After winning FO this year Djokovic would be the GOAT

First topic message reminder :

Agree?

noleisthebest wrote:Barry,

"Slams could not be the measure of greatness for several reasons:"

Agreed, although, you start walking on very thin ice if you abandon slam count as the GOAT entitlement.

Who and how you decide the GOATship status then leads to all these debates without the real answer.
Personally, due to tennis being a game that has evolved a lot during the years due to a lot of different factors (money, strings, court speed, medicine etc, etc), I'm much happier with the term TENNIS GREAT rather than the GOAT, unless you have a player who achieves something that is clearly head and shoulders above everyone before him.
Now what could that achievement be is the $64K question...

NITB - look at the past tense "could" - what I am saying is that as the importance of slams increased in peoples minds it injected something new into the debate.

I don't like GOAT debates, I am merely talking about them as an onlooker not a participant - you'll note I have not identified a "GOAT" because I don't have one, just a handful of players who would have a claim to the subjective status that is "GOAT" - My upper tier would probably consist of players like Tilman, Budge, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver, Borg, Sampras, and Federer, with Lendl and Nadal worthy of mention but not quite up there with the others, thus far in Nadal's case.

My favourites are two players I've watched, McEnroe and Federer, but that's something a bit different.

barrystar wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Barry,

"Slams could not be the measure of greatness for several reasons:"

Agreed, although, you start walking on very thin ice if you abandon slam count as the GOAT entitlement.

Who and how you decide the GOATship status then leads to all these debates without the real answer.
Personally, due to tennis being a game that has evolved a lot during the years due to a lot of different factors (money, strings, court speed, medicine etc, etc), I'm much happier with the term TENNIS GREAT rather than the GOAT, unless you have a player who achieves something that is clearly head and shoulders above everyone before him.
Now what could that achievement be is the $64K question...

NITB - look at the past tense "could" - what I am saying is that as the importance of slams increased in peoples minds it injected something new into the debate.

I don't like GOAT debates, I am merely talking about them as an onlooker not a participant - you'll note I have not identified a "GOAT" because I don't have one, just a handful of players who would have a claim to the subjective status that is "GOAT" - My upper tier would probably consist of players like Tilman, Budge, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver, Borg, Sampras, and Federer, with Lendl and Nadal worthy of mention but not quite up there with the others, thus far in Nadal's case.

My favourites are two players I've watched, McEnroe and Federer, but that's something a bit different.

Yes, and it will always boil down to discussing personal tastes which worst case scenario so often escalate into Whos Dad's the strongest debates

GOAT is so subjective, but there should not be so much argument about using GS to evaluate the greats.
Let's take a GS. It, hopefully, will feature ALL the top players. It's over five sets, its over two weeks, the scheduling ought to be fair to everyone unless it rains or it's the USO with Stupid Saturday.
There is also tradition. Because fans and former players set such a store by GS, the players want them more and try harder and the whole thing BECOMES a big event.
And nowhere is this more true than Wimbledon where a win still remains every player's dream.

Careful Sir Fred - from the mid-late 1930's onwards the best players moved from the Amateur circuit to the pro-circuit meaning that the slam counts of players like Perry, Budge, Gonzalez, Kramer, Hoad, Rosewall, Laver, and Emerson are very difficult to ascribe a value to in the GOAT debate. Even the likes of Connors, Borg, and McEnroe did not bother with the Australian Open, which was not even the 4th strongest tournament of the year until the mid 1980's so their slam tallies are not the best guides of their merits either. It's only really from 1988 onwards that slam wins have been unambiguously the best guide of merit, but even then not the only one. I think you'll find that my description of the evolution of the GOAT debate is a fair one.

B'star. Good points. I should have remembered that a number of the top guys never "bothered" with the AO in the 70s and parts of the 80s, and of course the barring of the professionals from the pre-Open era slams slewed the stats.
Goodness knows how many Slams Laver would have won if the Open era had begun, say, in 62. Yes, it took him a while to get to the top when he joined the professional circuit, but you can bet that he would have won a fair few slams between 64 and 67.
I did not, also, wish to ignore, in assessing greatness, longevity of overall success. Most would say Lendl achieved more than Agassi and, arguably, was a greater player than Borg even though it didn't show in GS titles. Damn, I seem to have knocked down my own argument !

I don't think the pre-open era players should be contending for the GOAT title....and that includes Laver. Even Borg, John and Connors havehad it very easy in comparison to today but at least it was professional tennis then.

Professional at one times meant belonging to a very tiny circle of players who coudl play all day against themselves. That made winning slams a much easier task as only a handfull of players coudl afford to play all day, everyday.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Socal will have a different view point to the ones made of course.

If he can win all slams this year, then very likely he will win all slams the following year too, then yes he will be a GOAT candiate with 12 slams and 2 calander slams and 10 slams in a row , NITB Nole is in form of life, but he will have to wait for his RG, I dont think he would win it this year, the pressure will surmount on him, it happened to Federer, it happened to Nadal it will happen to Djokovic, the curse of 4 in a row.

invisiblecoolers wrote: it happened to Federer, it happened to Nadal it will happen to Djokovic, the curse of 4 in a row.

Funnily enough, it never really happened to Federer in that way - he never fluffed his lines at a slam he was proper favourite for with 4-in-a-row on the line. At RG 2006 and 2007 he got to the finals which were won fair and square by Rafa successfully employing his anti-federer tactic, and for my money they were not lost by Federer because the pressure got too great (although all those missed bp's in 2007 were heart-breaking). With hindsight Fed's greatest missed chance was USO 2009, when 4-in-a-row was not directly on the line.

