Djokovic makes controversial statement about today's era

Q. Often in a rivalry there’s a chaser. Andy has had that role in your rivalry. Do you feel that he’s still the chaser or do you think he’s evened up now?
NOVAK DJOKOVIC: Well, as I said, I think we split three wins both this year. So, yeah, I won in Australia, he won in US Open, he won in Olympic Games. I mean, we get to play these big matches and we put up a show for people. It’s exciting to be part of such an extraordinary rivalry, extraordinary matches, especially with somebody that you grew up with and you know for a long time.

I can’t really say who is the chaser. I think we both focus on our careers individually and we both try to improve each day. His example is the right example of how an athlete seeks to improve always and to get better.

This is great. It’s great for the sport. I think we’re experiencing maybe the best era of all times.

http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2012-10-15/10831.php


Reactions to this comment. Interesting it seems that Djokovic agrees with many others like Mcenroe who have pumped up the quality of the current era of players. Conversly, it could be said that retired players aren't going to talk down the young guys but the legends many of them seem to go out o their way to talk up the level of competition today. Djokovic though goes the extra mile and says "maybe the best era of all times." I tend to rate the late 80s and early 90s as the strongest period, however the current guys are certainly in with a shout.

Not sure about this. It's a strong top four for sure, but not sure it stands alone.

HB, check your inbox, he escrito an interesting article.

Socal, good find

"Player says time he's playing in is best ever"

I'm not sure why this is controversial, unless he's subtly implying that not having Rafa around for 4-6 months is a good thing for tennis.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I'm not sure why this is controversial, unless he's subtly implying that not having Rafa around for 4-6 months is a good thing for tennis.

Yeah, "period with declining Federer and injured Nadal is best ever"

Controversial is one word for it. Delusional's another.

I don't see it as controversial but I think that some posters would Julius that is why I linked to it. Nadal's injury is not really an indictment of anything over the last 5 years he has played a pretty full tournament schedule with brief but rather regular periods of injury. This I believe being the longest layoff of his career by the time he is likely to return.


I tend to agree with Djoko, don't know if I would go to strongest in history yet. I think if Del Po and Murray continue to develop and lift more slams in the future while Rafa comes back from injury it certainly could be in the running.

socal1976 wrote:I don't see it as controversial but I think that some posters would Julius that is why I linked to it.

Perhaps put 'controversial' in quotes in the title, to avoid confusion over your own view, especially for any newbies.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I'm not sure why this is controversial, unless he's subtly implying that not having Rafa around for 4-6 months is a good thing for tennis.

Not according to this article he isnt

http://www.tennistalk.com/en/news/20121014/Speculation_varies_as_to_the_return_of_Rafa

Hmmm, Djoko says "There's a difference when he's (Rafa) around and when he's not around. I don't, however, think there's a big difference, a significant one which would maybe will affect the tournaments where we are all playing in a negative way."

Actually, that is a bit controversial, although I tend to agree with it.
Perhaps that shoudl be a a separate thread in order not to de-rail this this. Socal, should I split this one, from H_N's post?

"significant one which would maybe will "

Somebody please explain that if you will me with my mere O Level English cant
make head nor tail of that

No big significance in Nadal being off the tour?

Is Djokovic serious?

I agree with Djoko on that point - it's akin to saying all slams are of pretty much equal value regardless of who's in the field. You still have to play whoever shows up and be the last man standing. It may (or may not) affect the viewing figures a bit, and press coverage a bit, but the absence of one player doesn't devalue the tournament, or the victor, in any significant way. At least that's what I think he's saying.

World number 8 gets bashed off the court 2 & 1 by old legs Tommy Haas. Best era we've ever had.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:World number 8 gets bashed off the court 2 & 1 by old legs Tommy Haas. Best era we've ever had.

