If Novak wins FO with this draw he should be anointed the Goat

First topic message reminder :

Yes, I know many will say its Fed, many will say it is Rafa or Laver or Borg, or possibly Sampras. But if Djokovic takes on this murder's row of a draw that mostly likely will require him to beat, Del Potro, Gasquet, Berdych, Federer or ferrer, and then probably the all time clay king in the final; then in my mind he is the goat. Sure he would only have 3 grandslams, but its quality that counts not quantity. And against this competition and if he is able to unseat the all time king of clay on his domain extending his win streak to the longest in open era history, then he is greater than Roger and Rafa.

socal1976 wrote:How is this one, every tournament Novak wins is worth 20 tournaments in the weak era that Shanky dominated in. So Novak has 40 slams to Roger's 16 slams. Thiemo De bakker, a lion of the golden age would have won 10 slams if he had been playing between 2003-2007.

Weak era? Hardly. In fact I'd say 2005s top 10 was much better than 2011. Too many jokers in the top 10 nowadays.

socal1976 wrote:Please, Tenez you are the king of wumming. I on the other hand am the complete epitome of objectivity and reason.

Sonic Boom, considering that about 3 guys on tour play S and V tennis then I guess Novak should be safe. But good job on the predictions, so far you are Novak's lucky charm every time you predict his downfall he wins the tournament, as a Novak fan I would practically pay you to keep predicting his downfall although I am no sucker why pay someone for something they are willing to do for free.

Isner will wipe out Djokovic

I am awesome, I was kidding with that post, but actually I would take today's top ten over the top ten in 2005 anyday. And please don't bring about an Andre Agassi he was nearly 100 years old as evidence of anything, the fact that he was beating the vast majority of the younger players in his geriatric age goes a long way to proving the lack of quality. Davy, ljubi, and roddick were pretty soft players for that era.

socal1976 wrote:I am awesome, I was kidding with that post, but actually I would take today's top ten over the top ten in 2005 anyday. And please don't bring about an Andre Agassi he was nearly 100 years old as evidence of anything, the fact that he was beating the vast majority of the younger players in his geriatric age goes a long way to proving the lack of quality. Davy, ljubi, and roddick were pretty soft players for that era.

OK I have to do this:

Current top 10 as of 23/05/2011:

1 Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 12,070 0 22
2 Djokovic, Novak (SRB) 11,665 0 19
3 Federer, Roger (SUI) 8,390 0 22
4 Murray, Andy (GBR) 6,085 0 20
5 Soderling, Robin (SWE) 5,435 0 25
6 Berdych, Tomas (CZE) 4,200 0 25
7 Ferrer, David (ESP) 4,060 0 24
8 Melzer, Jurgen (AUT) 2,850 0 24
9 Monfils, Gael (FRA) 2,465 0 21
10 Fish, Mardy (USA) 2,395 0 22

Top 10 as of 23/05/2005:

1 Federer, Roger (SUI) 6,605 0 21
2 Hewitt, Lleyton (AUS) 3,935 0 20
3 Roddick, Andy (USA) 3,590 0 21
4 Safin, Marat (RUS) 3,065 0 23
5 Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 2,600 0 25
6 Gaudio, Gaston (ARG) 2,440 0 23
7 Agassi, Andre (USA) 2,275 0 20
8 Henman, Tim (GBR) 2,195 0 19
9 Coria, Guillermo (ARG) 2,040 0 19
10 Nalbandian, David (ARG) 1,745 0 21

Comparing all the numbers together:

1. Federer > Nadal
2. Djokovic > Hewitt
3. Federer>Roddick
4. Safin>Murray
5. Nadal>Soderling
6. Gaston>Berdych
7. Ferrer>Agassi
8. Henmann>Melzer
9. ????
10. Nalbandian>Fish

6-3 in 2005s favour.

Davy, ljubi
---------------

Two of the most talented players of which one older version beat Nadal the last 4 times they played. Even old Ljubicic beat peak Nadal just a year ago. Nalbandian also a top talented player.

In 2004-2007 talent could still win you slams...now it's all about stamina and big muscles. And what about Berdych and Verdasco in the top 10???? that is a real joke, then Monfils and old Fish!


Clearly you must be joking as the other guy was saying.

Novak is better than anyone on the 2005 list bar Rafa and Roger. Murray is better than anyone on that list except hewitt, and i am talking at the date mentioned, eventually I am certain he will be more highly regarded than either Safin or Hewitt. Agassi was like what a 105 years old? Guillermo coria, come on I think I have a better serve than Coria. Nalbandian is a great talent no doubt, I'll give you that one. But you are comparing names to current players who haven't had a chance to make their names yet. Yes obviously hewitt and Agassi are legends but looking back on today's top ten in a few years when Murray and Djoko have a chance to add to their legacy will make a big difference. Andre is great but he was ancient and way past his prime. I am convinced when all is said and done Novak and Andy will be bigger legends than Hewitt and Safin. Novak to a large extent already is. Nadal is way better today than he was back then, way better, back then he was one surface wonder. And tim henman, come on now did the guy ever even make a grandslam final berdych and soderling have.

socal1976 wrote:Novak is better than anyone on the 2005 list bar Rafa and Roger. Murray is better than anyone on that list except hewitt, and i am talking at the date mentioned, eventually I am certain he will be more highly regarded than either Safin or Hewitt. Agassi was like what a 105 years old? Guillermo coria, come on I think I have a better serve than Coria. Nalbandian is a great talent no doubt, I'll give you that one. But you are comparing names to current players who haven't had a chance to make their names yet. Yes obviously hewitt and Agassi are legends but looking back on today's top ten in a few years when Murray and Djoko have a chance to add to their legacy will make a big difference. Andre is great but he was ancient and way past his prime. I am convinced when all is said and done Novak and Andy will be bigger legends than Hewitt and Safin. Novak to a large extent already is. Nadal is way better today than he was back then, way better, back then he was one surface wonder. And tim henman, come on now did the guy ever even make a grandslam final berdych and soderling have.