We have not seen the clay season yet, but recent form and last year suggests that Djoko should be able to go into RG believing he has a better chance of beating Nadal on clay in a best-of-five (should they meet) than Fed ever had.

invisiblecoolers wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Socal will have a different view point to the ones made of course.

If he can win all slams this year, then very likely he will win all slams the following year too, then yes he will be a GOAT candiate with 12 slams and 2 calander slams and 10 slams in a row , NITB Nole is in form of life, but he will have to wait for his RG, I dont think he would win it this year, the pressure will surmount on him, it happened to Federer, it happened to Nadal it will happen to Djokovic, the curse of 4 in a row.

I don't think Nole is bothered about any of this media pushing. He may be in September provided he wins FO & SW19 in the meantime. RG itself would be major success and something he would be happy to end the year with in terms of slams.

The main thing is that success has not gone into Nole's head.

As Nitb has pointed out the big thing for me would be to see Novak win at RG. He would hold all 4 slams simultaneously and at that point i think he would rocket past all the greats sitting at 6 or even 7 slams. In fact, if he wins RG I would probably already put him above lendl, connors, and agassi the guys with 8 slams. This is scenario #1, novak wins RG and loses one of the next two slams or both.

Scenario 2: Probably way too good to even wish for. Novak wins all the slams in 2012. That would give him 6 slams in a row, (right now he has 3 in a row). Tie budge's record and smash Laver record of 4 in a row. At this point he would have 8 slams, 2 year end #1s, and a boatful of other big tournaments. Hypothetically, at this stage I would put him into the upper echelon of Open era Goat candidates. Fed and Sampras. It would be a three man top tier and for Novak to make it a one man top tier well he would have to have a great 2013 and 2014 averaging more than one slam win a year after that. Completing the calendar year slam would give Novak in my mind a road to goathood, sans beating the 16 slam mark of Roger. I think a lot of people, maybe most people would rate a guy with 12-14 slams and six slams in a row over a guy with 16 slams. Some won't but I think they would be in the minority.

That being said this is all conjecture and wishful thinking and the tour and injuries play a big role in bringing someone back to the pack. He could stay at 5 slams and just be remembered as another great champion and that would be fine for me. But if he goes on and completes any type of 52 week slam holding all the majors at once that would rocket him up the charts. Getting all the slams this year would put him squarely in the goat debate, and backing that up with a couple more years of winning some slams would probably make him the goat in many people's eyes.

socal1976 wrote:As Nitb has pointed out the big thing for me would be to see Novak win at RG. He would hold all 4 slams simultaneously and at that point i think he would rocket past all the greats sitting at 6 or even 7 slams. In fact, if he wins RG I would probably already put him above lendl, connors, and agassi the guys with 8 slams. This is scenario #1, novak wins RG and loses one of the next two slams or both.

Scenario 2: Probably way too good to even wish for. Novak wins all the slams in 2012. That would give him 6 slams in a row, (right now he has 3 in a row). Tie budge's record and smash Laver record of 4 in a row. At this point he would have 8 slams, 2 year end #1s, and a boatful of other big tournaments. Hypothetically, at this stage I would put him into the upper echelon of Open era Goat candidates. Fed and Sampras. It would be a three man top tier and for Novak to make it a one man top tier well he would have to have a great 2013 and 2014 averaging more than one slam win a year after that. Completing the calendar year slam would give Novak in my mind a road to goathood, sans beating the 16 slam mark of Roger. I think a lot of people, maybe most people would rate a guy with 12-14 slams and six slams in a row over a guy with 16 slams. Some won't but I think they would be in the minority.

That being said this is all conjecture and wishful thinking and the tour and injuries play a big role in bringing someone back to the pack. He could stay at 5 slams and just be remembered as another great champion and that would be fine for me. But if he goes on and completes any type of 52 week slam holding all the majors at once that would rocket him up the charts. Getting all the slams this year would put him squarely in the goat debate, and backing that up with a couple more years of winning some slams would probably make him the goat in many people's eyes.

Great post.

socal1976 wrote:As Nitb has pointed out the big thing for me would be to see Novak win at RG. He would hold all 4 slams simultaneously and at that point i think he would rocket past all the greats sitting at 6 or even 7 slams. In fact, if he wins RG I would probably already put him above lendl, connors, and agassi the guys with 8 slams. This is scenario #1, novak wins RG and loses one of the next two slams or both.

Scenario 2: Probably way too good to even wish for. Novak wins all the slams in 2012. That would give him 6 slams in a row, (right now he has 3 in a row). Tie budge's record and smash Laver record of 4 in a row. At this point he would have 8 slams, 2 year end #1s, and a boatful of other big tournaments. Hypothetically, at this stage I would put him into the upper echelon of Open era Goat candidates. Fed and Sampras. It would be a three man top tier and for Novak to make it a one man top tier well he would have to have a great 2013 and 2014 averaging more than one slam win a year after that. Completing the calendar year slam would give Novak in my mind a road to goathood, sans beating the 16 slam mark of Roger. I think a lot of people, maybe most people would rate a guy with 12-14 slams and six slams in a row over a guy with 16 slams. Some won't but I think they would be in the minority.

That being said this is all conjecture and wishful thinking and the tour and injuries play a big role in bringing someone back to the pack. He could stay at 5 slams and just be remembered as another great champion and that would be fine for me. But if he goes on and completes any type of 52 week slam holding all the majors at once that would rocket him up the charts. Getting all the slams this year would put him squarely in the goat debate, and backing that up with a couple more years of winning some slams would probably make him the goat in many people's eyes.