Didn't federer just recently lose to Haas I guess he isn't that good either, I mean if it is such indictment that you lose your ranking and street cred by losing to Haas what does it say about Fed? And you can't use the ace in hole of claiming fed is old because Haas is older than federer. You really make it easy JM.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I agree with Djoko on that point - it's akin to saying all slams are of pretty much equal value regardless of who's in the field. You still have to play whoever shows up and be the last man standing. It may (or may not) affect the viewing figures a bit, and press coverage a bit, but the absence of one player doesn't devalue the tournament, or the victor, in any significant way. At least that's what I think he's saying.

Basically that is the jist of what I think he is saying as well. He isn't being disrespectful to Nadal but in away respectful of Murray who won his first slam without Nadal in the field. Only a known Djoko hater like BB would frankly see anything odd or a slight towards Nadal. But then again why are we not surprised. The prognosticator in chief also called Djoko a fluke and lucky to win the AO 08 because fed had mono back on the old 606, on the new 606 he has stated that djokovic is basically a weaponless grinder who is only winning like this because of slowed conditions. In short his views on Djokovic and on many other things are widely skewed distortions of reality.

Well one could argue for ever about the relative strength of eras. But I think most would agree that we've had some terrific matches involving the top players this year.
Before he got injured Rafa had that epic, certainly in length, Aussie final with Djoko. We then had the Fed-Djoko and Fed-Murray matches at Wimbledon before Andy M's historic breakthrough at the USO.
The Beijing final wasn't so bad, either. We may still get some memorable stuff at the 02 next month. Don't let's knock it.

sirfredperry wrote:Well one could argue for ever about the relative strength of eras. But I think most would agree that we've had some terrific matches involving the top players this year.
Before he got injured Rafa had that epic, certainly in length, Aussie final with Djoko. We then had the Fed-Djoko and Fed-Murray matches at Wimbledon before Andy M's historic breakthrough at the USO.
The Beijing final wasn't so bad, either. We may still get some memorable stuff at the 02 next month. Don't let's knock it.

Yes I would also add Tipsy v. Ferrer in the USO that was a great match as well sirfredperry, I absolutely agree that we have had a great number of high quality affairs. The Murray v. Djoko in shanghai match in my opinion was the best 3 setter I can remember this season as well? What I really enjoy about the Murray v. Djoko matchup is how competitive and close it is between the wo 9-7 you can't get much closer than that. The tweener from Djoko followed by the supple drop shot sent the fans in the stadium in Shanghai to ecstasy. Amazing what he does on match points so regularly hitting the lines.

I think how close it is between the pair is that they had two epic tie-breakers in successive matches in New York and Shanghai. Crackers at that. Now I must rain on socal's parade and others and say that you will get posters here that don't like this match-up or prefer their own favourite players match-ups and that is the way it will always be. However, the media and pundits seem to be loving their match-ups so it can't be all bad.

Socal1976 - slightly expanding this theme. Just how entertaining/close/hard fought is the Murray-Djoko rivalry compared with, say, Djoko/Rafa or Rafa/Fed? Also Fed and Andy's Wimbledon GS final was not half bad either.
All these combinations have provided us with some amazing contests. Some now argue that the Andy-Nole rivalry is going to be THE thing for the next few years. But of course, no one quite knows what Rafa still has left in the tank and Rog aint finished yet, I guess.
Spose Rog-Rafa has been THE rivalry due to the contrast in styles and the contrast in fans! Thoughts?

CaledonianCraig wrote:I think how close it is between the pair is that they had two epic tie-breakers in successive matches in New York and Shanghai. Crackers at that. Now I must rain on socal's parade and others and say that you will get posters here that don't like this match-up or prefer their own favourite players match-ups and that is the way it will always be. However, the media and pundits seem to be loving their match-ups so it can't be all bad.

Not just that the fans are loving it as well at times the chinese fans were really engaged more so than what I have seen from them in the past. The attendance numbers and ratings are good and the prize money keeps going up way faster than inflation, way faster. These are not signs of a game that is struggling fnancially.

