will be a Slam runner-up for the third time later today.

Murray won on his fifth attempt as did Ivan Lendl.

Djoko takes the first set on the tiebreak. Ruud was very impressive early on and led 4-1 before UEs started creeping in.

You feel Nole may well run away with it from here.

An air of inevitability washes over RG as Djoko, as solid as ever, takes the second set 6-3.

The record 23rd Slam won't be long in arriving, methinks.

Djoko, as expected, took it in straight sets (7-5 in the third) to go out on his own in GS titles (23).

He also becomes the first man in the Open Era to win each of the Slams at least three times. It was a typical Nole performance, wearing down his opponent, being rock solid and playing better and better as the match went on.

I make him clear favourite at Wimbledon. Should he triumph at SW19 there will be serious talk of the calendar Grand Slam which really would be something - especially at the age of 36.

Statistically, there is no question Djoko is now the BOAT (Best of All Time), holding pretty much every important record, but the silence on this board that followed his win is perhaps indicative that he is not the GOAT (Greatest of All Time).
I personally (and I may be the only one!) distinguish between the two. The Greatest in any sport has an indefinable quality that transcends the sport itself (IMHO) - being the best isn't necessarily enough.

Wise words, JHM, and something that others have echoed on here in recent days.

Statistically, of course, Djoko is now out on his own. But sport is not just about stats. Grace, style, charm, behaviour, heroism and, as the Americans would say, a whole bunch of other stuff comes into play as well.

But as well as basking in the glory of a 23rd Slam, Djoko can perhaps lay claim to one thing - being the hardest man to beat in tennis. Think for a moment, who you would want to play for your life. On clay, it would have to be Rafa. But on all other surfaces you'd want to rely on Nole.

Perhaps other on this board would like to consider whether the Calendar Slam that I referred to earlier is possible.

Ultimately, people will be swayed by their biases (some more than others, and I'm not immune to this) and manufacture whichever argument suits their mood at the time on things such as the GOAT debate. I know a couple of Federer fans amongst my friends who never stopped talking about all his records and statistical dominance a few years back, and who regularly cited these as the most important indicator that he was the best to ever do it. Now he doesn't hold them, they downplay the importance of records and sheer numbers and contend that other factors are more important.

But as I alluded to, we're all hypocrites from time to time.

I do think in a sport such as tennis (particularly when you have candidates performing in the same era, largely offsetting the difficulty of comparing between generations) that numbers do matter a hell of a lot, more than anything else....But I can also concede they're not the be all and end all.

But it does beg the question - just how far ahead of everyone else does Djokovic have to go statistically before the sceptics (probably not the right word, but you get my drift) finally concede that he's on top of the heap? If it weren't for Covid and other non-tennis related incidents, he'd almost certainly have won another couple of Slams and racked up yet more weeks as number one, thus extending the gap which already exists between him and the chasing pack. By how much does his Slam count, weeks at number one etc. need to exceed those of Federer, Nadal, Sampras or whoever else you care to mention before we have to acknowledge that no amount of fanfare, grace, crossover appeal, good sportsmanship etc. can offset Djokovic's sheer superiority on the court?

Regardless of whether he's the 'greatest', however you define it, I think it's getting almost impossible to deny that he has achieved the most and has the best record in the history of the sport as a singles player, or at the very least in the Open Era. A potentially even more interesting topic might be where he ranks amongst the greatest sportspeople of all time, across any sport - because his record and accomplishments within his own field are so absurdly great that I'd imagine he rates right up there with most sporting legends you care to mention.

I don't like Djokovic, but it's laughable how the goalposts keep getting moved by some of his detractors, all because they don't like him.

He is the greatest of all time, it's beyond reasonable dispute. Some are just upset that he doesn't dominate the tennis scene while tipping a bowler hat to the umpire. If grace, style, charm etc. is the measure of the best, or greatest, or whatever, you may as well just anoint Tim Henman as the GOAT.

Djokovic is the greatest. It doesn't matter if he tells children Santa isn't real or worships the Devil, he's still the greatest. I can't think of any other sport/game where personality comes into the greatest discussion. No one invalidates Taylor's achievements in darts because he's a creep, or O'Sullivan in snooker for his various misdemeanours, or Tiger in golf for his numerous extra-marital liaisons.

