Djokovic in Nadals rear-view mirror

First topic message reminder :

For the last few years it has been discussed whether Nadal can catch Federer in terms of greatness, can he catch his slam record?

Just 5 slams separated them them after the 2012 French Open and with the Spaniard being 5 years younger it was looking increasingly likely.

Of course there was still weeks at Number 1 but with 5 years to make up ground and with his superior head 2 head it had been said that perhaps Nadal only needed to make it close in terms of statistics to go down as the greater player, and perhaps the greatest of them all.

Fast forward 7 months, Federer has managed to widen the gap to 6 slams, added another chunk of weeks at World Number 1, and in the meantime a certain Serb collected a sixth grand slam, moving him within 5 slams of Nadal.

As is stands, the Spaniard has 102 weeks at Number 1 falling very short of Federer's new tally of 302. However, the Serbian has snuck up to 66 weeks just 36 weeks shy of Nadal.

At the end of 2012 Novak achieved his second successive year end Number 1, equalling him with Rafa, and in the mean time collected his 2nd year end end championship, a title that has so far eluded the Spaniard.

Quite incredibly, for so long the talk was if Rafa could surpass Roger, in the mean time Novak has snuck up on Rafa and is gaining on him at a much faster pace than Nadal is on Federer.

Their head to head is at the moment 19-14 to the Spaniard, but over the coming years were that to change and the likelihood that Novak will have more weeks at number 1 than Rafa when their careers are done, it could be quite conceivable Djokovic eventually eclipses Nadal's career. Especially if he were to get the French Open before his career is out.

It had been refuted by many Federer fans that Nadal could surpass Federer citing Weeks at Number 1 and 5-Year end Number 1 rankings.

The amazing thing is, Djokovic could come within just a few slams of Nadal, and when all is said and done could have a superior head 2 head record over him. And unlike Federer, Nadal may not be able to boast a longer period at Number 1 with Djokovic looking likely to surpass Nadal in that department also.

Seems quite inconceivable a few years ago, but Djokovic still has a few things to do but if he does we could be looking back on Djokovic being the better player almost out of nowhere. It could be quite similar to Lendl, McEnroe and Borg, with McEnroe chasing down Borg before actually being caught himself by Lendl.

As it stands, Nadal is more at risk of being caught by Djokovic than Federer is by Nadal. However, Nadal may have one final say in the matter in the coming years himself

HM Murdoch wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:What's the confusion?
I'm being clear here.

Not you, IMBL. The general confusion around eras and their strength that causes so much debate.

lol not sure there's any confusion there.
Some eras are stronger than others.
Federer being born later or earlier wouldn't really change that fact.

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:It's ironic, when so many posters give start and end dates for various eras, that I am the one accused of thinking in black and white.

That's simply a lie.

It's not a lie - many posters have done that. And they've done it without you accusing them of thinking in black and white. At no point did I say you had done it, which would have been a lie.

Oh it was damn clear you were implying me.

Nonsense! If I meant you I would have said you, not implied it.

I personally thought Federer killed off any doubts about his greatness when he won Wimbledon at pretty much 31 beating two 25 year olds ranked 1 and 4 in the prime of their careers and becoming World Number 1 as the cherry on top. That was a ridiculous achievement, and surprisingly seems to already be forgotten just 6/7 months later, just because Murray beat him in 5 sets in a grand-slam semi final on the back of winning The US Open and the Olympics. He almost had to beat him otherwise there would have been real question marks over the near 26 year old who still couldn't get the best of the Swiss, he's not a kid anymore, should it have even taken that long? I am a Murray fan and was nervous for him in that fifth set because what message would a loss have sent out?

Do hope you're not a lawyer by profession IMBL.

Accusing someone in court (eg JHM) of saying something they didn't but then attempting to justify it - without any actual evidence - by saying oh well, "it was damn clear you were implying me" wouldn't exactly strengthen your case, whether acting for prosecution or defence.

As for my own post : I suspect on this occasion that you do know perfectly well what I was trying to say, but prefer not to admit it.