Hey Socal, I can sign this post

Then there is another point which should be mentioned about the great ones. It is not only the quantity of wins, but also the player performance and his character. Novak has a lion heart, shows emotions, but still enjoys tennis on the court and does entertain the crowd. That is more what people will remember than only quantity of GS wins. And as Nitb wrote the success has not gone in his mind so far. Nole is an essence of a great fighter, sportman and showman and that makes him one of the great tennis players already now.

noleisthebest wrote:

The main thing is that success has not gone into Nole's head.

Yet.

Paul and jersey thanks for the nice compliments and I can't agree more. Novak has a lot of wit and has brought his own style to the top of the tennis world and I think it adds to the game. It is all speculation at this point. But this FO is really crucial for him. If he can somehow win the next slam then he opens the door for himself to accomplishing truely historic feats that we may not see for a long time or in our lives.

socal1976 wrote:Paul and jersey thanks for the nice compliments and I can't agree more. Novak has a lot of wit and has brought his own style to the top of the tennis world and I think it adds to the game. It is all speculation at this point. But this FO is really crucial for him. If he can somehow win the next slam then he opens the door for himself to accomplishing truely historic feats that we may not see for a long time or in our lives.

I like Djoko - I think he's a gracious on-court presence and I think he has a great attitude towards being No. 1, he strikes me as believing that at No. 1 he carries a great resonsibility which he wants to respect and use to benefit tennis. He also seems very comfortable as No. 1. Djoko is still behind Fedal in terms of recognition as well as achievement and I agree that he really needs the career slam like the other two - until conditions change that is what is needed to be a great in the current era; if he can get RG this year he's not only establishing a huge presence in tennis history but also taking a real step up alongside Fedal in terms of recognition which he could not by mere accumulation of HC slams (something I expect him to do anyway).

Yes, Djoko - like Fed before him - does seem comfortable at number one. Wonder if Rafa ever did, though. Maybe Rafa enjoyed being the number two especially when he was consistently beating the number one (Rog).
Contrast all this with the late 1990s when the number one was being passed round and dropped like a hot potato. Didn't Kafelnikov stay top for six weeks and not win a single match during that time ?!

I too think Djokovic is wearing the No 1 mantle very well. Looking forward to seeing him play again later today.

I think a lot of people, maybe most people would rate a guy with 12-14 slams and six slams in a row over a guy with 16 slams. Some won't but I think they would be in the minority.

----------------------------------

In your dreams buddy.

Obviously you're trying to lower the criteria in order to fit your agenda. GOAT is an amalgation of all achievements over a career. Thus a player with 16 slams (and a substantially higher number of other achievements such as weeks at number 1, total number of titles, WTF's, year end number 1's, spread of titles over surfaces, career match wins etc) is definitely going to be considered higher in the debate than a guy with 12-14 slams but considerably lesser achievements in other areas. Winning X number of slams in a row only shows incredible dominance over a stretch of time but does not necessarily equate to the best overall career.

Pure desperation tactics. In any case I doubt very much that the limited, 1-D Djokovic (who has no net game to speak of, a weak serve and a pathetic sliced BH) will get anywhere near 16 slams.

Another more subjective criteria is the player's game. How well-rounded was he ? How complete was he? Federer exceeds the Djoker in this regard by a mile - even a blind mouse could tell that Roger is the better technical player, more gifted and more versatile. TMF can do things on a tennis that Djoker dare not even dream of.

Roger would have been a multiple (double-digit) slam winner in any era.
Djokovic would have been a mere footnote in eras by-gone eras. Only the homogenisation of surfaces and the lack of versatility on the tour allows him to dominate with essentially one repetitive, robotic style of play.

Keep counting your fantasy chickens.



emancipator

Emancipator, I have noted in my post that this is speculation and Novak could end up not attaining any of these lofty goals. That is pretty funny that you claim Novak is one dimensional, so was Pete Sampras, so was Andre Agassi, and then lendl as well. I tell you this much Novak's return and backhand are far superior to Roger's even at his peak. Forehand wise Novak's forehand right now is probably top 5 or 10 on a tour replete with good forehands. Add speed and fitness in the equation, and I lost count that sounds like 3 or 4 dimensions right there.

As for Novak's volleys, he isn't a world beater but he has gotten a lot better and is pretty competent at the net. By the way in all of his matches with Nadal, novak comes to the net much more than Nadal and wins more points as well. How successful has Roger been at volleying against Nadal? Not nearly as successful as Novak has. Roger's volleys are highly overrated by all his fans, he is power baseliner like everyone else in the last decade. I have seen the guy flub a lot of easy volleys, he is nowhere near the volleyer that he appears to be in the mind of his fans. A good volleyer not a great one.

Novak is a poor volleyer - simple as. He has poor technique, poor anticipation at the net and infact only ventures there for easy put aways. His serve is average at best and still looks flaky. He doesn't have the speed, placement or variety. His BH slice is pathetic. It sits up like a duck. He has an excellent return and a great BH. The FH technique is wild. It does not even compare to peak Fed's FH. He now has stamina and this in combination with the slow court conditions is what makes him so tough to beat.

Roger is an accomplished volleyer and would have been an excellent volleyer if the conditions had permitted him to play more of that kind of game. Just watch him volleying in W 2001 and 3. He has excellent technique.