Only in tennis does anyone advance an argument that the greatest isn't actually the greatest because it might be preferable to have afternoon tea with Roger, rather than Novak.

Sorry Duty but that's nonsense, it happens it literally every sport.

It's not about invalidating someone due to negative qualities, it's about elevating someone because of additional positive qualities.
O'Sullivan and Woods (before the fallout) are good examples because many people put them as the GOAT before they beat the records of Davis/Hendry and Nicklaus respectively (Woods will never beat it).
The same way many people have Ali as the greatest boxer (voted Greatest Sportsman of the Century IIRC), when statistically he's not.
Some people still consider Laver the greatest, or Gonzales.
Does greatest = best? Or is it something else?
Djokovic is the best tennis player ever, but is he the greatest?
Answers on a postcard.....

Djokovic:
Most grand slam wins
Most masters series
Most ATP finals (tied)
Most weeks at Number one
Only player to win all slams and masters series (twice
Only player to win all slams at least 3 times
Winning record vs all big rivals
Only player in modern era to win 4 consecutive slams
Dominant on two surfaces (10 Aus opens and 7 wimbledons)
Beat federer in 3 Wimbledon finals and Nadal twice at French open

Hard to argue with the stats, what you think of a person's personality is irrelevant..I don't like tiger Woods but I can hardly say he is not the greatest of open era, though Nicklaus arguably greater.

It's all subjective in all sports but I think it's getting harder to argue with Djokovic being greatest

Again, it's not about what anyone personally thinks of their personality, it's about the impact they had on the sport and outside the sport, in addition to the stats.
Otherwise how could Ali be voted the greatest sportsman of the century when he's not even statistically the greatest heavyweight boxer?
Otherwise Nicklaus is clearly greater than Woods with 20% more majors, it's not even an argument.

I guess it depends on how you define greatness. If it's simply and only about being the best, then Djokovic is the greatest. If it's about something more than that, the debate is still there.

And, of course, it doesn't really matter!

You have to reckon that Djoko could well add at least two more Slam titles to his record bunch - Wimbledon this year and the AO in 2024.

As long as he's doing well at the Slams he doesn't have to bust a gut at the other tournaments. This lessens his workload and should allow him to carry on for a while.

Will his GS record stand for ever? Amazing to think that Sampras's 14 Slams was considered unmatchable. Guess if you're trying to get anywhere near the record you have to get going at a young age. In that respect Alcaraz has started well.

Carlos might reflect on the fact that the old record holder, Sampras, and the current one, Djoko, both had to wait a while for their second Slam success. But then they came in healthy bursts.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Again, it's not about what anyone personally thinks of their personality, it's about the impact they had on the sport and outside the sport, in addition to the stats.
Otherwise how could Ali be voted the greatest sportsman of the century when he's not even statistically the greatest heavyweight boxer?
Otherwise Nicklaus is clearly greater than Woods with 20% more majors, it's not even an argument.

I guess it depends on how you define greatness. If it's simply and only about being the best, then Djokovic is the greatest. If it's about something more than that, the debate is still there.

And, of course, it doesn't really matter!

The "Best" and the "Greatest" are interchangeable terms and I don't think the debate is still there.  Djokovic has most slams, most masters series titles and most weeks at #1.  The only thing that brings him down is the lack of an Olympic gold medal but in tennis that's less important than it is in say in athletics or swimming.  I think those who think "greatest" is "more than that" are those who want to begrudge Djokovic his place at the top.  

"Greatness" is also highly subjective.  The way Federer fans behave you would think they are making a factual statement when they say he is the best to watch, the most elegant and the most wonderful person out of the big three.  I personally find Federer to be a frightful bore and I don't go into raptures when I watch him play. I also think "impact" on the sport is highly subjective. The media tends to big up their favourites and when they claim so and so has had a huge impact on the sport, this is often no more than supposition and propaganda. The media establishment have their favourites and it tends not to be Djokovic due to his political beliefs and his stance on covid jabs. I have a feeling that should Djokovic win another 3 or 4 slams, publications like the Guardian would still make out that he cannot be called the greatest due to pure numbers and spew out lots of dubious variables as to why he can't be regarded as such.