Oh I agree socal but invariably you will always get fans of other players who prefer other match-ups generally more because their player is involved in that match That is the point I am trying to make.

sirfredperry wrote:Socal1976 - slightly expanding this theme. Just how entertaining/close/hard fought is the Murray-Djoko rivalry compared with, say, Djoko/Rafa or Rafa/Fed? Also Fed and Andy's Wimbledon GS final was not half bad either.
All these combinations have provided us with some amazing contests. Some now argue that the Andy-Nole rivalry is going to be THE thing for the next few years. But of course, no one quite knows what Rafa still has left in the tank and Rog aint finished yet, I guess.
Spose Rog-Rafa has been THE rivalry due to the contrast in styles and the contrast in fans! Thoughts?

That is an excellent point sirfred, this fits in exactly to the points I am making here. People like stars, they like greatness, they don't like a parity type tour with a lot of good guys in the top 20 playing musical chairs at number 1. What drives tennis is the big grandslam matchup between legends. I mean the night before fed and djoko matches I can't sleep that just wasn't the case watching Andy Roddick or Hewitt win slams. Because as good a players these guys are they just did not win enough and accomplish enough to grab the imagination of the fans and hold it. The guys today for whatever reason are doing that. It is just like football we like derbies, and classicos we don't get that worked up watching a couple of mid table teams duke it out. But Barca v. Real, Inter v. AC, Manchester v. Liverpool; people want greatness not a sea of parity or a better word for it mediocrity. That is how it always has been in tennis. The greatest and the remembered moments of the sport involve two legends playing a 5 set deathmatch in a slam, in the end that is what the people come to see. No one really cares if the world number 22 is 5 percent better or worse.

Socal, are you saying that before 2011, when Djoko only had 1 slam, he was mediocre, up to that point, and had not captured the fans imagination?
And that Murray is currently, with 1 slam (less than Hewitt), mediocre?

No I didn't say he was mediocre he was pre-prime and suffering from some issues to be worked out, I was one of the earliest to spot Djoko's greatness. Even you should see that Hewitt is over with his career winning slams and Djoko and Murray are going to win a lot more. By the way Murray already has as many or more Master's as Hewitt, will certainly finish with more slams without some unforseen catastrophic injury. So no doubt whatsoever Murray is better than Hewitt, wait till he has 15 years on tour to rack up wins. And Murray despite all of this hasn't been able to get close to number 1, where Hewitt was a two time world #1. Hewitt is in mind a great player but a somewhat soft year end #1, as is Roddick frankly.

socal1976 wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:World number 8 gets bashed off the court 2 & 1 by old legs Tommy Haas. Best era we've ever had.

Didn't federer just recently lose to Haas I guess he isn't that good either, I mean if it is such indictment that you lose your ranking and street cred by losing to Haas what does it say about Fed? And you can't use the ace in hole of claiming fed is old because Haas is older than federer. You really make it easy JM.

Lost on away ground in Germany, which was a tight 2 setter 7-6 6-4, besides the player in question has twins to care for not like the number 8 by any means. But of course you know better because you play the game more (so you say.)

sirfredperry wrote:Socal1976 - slightly expanding this theme. Just how entertaining/close/hard fought is the Murray-Djoko rivalry compared with, say, Djoko/Rafa or Rafa/Fed? Also Fed and Andy's Wimbledon GS final was not half bad either.
All these combinations have provided us with some amazing contests. Some now argue that the Andy-Nole rivalry is going to be THE thing for the next few years. But of course, no one quite knows what Rafa still has left in the tank and Rog aint finished yet, I guess.
Spose Rog-Rafa has been THE rivalry due to the contrast in styles and the contrast in fans! Thoughts?

I don't think the Roger - Rafa rivalry has been the greatest in the sport by a long way because it has become one sided over bo5. At first the competition was enthralling when Federer so nearly won Rome 2006 after a gruelling battle on a surface that Nadal just owned, and Nadal showed at Wimbledon 2006 that he was comfortable enough on the green stuff and likely to get better. 2007 defend their favourite majors against each other, and then it began to go downhill. Of course the contrasting styles the attacking elegance of the sword wielding Fed against the macho, muscular stalwart defence of the matadorial Rafa were great in column inches but apart from a few spectacular exceptions, it wasn't always the best tennis from both. I think Borg/McEnroe probably produced the same enthusiastic support from very contrasting fans - it's difficult to tell because tennis viewing in the UK was much more Wimbledoncentric then.