The bottom line is that Federer is clearly a more accomplished, all round player, and no amount of slams (real or imagined) will change that. Federer is the standard for the modern game. But he is more than that. He is the one player, in a world of power baseline tennis, who can still fuse the old school with the new one. At his peak he could kick ass from the baseline, serve and volley and make the transition smoothly. Hell, you could give him a wooden racket and he'd still be the most talented player on tour. Throughout his career he has played shots that Novak can only dream of. Just youtube some of his highlight videos and then compare with the other top players of today - world's apart. To reduce him to simply another 'power baseliner' shows that you have no appreciation of the nuances of tennis and the extreme talent and skill it takes to play the kind of game Fed plays.

To suggest that Novak with 12-14 slams would surpass federer in the minds of most tennis fans is ridiculous. It shows that you are blinded by fandom and cannot appreciate the subtleties of the sport. There are many footballers who have surpassed Maradonna in terms of achievements but there are none, since the 80's, who can hold a candle to his unique talent. Such is the case with Federer and tennis, except Federer not only has the talent but also the achievements to go with it.

To top it all off Federer plays the game with elegance, beauty and ruthless effieciency - it's like a work of art. On the other hand Djokovic is truly just another 'power baseliner'.



emancipator

Great, no argument here emancipator. Enjoy your love of federer. I just hope Novak gets RG and then he would elevate himself above the mere 3 consecutive slam winners like RF. I think you don't comprehend how much value most tennis and sports fan put on the Grandslam. If anyone Novak, Nadal, or whoever wins a large number of slams and gets a calendar year slam in the mix, I think a great number of commentators would elevate that person to GOAT status. The fact that Roger was never able to win the calendar year slam as great as he was leaves the door open for another great player to challenge him without having to equal his 16 slam mark.

If Roger is your GOAT that is great enjoy it. I have never been one who thinks just racking up slams is the only indicator of how great a player is. If that is the case why was it that before Pete Sampras passed emerson nobody and I mean nobody viewed Emerson as the greatest player of all time? But Laver who won 2 calendar year slams was seen as the GOAT, and by many tennis fans is still seen as the GOAT with all that Roger has accomplished.

emancipator wrote:Novak is a poor volleyer - simple as. He has poor technique, poor anticipation at the net and infact only ventures there for easy put aways. His serve is average at best and still looks flaky. He doesn't have the speed, placement or variety. His BH slice is pathetic. It sits up like a duck. He has an excellent return and a great BH. The FH technique is wild. It does not even compare to peak Fed's FH. He now has stamina and this in combination with the slow court conditions is what makes him so tough to beat.

emancipator

cooo, but he can half return

Hey emancipator,
when comparing these two great players you need to separate the style and elegance on one side and then the game performance.
Yes, Roger plays more aggresively and has faster FH and serve. On the contrary Novak has much better return and BH. Novak has improved his net game recently, I would say his technical ability is on very good level. But Novak game does have less weaknesses than Roger due to his SHBH and also is less readable mainly due to more angled shots. That makes difference of both when playing with Nadal. There is nobody on the circuit who can play such cross shots from both sides.

Would be great to see both in the final, hopefully in Dubai.

No, he will never be the GOAT not even with 100 GS. He is boring, brought nothing new to the game, except stamina, and is just a slightly advanced version of Nadal's game, which makes him a copy of Nadal.
That's why he has only 1,5 fans here, as fans love him for his looks/Rambo shirt ripp-offs and where he comes from (his country man/woman/populist/nationalist stuff), and not his beauty of game/skill.

True story this one, now you can all sleep nicely tonight.

socal1976 wrote:Great, no argument here emancipator. Enjoy your love of federer. I just hope Novak gets RG and then he would elevate himself above the mere 3 consecutive slam winners like RF. I think you don't comprehend how much value most tennis and sports fan put on the Grandslam. If anyone Novak, Nadal, or whoever wins a large number of slams and gets a calendar year slam in the mix, I think a great number of commentators would elevate that person to GOAT status. The fact that Roger was never able to win the calendar year slam as great as he was leaves the door open for another great player to challenge him without having to equal his 16 slam mark.

If Roger is your GOAT that is great enjoy it. I have never been one who thinks just racking up slams is the only indicator of how great a player is. If that is the case why was it that before Pete Sampras passed emerson nobody and I mean nobody viewed Emerson as the greatest player of all time? But Laver who won 2 calendar year slams was seen as the GOAT, and by many tennis fans is still seen as the GOAT with all that Roger has accomplished.

Socal, your response makes no sense.

Where did I state that only slams determine GOAThood? I mentioned a number of different criteria (and that was by no means an exhaustive list).

However, clearly 16 slams is a greater achievement than 12-14. Indeed it is you that is obessing about the number of slams.

You also seem to be arguing that a calender year grandslam IS the definitive criteria for GOAThood. Since when? So simply because a guy gets all four slams in one year he is immediately elevated to GOAT status? Seems like a convenient shortcut. Without doubt it would a great achievement but it most certainly doesn't create a free pass to GOAThood. It's incredible how quick people are to jump on bandwagons. Your love for Nadal certainly didn't last long MR FA (yes I remember very clearly your affiliations on the old 606)



emancipator - nothing escapes the emancipator.

Jahu wrote:No, he will never be the GOAT not even with 100 GS. He is boring, brought nothing new to the game, except stamina, and is just a slightly advanced version of Nadal's game, which makes him a copy of Nadal.
That's why he has only 1,5 fans here, as fans love him for his looks/Rambo shirt ripp-offs and where he comes from (his country man/woman/populist/nationalist stuff), and not his beauty of game/skill.