I disagree that Best and Greatest are interchangeable. That's why they are two different words. They are similar but not the same.
As I said, Djokovic is the BOAT. I'm thinking of copyrighting that acronym.
Ali is the GOAT but not the BOAT. Sugar Ray Leonard is the coolest of all time (COAT) and also my FLOAT (favourite Leonard of all time, although Nimoy was a close second).
I also don't think greatness is about watchability, although that may be a part of it.

Ali to be fair fought against all the toughest boxers like Foreman, Frazier, Liston, Holmes, Norton etc. I think he is arguably the greatest because of the sheer quality of the opponents he had to beat. Sure he might have lost a few fights later in career but I think judging greatness is down to not just what you win but also the level of competition you faced. That's I think what also makes Djokovic so impressive. At slams he has had to beat the likes of Federer, Nadal, Murray, Wawrinka, Medvedev, Tsitsipas, Del Potro, Thiem and many others. He has done it on the biggest stage against the strongest players of different generations. Longevity for me is one of the hardest things in sport, that's what makes Djokovic, Federer and Nadal so impressive.

Its also what takes from Serena Williams a bit for me, her opposition particularly after Henin retired young was much weaker. I think Graf faced tougher opposition during her career and she also won calendar golden slam

JuliusHMarx wrote:I disagree that Best and Greatest are interchangeable. That's why they are two different words. They are similar but not the same.
As I said, Djokovic is the BOAT. I'm thinking of copyrighting that acronym.
Ali is the GOAT but not the BOAT. Sugar Ray Leonard is the coolest of all time (COAT) and also my FLOAT (favourite Leonard of all time, although Nimoy was a close second).
I also don't think greatness is about watchability, although that may be a part of it.

BOAT has been done before sorry. Watchability though is subjective and saying that Federer is the most watchable is just an opinion. I would also contest that Federer has not had such a positive impact on the sport as the media would make out. If he did then more players would be able to make a living in tennis. The prize money went down in doubles and challenger events when Federer was on top probably because he wanted all the money for himself . In saying that I wouldn't paint Djokovic as a saint only all we have is figures and other variables are full of subjectivity. So I would proclaim the GOAT(BOAT) as Djokovic.

Mochyn Du, Djokovic has done far more for the players that are ranked out of the top 100. He is one of the few who has pushed for higher prize money going to qualifiers and players going out in the early rounds of slams and other tournaments. It seems in the locker room too according to interviews with next Gen players, Djokovic is very popular as he was always the player that would practise with them when they were younger. The likes of Medvedev, Thiem, Zverev and several others commented on how helpful Djokovic has been off court when they first arrived on tour. I am not saying Federer and Nadal have not done good things too but many of the young players have commented on this about Djokovic. There was also a good piece in Australian media last week about this from Aussie player, John Millman. Millman famously beat Federer once at US Open and took him to 5th set tie break at Australian open.

https://www.news.com.au/sport/tennis/behind-the-scenes-story-exposes-novak-djokovic-for-who-he-really-is/news-story/162d98da2ead6e21d8eb61665e808a21

Two days ago I was about to post my comment but withheld it as I didn't want to dampen the discussion.  But i post it now as the discussion seems to have run its course.
**************************************************************************
I think I have mentioned before that in my opinion the concept of GOAT is a bit childish and certainly reductive.  However I have liked two comments:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Statistically, there is no question Djoko is now the BOAT (Best of All Time) ....

I thought that was amusing.  Not sure if this is an original first from Julius but it is the first time I have become consciously aware of this term.

And this one by Chris; an anecdote of a common practice of "moving the goalposts" as mentioned by Duty281:

88Chris05 wrote:.... people will be swayed by their biases .... and manufacture whichever argument suits their mood at the time on things such as the GOAT debate. I know a couple of Federer fans amongst my friends who never stopped talking about all his records and statistical dominance a few years back, and who regularly cited these as the most important indicator that he was the best to ever do it. Now he doesn't hold them, they downplay the importance of records and sheer numbers and contend that other factors are more important....