So no, if that was the rivalry of this era, then I would say there were quite a few rivalries in the past that were 'greater' and so maybe those eras were 'greater' too - NB I am not evaluating individual players here.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:World number 8 gets bashed off the court 2 & 1 by old legs Tommy Haas. Best era we've ever had.

Didn't federer just recently lose to Haas I guess he isn't that good either, I mean if it is such indictment that you lose your ranking and street cred by losing to Haas what does it say about Fed? And you can't use the ace in hole of claiming fed is old because Haas is older than federer. You really make it easy JM.

Lost on away ground in Germany, which was a tight 2 setter 7-6 6-4, besides the player in question has twins to care for not like the number 8 by any means. But of course you know better because you play the game more (so you say.)

I love it losing to Haas is a disgrace, unless Fed does it! But your excuse is the funniest I have ever heard, Fed lost because he has to care for his twins. This may be the greatest post of all time Josiah congratulations. Seriously someone hand me some handy wipes and adult diapers I just lost it, still laughing. Maybe for 50 million dollars a year he could hire a nanny?

You can't hide from the fact having twins means he practices less, or maybe that's you talking from personal experiences (just hire a nanny so he won't have to see the twins) you really are having a laugh again with this type of rationale.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:You can't hide from the fact having twins means he practices less, or maybe that's you talking from personal experiences (just hire a nanny so he won't have to see the twins) you really are having a laugh again with this type of rationale.

JM my friend I can't stay mad at you after your now legendary Nanny-gate argument, come on man and you got a problem with my fogninni excuse? Pure classic, someone open up a 606v2 hall of fame for greatest post loss excuses and you and I will go in together.

I am sure Roger is practicing and all of sudden one of the girls poops herself and he has to rush off the practice court instantly and scoop up infant dung. Please expound on how losing to Haas is a disgrace except when Fed does it, this should be good.

How many players in the top 30 of tennis have any kids? Also when you watch Federer as keenly as I do, you would know that he can be beaten by pretty much anyone in the top 30 as proved by Benneteau, Falla etc. When his back is feeling stiff he struggles to hold serve, which is quite alot these days.

socal1976 wrote:No I didn't say he was mediocre he was pre-prime and suffering from some issues to be worked out, I was one of the earliest to spot Djoko's greatness. Even you should see that Hewitt is over with his career winning slams and Djoko and Murray are going to win a lot more. By the way Murray already has as many or more Master's as Hewitt, will certainly finish with more slams without some unforseen catastrophic injury. So no doubt whatsoever Murray is better than Hewitt, wait till he has 15 years on tour to rack up wins. And Murray despite all of this hasn't been able to get close to number 1, where Hewitt was a two time world #1. Hewitt is in mind a great player but a somewhat soft year end #1, as is Roddick frankly.

But you also said "people want greatness not a sea of parity or a better word for it mediocrity."
Are you saying that people want Murray (after winning his first slam at USO), at this point in time, because 1 slam is enough for people to see him as great, but people didn't want Hewitt (after winning his second slam at USO), at that point time, because 2 slams wasn't enough for people to see him as great?
That's how it comes across, and I'm sure you can see the problem with the logic.

Yes Josiah because no one else on tour has to play with niggles or injuries or loses matches due to injuries. It didn't seem to stop your enjoyement of Del Po's victory last year over Djoko as he tore a muscle in his back. As someone who has torn a big muscle like a hamstring it is not pleasant it really fcuking hurts and a back must be even worse.

Besides fed won wimbeldon right after he obviously wasn't that hurt.

Besides fed won wimbeldon right after he obviously wasn't that hurt.

That is more because he changes his routine for slams and also partly down to Murray being a serial choker. Will you also stop crying about injuries. I remember Derek Redmond tearing the hamstring then getting back up and finishing the race like a true man. Djokovic is too much of a mummy's boy.