True story this one, now you can all sleep nicely tonight.

When Roger is politely saying about his outlook when playing a great match with Nadal in GS, that makes me really boring and this will be getting only worse

paulcz wrote:Hey emancipator,
when comparing these two great players you need to separate the style and elegance on one side and then the game performance.
Yes, Roger plays more aggresively and has faster FH and serve. On the contrary Novak has much better return and BH. Novak has improved his net game recently, I would say his technical ability is on very good level. But Novak game does have less weaknesses than Roger due to his SHBH and also is less readable mainly due to more angled shots. That makes difference of both when playing with Nadal. There is nobody on the circuit who can play such cross shots from both sides.

Would be great to see both in the final, hopefully in Dubai.

How long have you been watching tennis? Perhaps you missed the glory days of Federer. Federer had a fantastic return. His serve was miles better than Novak, his FH was in a different stratosphere, his footwork was better, his net game much better and his serve was in a different league. More angled shots; what kind of nonsense is this? Fed's BH has only been a weakness against one player who can generate incredible bouncy topspin shots. How many of them are there on the tour? Federer had (and still has) much more variety; anyone who knows anything about tennis would never place peak Novak above peak Federer, let alone consider the former's game to be more complete.

Emancipator, I still defend Nadal although I wouldn't rate either Fed or Nadal as my top 5 players on tour. I defended him in the past on old 606 as FA and socalfootiefan. Lets just say that alot of Fed fans and their accusations of doping and cheating have never rubbed me the right way not then and not now. And if you read up my posts on old 606 you will see that I have consistently put Novak at the top of my favorite players. In fact, I got a lot of guff from Murray fans when I rated Novak as being better than Andy back in 09 on old 606, at that time Murray had won 3 straight matches against Novak. And the reason that you know about my past name on 606 is because I told everyone. It isn't a secret, and I am not ashamed.

I didn't say a calendar year slam in itself is a free pass to goathood. As I noted a player with a large total slam count and a calendar year slam would in the eyes of many surpass Roger as the GOAT. The calendar year slam is the holy grail of the sport. And to the victors go the spoils. Especially, if that player has a lengthy resume of success otherwise speaking. It is highly unlikely that someone would come up win all 4 slams in a row and not have a high level of career accomplishment.

Jahu wrote:No, he will never be the GOAT not even with 100 GS. He is boring, brought nothing new to the game, except stamina, and is just a slightly advanced version of Nadal's game, which makes him a copy of Nadal.
That's why he has only 1,5 fans here, as fans love him for his looks/Rambo shirt ripp-offs and where he comes from (his country man/woman/populist/nationalist stuff), and not his beauty of game/skill.

True story this one, now you can all sleep nicely tonight.

Funny, I am neither serbian or a woman and I love Novak's game. Roger didn't bring anything new to the game either, what is he credited for inventing slice or something, or the first man to repeatedly cry at grandslam events, is that new, does he get credit for that? You find his game boring I find it capitivating and he will get new fans as he continues to win and gets more exposure. He has loads more personality than Rog or Rafa.

paulcz wrote:

When Roger is politely saying about his outlook when playing a great match with Nadal in GS, that makes me really boring and this will be getting only worse

paulcz, you think I care what Fed says? If he asks me he should talk less (none) and play more great tennis and make this top 4 field a little less certain.

Social buddy, Djoko is good, ok GOOD, not great, not GOAT, never will be. There's no shame in liking him.

Heck at some point I liked Petr Korda (btw his daughter just won Australian Open in GOLF! a few weeks ago), Rosset etc, they never were any GOATS, just liked their style.

Jahu, never said he was GOAT. All i said was that if he did pull off a calendar year slam and backed it up with another couple of great years than he might have a road to GOAThood without topping Roger's record of 16 slams. In fact, if you read my posts I state very clearly that this is all speculation and that crazy things happen in sports, and that he might end up with just the 5 slams he has now and that would still be great for me.

By the way my second favorite player is Gasquet and he hasn't even won a single masters. It isn't just success that brings me to like a player. I like the way both Gazza and Nole play. Nole more so because he is a little bit more outgoing and humorous.

emancipator wrote:

paulcz wrote:Hey emancipator,
when comparing these two great players you need to separate the style and elegance on one side and then the game performance.
Yes, Roger plays more aggresively and has faster FH and serve. On the contrary Novak has much better return and BH. Novak has improved his net game recently, I would say his technical ability is on very good level. But Novak game does have less weaknesses than Roger due to his SHBH and also is less readable mainly due to more angled shots. That makes difference of both when playing with Nadal. There is nobody on the circuit who can play such cross shots from both sides.

Would be great to see both in the final, hopefully in Dubai.

How long have you been watching tennis? Perhaps you missed the glory days of Federer. Federer had a fantastic return. His serve was miles better than Novak, his FH was in a different stratosphere, his footwork was better, his net game much better and his serve was in a different league. More angled shots; what kind of nonsense is this? Fed's BH has only been a weakness against one player who can generate incredible bouncy topspin shots. How many of them are there on the tour? Federer had (and still has) much more variety; anyone who knows anything about tennis would never place peak Novak above peak Federer, let alone consider the former's game to be more complete.

I remember the best times of Roger quite well, these stratospheric times. Ok, that is right, Roger game does not fit only with Nadal. But this Nadal is not worse than before and Novak can defeat him on every surface and plays with him like a cat with a mouse. Why? His both side cross shots can run away Nadal off the court. That is something what Roger just can not do it. That is what I meant by these angled shots.