It Must Be Love wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:What's the confusion?
I'm being clear here.

Not you, IMBL. The general confusion around eras and their strength that causes so much debate.

lol not sure there's any confusion there.
Some eras are stronger than others.
Federer being born later or earlier wouldn't really change that fact.

Fed changes the parameters of the debate. He's had success in multiple eras.

If he'd faded away in 08, we would be comparing the Federer era separately to the Nadal/Djoko/Murray era. It would be interesting but as hypothetical as comparing this era to the Sampras era.

The fact Fed's longevity spans into the era of the younger guys, means results come into play. Results sound definitive and make it seem an exact science. But really we are never comparing like with like. We are looking at players at different stages of their career.

CAS wrote:I personally thought Federer killed off any doubts about his greatness when he won Wimbledon at pretty much 31 beating two 25 year olds ranked 1 and 4 in the prime of their careers and becoming World Number 1 as the cherry on top. That was a ridiculous achievement, and surprisingly seems to already be forgotten just 6/7 months later, just because Murray beat him in 5 sets in a grand-slam semi final on the back of winning The US Open and the Olympics. He almost had to beat him otherwise there would have been real question marks over the near 26 year old who still couldn't get the best of the Swiss, he's not a kid anymore, should it have even taken that long? I am a Murray fan and was nervous for him in that fifth set because what message would a loss have sent out?

True, it would have been a stain. However he avoided it and really Fed would have been Houdini to have got out of that match with a win.

Good point on the meaning of the Wimbledon 2012 result; it might be something that gains lustre with time. When you think of the fuss over Pete's last Open he did nothing compared to Federers Wimbledon really.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:It's ironic, when so many posters give start and end dates for various eras, that I am the one accused of thinking in black and white.

That's simply a lie.

It's not a lie - many posters have done that. And they've done it without you accusing them of thinking in black and white. At no point did I say you had done it, which would have been a lie.

Oh it was damn clear you were implying me.

Nonsense! If I meant you I would have said you, not implied it.

I thought this guy personified Black and White

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2AitTPI5U0

I prefer to watch this guy in black and white
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtIMk63NEis

CaledonianCraig wrote:Hmm how peculiar lydian? I suppose the wind caused Murray to beat Djokovic in the Olympic semis in straight sets and account for his other six wins over Djokovic. Sorry but I find it all quite pathetic. Prepare for a rant folks so stop reading now......

Murray has reached the last three slam finals and still fails to get the recognition he fully deserves.

We are told the only reason he beat Federer is because Federer is way past his best....end of story. We are also told he only won a slam beating Djokovic because of high winds. Saints preserve us please.

Actually I am a bit sick of this wind excuse as well, its hardly a mistake from Murray side, between both of them had the same conditions and Murray was the better man on the given day and rightly won the title, I won't be surprised of Murray beats Djoko again in USO with or without wind.

lags72 wrote:The minute posters (past and present) start talking openly - or even merely hinting - of the early/mid-2000's as being some sort of 'weak era', they always, always, get themselves into a horrendous mess ; and very quickly.

Most commonly (though not always) it is done to build up the status of Nadal and/or Djokovic whilst denigrating that of Federer.

One incident I can remember very well from the old days of Unbiased Educator aka Tennis Tutor aka Simple Analyst aka Wise Analyst etc etc etc. So desperate and obsessed was he to slag off Federer at every conceivable opportunity whilst elevating Nadal yet further (as if he needs elevating at all....) that, during one of his weird ramblings, he actually referred to Federer as a "clay muppet." (the fact that he happens to have the second best record on clay of all active players simply passed him by ...... I mean .... why let fact get in the way of ........ )

It was promptly pointed out to UE that, okay then, if Federer is allegedly so bad on clay that surely is definitive evidence that Nadal had incredibly good fortune in coming up against such a hopeless finalist/semi-finalist whilst amassing so many of his RG titles. Clearly the beneficiary of a weak era.