Wouldn't it be a sensible option to enclose all of the threads concerning golden eras, or other less noble metals, debates in an ad hoc sticky/pub section, so to keep the rest of the forum clear? This could be appropriatly named "The quest for the golden era" or more revealing: "The Socal strain".

Djokovic's statement (that this is perhaps the greatest era) is just an immature sentiment. Perhaps he's getting too caught up in his own hubris. I prefer Federer's much more balanced and mature response to such questions (essentially that comparisons are futile).

I expect in time he will be more diplomatic with such statements.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Wouldn't it be a sensible option to enclose all of the threads concerning golden eras, or other less noble metals, debates in an ad hoc sticky/pub section, so to keep the rest of the forum clear? This could be appropriatly named "The quest for the golden era" or more revealing: "The Socal strain".

JK good humor my friend, I like the "quest for the golden era" much more the "Socal strain" sounds too much like a veneral disease.

emancipator wrote:Djokovic's statement (that this is perhaps the greatest era) is just an immature sentiment. Perhaps he's getting too caught up in his own hubris. I prefer Federer's much more balanced and mature response to such questions (essentially that comparisons are futile).

I expect in time he will be more diplomatic with such statements.

It shows a lack of perspective of the game.

Shame, you'd hope he'd have a bit more humility.

bogbrush wrote:

emancipator wrote:Djokovic's statement (that this is perhaps the greatest era) is just an immature sentiment. Perhaps he's getting too caught up in his own hubris. I prefer Federer's much more balanced and mature response to such questions (essentially that comparisons are futile).

I expect in time he will be more diplomatic with such statements.

It shows a lack of perspective of the game.

Shame, you'd hope he'd have a bit more humility.

I can't see any issue with saying, as he did, that maybe this is the greatest era.

The whole greatest era debate is horribly subjective and hard to define. But if such a thing exists, one can certainly make arguments that this era is right up there.

Difficult to know just who is best qualified to judge one era against another for quality.
Current players have to be diplomatic in order not to sound big-headed or appear disrespectful to ex-players, while the ex-players themselves don't want to rubbish the nowadays heroes.
So perhaps it's the older spectators or the elderly reporters who might be able to lend a little perspective. Some may recall John Parsons a venerable doyen of tennis writers who died in 2004.
He was a great champion of Henman and lived to see most of Tim's successful career and he also lived to see Fed get to number one.
He and others like him would have had been in a good position to give views on the relative strengths of different eras.
As for mere humble spectators such as me in my seventh decade, having been brought up on the exploits of Hoad and Rosewall, Newcombe and Roche, Laver and Emerson and then followed the sport through the next four or five decades I can say this.
IMHO the current standard at the top of the men's game is extremely high. What makes this era stand out, for me, is the extreme levels of fitness and competitiveness needed to win and to stay at the top. That we've had four guys who have managed to stay in the top four positions for many, many months is truly remarkable given what it now takes to succeed.
Now some may argue that we've had greats - and great eras - in the past, but it's doubtful we've had such great ATHLETES as we have now. You've not only got to play great, but you have train great, move great, fight great and do a whole lot of other, er great, things.

bogbrush wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:I'm not sure why this is controversial, unless he's subtly implying that not having Rafa around for 4-6 months is a good thing for tennis.

Yeah, "period with declining Federer and injured Nadal is best ever"

Controversial is one word for it. Delusional's another.

BB. We can't forever measure the quality of Tennis based on the sublime skills of one player. I mean are you telling us the best 'era' was in, say 2004/5 when Roger was playing stuff no-one has come close to touching since (including him)?

Great sport is nearly always about 90% perspiration and 10% inspiration, Barcelona actually look a million dollars simply because there are two or three midfield players working their backsides off so Lionel Messi can run riot - and so the sleeves rolled up stuff that Nole and Andy do, in-dispersed with some jaw dropping shots are pretty much up there with the best I've ever seen in 30-odd years as an avid fan

I get the worrying impression that no matter what Novak or (now) Andy do in the next few years, there will be some who simply won't give it the full praise it deserves

Yes, we could do with a few more faster courts and a consistent youngster - but can we please stop crying over the graceful decline of Fed

but can we please stop crying over the graceful decline of Fed

No, I can't see anyone crying, more like being amused by the idiocy of Novak and Murray fans.

socal1976 wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:World number 8 gets bashed off the court 2 & 1 by old legs Tommy Haas. Best era we've ever had.