Wrong, the CYGS is not the holy grail of tennis achievements. After all Laver already has 2, and there may be other players in the future who also achieve it. If there is a holy grail of tennis achievements then it is the total slam count, as there can only be one on top.

paulcz wrote:

emancipator wrote:

paulcz wrote:Hey emancipator,
when comparing these two great players you need to separate the style and elegance on one side and then the game performance.
Yes, Roger plays more aggresively and has faster FH and serve. On the contrary Novak has much better return and BH. Novak has improved his net game recently, I would say his technical ability is on very good level. But Novak game does have less weaknesses than Roger due to his SHBH and also is less readable mainly due to more angled shots. That makes difference of both when playing with Nadal. There is nobody on the circuit who can play such cross shots from both sides.

Would be great to see both in the final, hopefully in Dubai.

How long have you been watching tennis? Perhaps you missed the glory days of Federer. Federer had a fantastic return. His serve was miles better than Novak, his FH was in a different stratosphere, his footwork was better, his net game much better and his serve was in a different league. More angled shots; what kind of nonsense is this? Fed's BH has only been a weakness against one player who can generate incredible bouncy topspin shots. How many of them are there on the tour? Federer had (and still has) much more variety; anyone who knows anything about tennis would never place peak Novak above peak Federer, let alone consider the former's game to be more complete.

I remember the best times of Roger quite well, these stratospheric times. Ok, that is right, Roger game does not fit only with Nadal. But this Nadal is not worse than before and Novak can defeat him on every surface and plays with him like a cat with a mouse. Why? His both side cross shots can run away Nadal off the court. That is something what Roger just can not do it. That is what I meant by these angled shots.

Ever heard of matchups?

Jahu wrote:Social buddy, Djoko is good, ok GOOD, not great, not GOAT, never will be. There's no shame in liking him.

Heck at some point I liked Petr Korda (btw his daughter just won Australian Open in GOLF! a few weeks ago), Rosset etc, they never were any GOATS, just liked their style.

Djoko is not good, Jahy buddu, Djoko is the BEST.

One day you may see, one day.....there's no shame in being blind.

this debate seems to rather be going around in circles. I'm loather to criticise, but I think you'll find it quite hard to ever convince a Federer fan that another player is the GOAT. If (massive if as of yet) Novak were to do the CYGS this year, and back it up with another two very good years (say two slams + WTF per year, that would take him to 12 in total and three WTF, ending both years as n°1) he'd be closing in on GOAThood IMO.

I agree fully with Paul, Novak has the edge in his matchup with Rafa precisely because he is a complete baseliner. Meaning that he can hurt you as easily with the backhand as with the forehand. Additionally, Novak's highly superior returning game will never see him duplicate the debacle of 1 for 18 on break points that Roger pulled off at wimby 08.

Roger is great, the most accomplished player in the sports history. But that doesn't mean that others can't rise up and secure their own legacy and maybe even supplant Roger in the GOAT race. Happened to Pete real quick.

Emancipator is wrong, nobody even knew Emerson had the record for most slams until Pete got to double digits and started threatening it. How could something be the holy grail of a sport if the guy who held the record for most slams for nearly 30 plus years was virtually unheralded? Nobody would rate Emerson over Laver or Rosewal, or Borg because he had 12 slams. Laver has two slams, and on the strength of that accomplishment he is seen by many as still being the best the sport has ever seen. But the fact that there was an amateur and pro split and that most of his career was played outside the open era hurts Laver's standing a bit. Being the first player to win a cygs in 40 years would instantly throw Novak in to the very elite of the game's history, the most rarefied air.

to be fair socal, slams have really only become the holy grail of the sport in the last 25 years or so, and Emerson (who I always feel gets a bit under-rated) got most of his at the AO where no one else bothered to turn up anyway.

I'm not sure I agree with you on Novak's returning being better than Roger's. In his prime Federer was a superb returner, see how often he dismantled Roddick's serve at wimbledon on many occasions for instance (when conditions were faster too).

noleisthebest wrote:

Jahu wrote:Social buddy, Djoko is good, ok GOOD, not great, not GOAT, never will be. There's no shame in liking him.

Heck at some point I liked Petr Korda (btw his daughter just won Australian Open in GOLF! a few weeks ago), Rosset etc, they never were any GOATS, just liked their style.

Djoko is not good, Jahy buddu, Djoko is the BEST.

One day you may see, one day.....there's no shame in being blind.

He is currently the BEST, no one is doubting that. This thread is about him being GOAT with FO.

I will take blindness any day before I would daydream of Djoko being the GOAT.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:this debate seems to rather be going around in circles. I'm loather to criticise, but I think you'll find it quite hard to ever convince a Federer fan that another player is the GOAT. If (massive if as of yet) Novak were to do the CYGS this year, and back it up with another two very good years (say two slams + WTF per year, that would take him to 12 in total and three WTF, ending both years as n°1) he'd be closing in on GOAThood IMO.

Precisely MFC, that is the kind of numbers I am talking about that would in the minds of many tennis and sports fans give Novak a very legitimate claim on Goathood, as good as anyone else. Of course it is mere speculation as I noted in my previous posts it is not set in stone that he will approach these stratospheric numbers as a lot can happen between now and then. But the key point I would like to make is this idea that the total slam count is the holy grail of tennis is overstated. It really isn't, I was a big fan of the sport and I could swear that until the mid 90s I didn't even know Emerson was the guy who held that record. While the CYGS has always been something widely talked about and revered in the sport.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:to be fair socal, slams have really only become the holy grail of the sport in the last 25 years or so, and Emerson (who I always feel gets a bit under-rated) got most of his at the AO where no one else bothered to turn up anyway.