I really can't remember whether there was a response or not. If there WAS, it would have undoubtedly been yet more waffle......

I disagree completely, why denigrate federer he had no control over the competition and he deserves a lot of credit for lifting the bar from the woeful spectacle of Andy Roddick as year end #1. Lets see I am firm believer Fed is goat, and he deserves credit for raising the bar, but his early rivals were soft. If not for federer, neither Djokovic, murray, or Nadal would be quite as good as they are. So calling federer the goat who had somewhat softer competition early on is a denigration. Must we say he is the greatest goat ever and pretend that Andy Roddick, hewitt, ferrero, and safin are comparable to other greats and that all eras are equal all the time. Unless we do that federer is somehow denigrated? I dont' buy it lags.

BY THE WAY WHY DOESN'T EVERYONE FOCUS THE ERA DEBATE ON ONE THREAD IT IS EASIER TO KEEP TRACK, JUST SAYING, NOT BECAUSE IT IS MY THREAD IT JUST WEAKENS DEBATE WHEN WE HAVE THE SAME DISCUSSION IN MULTIPLE THREADS.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Rafa will almost certainly be ranked 5 for RG. I know that a mathematical formula exists for changing the Slam seedings according to surface. Wimbledon have used it in the past, but I'm not sure if the other slams have simply chosen never to use it, or are not allowed to use it. If the former, the FO might change the seedings around this year.

That would be completely unacceptable and biased if they do that and I am pretty sure they won't do it, it would be one hell of a draw if Rafa is said to meet Djoko in quarters.

invisiblecoolers wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Rafa will almost certainly be ranked 5 for RG. I know that a mathematical formula exists for changing the Slam seedings according to surface. Wimbledon have used it in the past, but I'm not sure if the other slams have simply chosen never to use it, or are not allowed to use it. If the former, the FO might change the seedings around this year.

That would be completely unacceptable and biased if they do that and I am pretty sure they won't do it, it would be one hell of a draw if Rafa is said to meet Djoko in quarters.

If it's within the rules, why would it be unacceptable?

There seems to be a few posters who think that Sept 2007, Djoko vs Fed in the USO final, is indicative of an average era, but that Jan 2008, Tsonga vs Djoko in the AO final is indicative of a strong era.
Never mind that the two events are 5 months apart and featured probably 95% of the same players.
Still, can't have Djoko winning a slam in an average era, that simply wouldn't do.

JuliusHMarx wrote:There seems to be a few posters who think that Sept 2007, Djoko vs Fed in the USO final, is indicative of an average era, but that Jan 2008, Tsonga vs Djoko in the AO final is indicative of a strong era.
Never mind that the two events are 5 months apart and featured probably 95% of the same players.
Still, can't have Djoko winning a slam in an average era, that simply wouldn't do.

As I have said over and over again it is difficult to give it a firm cutoff date the birth of golden era is gradual the period first started to get better with the rise of fed, then the rise of Nadal, and by the time Andy and Novak became consistent contenders it was now golden. There no dates does that make you feel better julius?

I will be focusing my golden era comments on the other thread, we don't need two threads on the same topic.

socal1976 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:There seems to be a few posters who think that Sept 2007, Djoko vs Fed in the USO final, is indicative of an average era, but that Jan 2008, Tsonga vs Djoko in the AO final is indicative of a strong era.
Never mind that the two events are 5 months apart and featured probably 95% of the same players.
Still, can't have Djoko winning a slam in an average era, that simply wouldn't do.

As I have said over and over again it is difficult to give it a firm cutoff date the birth of golden era is gradual the period first started to get better with the rise of fed, then the rise of Nadal, and by the time Andy and Novak became consistent contenders it was now golden. There no dates does that make you feel better julius?

Yeah, but why give dates if you don't believe them? C'mon you're not going to extend the average era into 2008, because that's when Djoko won a slam. And you don't want to put 2007 in the golden era, because that's when Fed won slams. Those are the dates you gave - too late to take 'em back

What a funny 'golden era' this currently is, consisting of just two players performing at their best.