Personally I take a chronological view paying particular attention to the pioneers, which sometimes arises from the first or best to exploit a new technology or some rule change.   Stats are of course an important consideration but more as a starting point rather than the be all and end all of an assessment.

With Djokovic winning number 23 there has been some youtubers posting GOAT videos and there has been reports in mainstream media as well as commentators here and elsewhere across social media space talking about it. Then I watched the highlights of the final and I was impressed by Djokovic's performance. For some reason I imagined him now as an old codger with his body about to breakdown at any moment - but he was impressively strong with great movement.

I think we are all going to have to wait for them all to retire before making an "definitive" assessment of the top four / top three era. I think it is important to have watched them all play, followed how they have progressed and how they have faded. There are a lot of people that make comments based on watching a few games on television, highlights of matches, reading the reports and checking the stats. I wonder if that is really enough to provide a proper assessment. Getting other players thoughts on the various players is important as is spending a lot of time watching them play on television. However I would imagine watching them play in real life is also probably very important - but television and listening to other players assessment will have to do for most.

I noticed one thing Novak learned from Fed. When you break the record, have a jacket already prepared with the number on it

You'd have to say Novak is the best of the "modern" era : figures are pretty decisive.

But this GOAT stuff doesn't cut it with me. Impossible to compare players in different eras fairly. Maybe Djokovic would have thrived whenever he played , and whatever opponents he'd faced : doesn't matter anyway as he's dominated more and more as his two great rivals have faded. What else could he do ?

But there was once a chap called Laver...

slashermcguirk wrote:Mochyn Du, Djokovic has done far more for the players that are ranked out of the top 100. He is one of the few who has pushed for higher prize money going to qualifiers and players going out in the early rounds of slams and other tournaments. It seems in the locker room too according to interviews with next Gen players, Djokovic is very popular as he was always the player that would practise with them when they were younger. The likes of Medvedev, Thiem, Zverev and several others commented on how helpful Djokovic has been off court when they first arrived on tour. I am not saying Federer and Nadal have not done good things too but many of the young players have commented on this about Djokovic. There was also a good piece in Australian media last week about this from Aussie player, John Millman. Millman famously beat Federer once at US Open and took him to 5th set tie break at Australian open.

https://www.news.com.au/sport/tennis/behind-the-scenes-story-exposes-novak-djokovic-for-who-he-really-is/news-story/162d98da2ead6e21d8eb61665e808a21

That's an interesting story slasher and completely flies in the face of the msm portrayal of Djokovic being less of a hero and less great for tennis as Fedal.  It doesn't wash with me that just because a player has won so much and they are very polite off court it should make them  great for the sport.  I have doubts as to Federer's supposedly wonderful contribution to the sport outside of him winning so much for himself and earning shed loads of money for himself.

"The Stefan Edberg Sportsmanship award is unique as it is voted by the ATP players themselves from the ones nominated by the ATP. The award goes to the player who, throughout the year, conducted himself at the highest level of professionalism and integrity, who competed with his fellow players with the utmost spirit of fairness and who promoted the game through his off-court activities."

Fellow pros seem to think Fed contributed a bit, since they voted for him 13 times.

JuliusHMarx wrote:"The Stefan Edberg Sportsmanship award is unique as it is voted by the ATP players themselves from the ones nominated by the ATP. The award goes to the player who, throughout the year, conducted himself at the highest level of professionalism and integrity, who competed with his fellow players with the utmost spirit of fairness and who promoted the game through his off-court activities."

Fellow pros seem to think Fed contributed a bit, since they voted for him 13 times.

It's just an award where ATP nobodies get to vote on their favourite multi millionaire tennis player.

Mochyn du wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:"The Stefan Edberg Sportsmanship award is unique as it is voted by the ATP players themselves from the ones nominated by the ATP. The award goes to the player who, throughout the year, conducted himself at the highest level of professionalism and integrity, who competed with his fellow players with the utmost spirit of fairness and who promoted the game through his off-court activities."

Fellow pros seem to think Fed contributed a bit, since they voted for him 13 times.

It's just an award where ATP nobodies get to vote on their favourite multi millionaire tennis player.  

Which clearly isn't Djokovic