I'm not sure I agree with you on Novak's returning being better than Roger's. In his prime Federer was a superb returner, see how often he dismantled Roddick's serve at wimbledon on many occasions for instance (when conditions were faster too).

Yes but Roger never lead the ATP tour in percentage of breaks. Novak lead the tour in return games won both in 2010 and 2011. Conditions were not faster in 09 wimby than they are now. Wimby was slowed down before Roger ever played Andy at wimbeldon. If anything Roger would prefer slow conditions against the big serving and slow footed Roddick. Novak's returning blows Roger's returning out of the water. Roger again a good returner especially when facing a big server, but not a great returner by any stretch of the imagination. Could you imagine Novak going 1 for 18 in BPs against Nadal like Roger did at wimby in 08. Roger is actually a very passive returner who until recently rarely did anything but chip almost every backhand return. Novak is miles in front of Roger in this area and in terms of his backhand.

socal1976 wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:this debate seems to rather be going around in circles. I'm loather to criticise, but I think you'll find it quite hard to ever convince a Federer fan that another player is the GOAT. If (massive if as of yet) Novak were to do the CYGS this year, and back it up with another two very good years (say two slams + WTF per year, that would take him to 12 in total and three WTF, ending both years as n°1) he'd be closing in on GOAThood IMO.

Precisely MFC, that is the kind of numbers I am talking about that would in the minds of many tennis and sports fans give Novak a very legitimate claim on Goathood, as good as anyone else. Of course it is mere speculation as I noted in my previous posts it is not set in stone that he will approach these stratospheric numbers as a lot can happen between now and then. But the key point I would like to make is this idea that the total slam count is the holy grail of tennis is overstated. It really isn't, I was a big fan of the sport and I could swear that until the mid 90s I didn't even know Emerson was the guy who held that record. While the CYGS has always been something widely talked about and revered in the sport.

not sure I agree with this one though. I mean, like I said, it's only quite recently that Slams have become the be-and-end-all of the sport anyway. The AO was a tournament few players really bothered with until quite recently too. As such, it stands to reason that the CYGS can't have been all that important.

Like I said though, if Djokovic were to win the FO he would certainly join my list of "tennis greats", and in my above post I underlined the sort of results he needs to enter arguments of GOATness IMO. I definitely agree with the phrase "the key point I would like to make is this idea that the total slam count is the holy grail of tennis is overstated", but I'm also pretty sure that's not what emancipator was saying.

socal1976 wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:to be fair socal, slams have really only become the holy grail of the sport in the last 25 years or so, and Emerson (who I always feel gets a bit under-rated) got most of his at the AO where no one else bothered to turn up anyway.

I'm not sure I agree with you on Novak's returning being better than Roger's. In his prime Federer was a superb returner, see how often he dismantled Roddick's serve at wimbledon on many occasions for instance (when conditions were faster too).

Yes but Roger never lead the ATP tour in percentage of breaks. Novak lead the tour in return games won both in 2010 and 2011. Conditions were not faster in 09 wimby than they are now. Wimby was slowed down before Roger ever played Andy at wimbeldon. If anything Roger would prefer slow conditions against the big serving and slow footed Roddick. Novak's returning blows Roger's returning out of the water. Roger again a good returner especially when facing a big server, but not a great returner by any stretch of the imagination. Could you imagine Novak going 1 for 18 in BPs against Nadal like Roger did at wimby in 08. Roger is actually a very passive returner who until recently rarely did anything but chip almost every backhand return. Novak is miles in front of Roger in this area and in terms of his backhand.

didn't he really? I'm assuming that the guys who were ahead of him in returning stats when he was in his prime were guys who played a far longer clay season than he did, because for me at his best he was the best returner in the world. The matches I was referring to with Roddick were the earlier ones, not the 09 one. I thoroughly agree that right now Novak is a far superior returner than Roger (the return is one of the aspects of Fed's game that has most deteriorated), but in Federer's prime I'm not so sure.

MFC, hewitt and nalby all were better percentage returners in Rog's heyday. I really don't think he was ever even in the top 3, off the top of my head. In fact, Roger's deficiency in returning is one reason that he has never been able to handle Nadal. When you watch Novak play Nadal do you see how Nadal is under pressure in every service game, that simply wasn't the case when Roger played Nadal. And when I say deficiency in returning I mean one very particular type of predictable pattern.

Nadal would invariably always serve Roger to the backhand, why? Because he could predict that Roger would chip 80-90 percent of the returns back at RAfa. That is all Rafa needs, Nadal expecting the chip return and moving around his backhand to hit the short chip off the court with his forehand. Now that chip or block back return is very effective against a big server (ie Roddick) who doesn't move as well. But against a player like Nadal who runs around the backhand so well and moves well enough that chip return of Roger's became a huge liability in their matchup. In recent years Roger has started to come over the backhand return and in some matches done it very successfully. But Roger was never a great returner, a very good one, but not a great one by any stretch of the imagination.

noleisthebest wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Socal will have a different view point to the ones made of course.

I don't think Nole is bothered about any of this media pushing. He may be in September provided he wins FO & SW19 in the meantime. RG itself would be major success and something he would be happy to end the year with in terms of slams.

The main thing is that success has not gone into Nole's head.