Of the other two commonly grouped within 'The Big Four', one is close to retirement and the other (disappointingly) out of action through injury for eight months and counting, so right now something of an unknown quantity as regards level of future challenge he might pose.

Is it still a golden era?

Helloooooo, hellooooooo,

can someone me direct towards the golden era.

What I find amusing is that over the last 2.5 years the following players have iirc been in the top 10: Youzhny, Fish, Melzer, Monaco ( ), Ferrer (had his best season ever last year). I'm sure there were others. All players from Fed's generation.

Then Lubicic won a masters title in 2010, something he couldn't manage during the whole preceeding 15 years.

Additionally the like of Lopez, Seppi, Kohlschreiber, Mayer and a whole bunch of others have had their career highest ranks in the last 18 months.

All of these guys are oldies and these are the ones I can remember off the top of my head.

Isn't approx a quarter of the top hundred composed of players who are 30+

Isn't this the oldest top hundred, like, forever?

What does all that mean? Either the Nadal/Djokovic/Murray generation are crap or Federer's generation was actually very good to still be competitive at close to 30 years of age or older. In fact the only guys who seem not to have remained competitive are the guys who were decimated by injury like Nalby, Hewitt and Davy.

Personally I think that outside of the other top three players this generation is weaker in depth than Fed's generation. Additionally Fed's generation had some dangerous players from the previous generation who've now retired like Agassi.

Overall it's pretty even.

Even at the top I don't see a world of difference between Fed, Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Nalby and Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Del Po.

Infact Nadal was in Fed's era for all but the first two years.



emancipator

The era needed Andy and Novak to become golden? Hmm time will tell though I'm not convinced about it needing both of them especially as Murray only became really good this Australian open when he beat Fed.

Just because Roddick, Hewitt, ferrero etc can't compare to other greats in terms of overall careers doesn't mean that their level of play at various times couldn't match them.

JuliusHMarx wrote:There seems to be a few posters who think that Sept 2007, Djoko vs Fed in the USO final, is indicative of an average era, but that Jan 2008, Tsonga vs Djoko in the AO final is indicative of a strong era.
Never mind that the two events are 5 months apart and featured probably 95% of the same players.
Still, can't have Djoko winning a slam in an average era, that simply wouldn't do.

great post again , thats a shot in the argumentative theory

emancipator wrote:Is it still a golden era?

Helloooooo, hellooooooo,

can someone me direct towards the golden era.

What I find amusing is that over the last 2.5 years the following players have iirc been in the top 10: Youzhny, Fish, Melzer, Monaco ( ), Ferrer (had his best season ever last year). I'm sure there were others. All players from Fed's generation.

Then Lubicic won a masters title in 2010, something he couldn't manage during the whole preceeding 15 years.

Additionally the like of Lopez, Seppi, Kohlschreiber, Mayer and a whole bunch of others have had their career highest ranks in the last 18 months.

All of these guys are oldies and these are the ones I can remember off the top of my head.

Isn't approx a quarter of the top hundred composed of players who are 30+

Isn't this the oldest top hundred, like, forever?

What does all that mean? Either the Nadal/Djokovic/Murray generation are crap or Federer's generation was actually very good to still be competitive at close to 30 years of age or older. In fact the only guys who seem not to have remained competitive are the guys who were decimated by injury like Nalby, Hewitt and Davy.

Personally I think that outside of the other top three players this generation is weaker in depth than Fed's generation. Additionally Fed's generation had some dangerous players from the previous generation who've now retired like Agassi.

Overall it's pretty even.

Even at the top I don't see a world of difference between Fed, Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Nalby and Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Del Po.

Infact Nadal was in Fed's era for all but the first two years.



emancipator

Great post , another shot in the stupid thoery.

haha dude not helping ya cause when you say stupid and spell theory wrong!

LuvSports! wrote:haha dude not helping ya cause when you say stupid and spell theory wrong!

Well the theory is a stupid theory so it can't be theory it has to be thoery