Hewitt and Safin could have made it much higher for the history book had they had an injury free career. The fact of the matter is you told me to compare today's top 10 to 2005s which I did. Now what the future holds, we don't know. I mean if I was to compare that list 7 months back you'd definately wouldn't be saying that Djokovic isn't better on anyone on that list. Come on man at the very least 2005s talent was very comparable to todays.

Tenez wrote:Davy, ljubi
---------------

Two of the most talented players of which one older version beat Nadal the last 4 times they played. Even old Ljubicic beat peak Nadal just a year ago. Nalbandian also a top talented player.

In 2004-2007 talent could still win you slams...now it's all about stamina and big muscles. And what about Berdych and Verdasco in the top 10???? that is a real joke, then Monfils and old Fish!


Clearly you must be joking as the other guy was saying.

Yet those two couldn't even make it to the top 10 near their peak in 2005.

What do you mean by "better"? Vincent Spaeda was probably better than Rod laver but does that mean people will consider Spaeda a greater player? not sure.

[quote="I AM AWESOME"]

Tenez wrote:
Yet those two couldn't even make it to the top 10 near their peak in 2005.

But both were in the top 5 in 2006.

Again, you are comparing players who have had a chance to complete their legacy against players that are still going. If Djokovic ends up with a handful of slams and Andy gets one or two then I would say today's top ten is way better. And JMDP would be in that list in a heartbeat over melz and fish if he just didn't comeback from a big injury you both know that. A fair comparison would be to compare both top tens in a few years when the players who are currently in the top ten have a chance to actually finish their legacies like the guys on the first list have. In five years its a fair comparison, right now it isn't.

socal1976 wrote:Again, you are comparing players who have had a chance to complete their legacy against players that are still going. If Djokovic ends up with a handful of slams and Andy gets one or two then I would say today's top ten is way better. And JMDP would be in that list in a heartbeat over melz and fish if he just didn't comeback from a big injury you both know that. A fair comparison would be to compare both top tens in a few years when the players who are currently in the top ten have a chance to actually finish their legacies like the guys on the first list have. In five years its a fair comparison, right now it isn't.

Marat would have about 10 slams by now and Nalbandian would be have become a legen if they both weren't injured and utilised their talents respectively. Just sayin'...

I don't think any Tennis forum needs help or encouragement in the wum department.

Socal, are you trying hard to make my job even worse ?

Please try to stay on topic and leave personal remarks where they belong, on the old 606. Its not fair to members to continually be reminded of past history and in all fairness, its only ones opinion.

Lets keep it clean guys or the big, bad delete button will have to be slapped soon. I will let this article run for now, as long as posts are on topic and sociably acceptable from now on.

Simple fact is that Federer made some tremendous players into also-rans. I'm thinking especially of Safin, who despite some big performances usually lost, and peak Hewitt, who would have been a very tough player on the slowed conditions of today.

Is 2012 a strong era of the Slams are shared, or is there just no outstanding player? Answers are pointless, the question cannot be answered. That's why there is no weak era.

Bogbrush, I never stated that 2005 is a weak era. I am not one of the weak era proponents, winning in any era on the ATP tour is difficult. I am also not one of those who continually claim that somehow all of Rafa's slams are tainted because of slow balls and slow courts. The tour is the way the tour is, you have to win with the conditions you are given and the competition before you. No one can ask anymore.

socal1976 wrote:... I am also not one of those who continually claim that somehow all of Rafa's slams are tainted because of slow balls and slow courts. The tour is the way the tour is, you have to win with the conditions you are given and the competition before you. No one can ask anymore.

Still - Tournament organisers can pace up or down courts at will to favour some players over others. And yes 2010 was particularly poor in terms of top players not being on tip top form. Not everything is black and white Socal. The weak era concept is a stupid one, but nonetheless some slams are easier than others....and now that the game has become so physical, the luck of draw is going to be more important than ever.

That's the way it is and general statements such as "the conditions are the same for everybody" implying that the chances of winning are same to all are simply wrong.

Tenez, the conditions are the same for everyone. The organizers shouldn't be slowing down or speeding up conditions to favor anyone or the other they have their own interests at heart. But the history of the tour is replete with tournaments changing balls, changing surfaces, and changing venues. The players are the ones who have to adjust and find away to win with the conditions they are given. The game is more physical now, well of course which modern sport hasn't gotten more physical over the last 50 years. Everyhting from football to basketball, to even golf and auto racing is more physically demanding; why exactly would tennis be any different. With modern weightlifting, cross training, and yes supplements legal and otherwise every sport is more physical. But technique is still an important requirement to victory.