Well I dont quite agree with it, the success has gone into Nole's head, but the good thing is it has gone in positive way , he feels confident with every match he is winning, this doesnt mean he is not afraid of failures, when he won the AO in 2008, he was all in the moon and that led to his down fall big time, he has learned from it and much more experienced in tackling it this time around, but the problem is the stakes are getting higher and so will the pressure, the media and public will put in a lot of pressure on him come FO.

He may beat Rafa in FO [coz the pressure on Rafa is much higher than him in RG] but he might scumb to some one else, say like RF again or to likes of Murray or Del Potro, I won be surprised if he goes down to Del Potro in the Quarters, which I see more than likely to happen.

Finally the "curse of 4 in a row" will fall on him, he will win the FO in his career, but I don't think so it will happen this year, saying all this if he does it I don't think so anybody will stop the wreck less machine called Nole atleast untill 2013 USO [hoping he doesn't get injured in between]

Invisiblecoolers you are right the success has gone to his head in a good way. He seems more calm and has this inner belief that leads him through tough stages in tough matches. You are correct in noway is Novak a foregone conclusion to win RG or get 4 in a row. But I think that barring injury he has the best chance and should be the favorite at RG despite Nadal's incredible record there. Lets remember he got pretty close serving in the 4th set against fed to tie the match. Still who knows he could lose to Murray, Delpo, fed, or Nadal. But I think that as you have mentioned the belief that he has after so many successful 5 set wars against the best in the last 12 months might just see him through. I think he is 7-1 in his last 8 grandslam matches against the rest of the big 4.

emancipator wrote:Novak is a poor volleyer - simple as. He has poor technique, poor anticipation at the net and infact only ventures there for easy put aways. His serve is average at best and still looks flaky. He doesn't have the speed, placement or variety. His BH slice is pathetic. It sits up like a duck. He has an excellent return and a great BH. The FH technique is wild. It does not even compare to peak Fed's FH. He now has stamina and this in combination with the slow court conditions is what makes him so tough to beat.

Roger is an accomplished volleyer and would have been an excellent volleyer if the conditions had permitted him to play more of that kind of game. Just watch him volleying in W 2001 and 3. He has excellent technique.

The bottom line is that Federer is clearly a more accomplished, all round player, and no amount of slams (real or imagined) will change that. Federer is the standard for the modern game. But he is more than that. He is the one player, in a world of power baseline tennis, who can still fuse the old school with the new one. At his peak he could kick ass from the baseline, serve and volley and make the transition smoothly. Hell, you could give him a wooden racket and he'd still be the most talented player on tour. Throughout his career he has played shots that Novak can only dream of. Just youtube some of his highlight videos and then compare with the other top players of today - world's apart. To reduce him to simply another 'power baseliner' shows that you have no appreciation of the nuances of tennis and the extreme talent and skill it takes to play the kind of game Fed plays.

To suggest that Novak with 12-14 slams would surpass federer in the minds of most tennis fans is ridiculous. It shows that you are blinded by fandom and cannot appreciate the subtleties of the sport. There are many footballers who have surpassed Maradonna in terms of achievements but there are none, since the 80's, who can hold a candle to his unique talent. Such is the case with Federer and tennis, except Federer not only has the talent but also the achievements to go with it.

To top it all off Federer plays the game with elegance, beauty and ruthless effieciency - it's like a work of art. On the other hand Djokovic is truly just another 'power baseliner'.



emancipator

Well summed up Emanci

socal1976 wrote:MFC, hewitt and nalby all were better percentage returners in Rog's heyday. I really don't think he was ever even in the top 3, off the top of my head. In fact, Roger's deficiency in returning is one reason that he has never been able to handle Nadal. When you watch Novak play Nadal do you see how Nadal is under pressure in every service game, that simply wasn't the case when Roger played Nadal. And when I say deficiency in returning I mean one very particular type of predictable pattern.

Nadal would invariably always serve Roger to the backhand, why? Because he could predict that Roger would chip 80-90 percent of the returns back at RAfa. That is all Rafa needs, Nadal expecting the chip return and moving around his backhand to hit the short chip off the court with his forehand. Now that chip or block back return is very effective against a big server (ie Roddick) who doesn't move as well. But against a player like Nadal who runs around the backhand so well and moves well enough that chip return of Roger's became a huge liability in their matchup. In recent years Roger has started to come over the backhand return and in some matches done it very successfully. But Roger was never a great returner, a very good one, but not a great one by any stretch of the imagination.

Well again I dont buy your argument here, Roger's return was more technical in his haydays and it got developed according to the requirements, if Roger's prime would have been in 2010 [assume he is 24-25 now] then his return would have developed according to the requirements of now, Novak's return would not be that effective say in 5 years time, people would have worked Novak's game by then , like how Rafa worked Roger's game, and like how Novak worked Rafa's game, it all goes in circle.

You only have to see how effective it was and not circumspect on how weak it was against certain players, coz titles are won with strengths and not by weakness, this is the same return that nullified many big Servers like Roddick, Nalby might by technically a better returner than Roger at 2003 and following years, but Roddick beats Nalby most days

I repeat, where did I state that slams are the be all and end all?

It is you who has been making a big fuss out of one particular achievement, in this case the CYGS. I simply stated that out of the two (total number of slams vs CYGS) the former is clearly more prestigious. Emerson was not spoken of so flatteringly because he won most of his slams in an era where few bothered to turn up for the AUS open. Likewise, as M4C pointed out, many of the top players didn't regularly go to AUS until the early nineties, hence they hardly could have valued the CYGS all that much. Finally the CYGS is not a unique achievement, two players have already accomplished it. As for the total number of slams, well only one player at any one time can hold the record - this will always make it a more unique achievement.