Didn't federer just recently lose to Haas I guess he isn't that good either, I mean if it is such indictment that you lose your ranking and street cred by losing to Haas what does it say about Fed? And you can't use the ace in hole of claiming fed is old because Haas is older than federer. You really make it easy JM.

Lost on away ground in Germany, which was a tight 2 setter 7-6 6-4, besides the player in question has twins to care for not like the number 8 by any means. But of course you know better because you play the game more (so you say.)

I love it losing to Haas is a disgrace, unless Fed does it! But your excuse is the funniest I have ever heard, Fed lost because he has to care for his twins. This may be the greatest post of all time Josiah congratulations. Seriously someone hand me some handy wipes and adult diapers I just lost it, still laughing. Maybe for 50 million dollars a year he could hire a nanny?

Socal. You don't get it. Haas is part of that best ever era!! 2002 to 2005, when he reached No.2 and when in the latter part nobody could get nearer Roger and when Roddick was a permanet fixture in the Top 2. You surely must remember all those scintillating matches?

When I ask this, I assume you're wearing the same rose tinted "wasn't life wondeful up to around 2007 until that nasty Rafa mouthy Djokovic and miserable Murray started daring to beat Federer" spectacles as some members on these boards?

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

but can we please stop crying over the graceful decline of Fed

No, I can't see anyone crying, more like being amused by the idiocy of Novak and Murray fans.

And that doesn't include all the punters, journos, former players and commentators who actually believe that it's the best era, rather than merely suggest it might be

bantroban, you really can be like a mother Tiger over Andy can't you?

journos and commentators

Anyone that takes either of those 2 con artists seriously, will not have any time given by me. Whenever they hype something, it's better to believe the opposite.

banbrotam wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:I'm not sure why this is controversial, unless he's subtly implying that not having Rafa around for 4-6 months is a good thing for tennis.

Yeah, "period with declining Federer and injured Nadal is best ever"

Controversial is one word for it. Delusional's another.

BB. We can't forever measure the quality of Tennis based on the sublime skills of one player. I mean are you telling us the best 'era' was in, say 2004/5 when Roger was playing stuff no-one has come close to touching since (including him)?

Great sport is nearly always about 90% perspiration and 10% inspiration, Barcelona actually look a million dollars simply because there are two or three midfield players working their backsides off so Lionel Messi can run riot - and so the sleeves rolled up stuff that Nole and Andy do, in-dispersed with some jaw dropping shots are pretty much up there with the best I've ever seen in 30-odd years as an avid fan

I get the worrying impression that no matter what Novak or (now) Andy do in the next few years, there will be some who simply won't give it the full praise it deserves

Yes, we could do with a few more faster courts and a consistent youngster - but can we please stop crying over the graceful decline of Fed

Oh do get a grip; the post of mine you're referencing was laughing at Djokovic for suggesting that today, with Federer in decline and Nadal injured, can be the strongest. It wasn't crying over anything nor saying this era or that was better than anything else, it was laughing at a stupid comment.

I'm sorry but Federer and Nadal are mega-giants of the sport. Novak is significant, Andy is currently on the first rung of Slam significance.

bogbrush wrote:I'm sorry but Federer and Nadal are mega-giants of the sport. Novak is significant, Andy is currently on the first rung of Slam significance.

We know this. I've not seen anywhere that the likes of CC or Socal (or me) dispute this. But what relevance does that have to who is currently the best? I think the comments about Murray / Nole are taken out of context. People are saying that they think that this could be the next great rivalry - not that it already is.

Funny how people appear to take at face value what the so-called pundits say on their respective tv station, failing to realize, or pretending not to, that those pundits have a clear interest in boosting the product they sell and in retaining the positions they hold.

SFP: disagree.. What the improved level of fitness has to do with the quality of tennis and the caliber of its top players? This is not athletics!