Has Djokovic joined the ranks of the tennis greats, whatever that means?

First topic message reminder :

Of course I am highly partial. But I think its time to discuss this issue. Novak has been in the top 3 for the last 5 years. In an era dominated by 2 goat candidates. He has a davis cup, 24 tournament victories, 9 master's series wins, a year end championship, an olympic medal in singles, and a Davis Cup. On the grandslam stage he has been to 4 grandslam finals, with 2 grandslam championships. Not to mention that he is the youngest player in history to make the semis or better of 4 grandslam events. In my mind if he retired tomorrow he would be one of the legends of the game. And his current streak only adds to the luster, he is now the holder of the 3rd longest winning streak in the open era. He is virtually guaranteed of attaining the #1 ranking at least for a few months following his stellar start. Where would you place on his current achievements? I would put him among the very elite of the game. Not top ten of all time in terms of legacy but closing fast. And if he retired tomorrow, he would rank higher in my mind than any of the players that have won 2 slams on the strength of his accomplishing all that he has in the Fedal era and his consistent level of play. As I watched the del potro match, and witnessed the startling level of hitting that Djokovic displayed I was struck with one thought. "I have never seen anybody hit and move like this before, nobody, and I mean nobody". yes there are those players with bigger serves, with better volleys. But when you look at movement and baseline play Djokovic has to rate at the very, very top of the game. He is so good at that style of play that he has bested the very best baseliner/defender we have seen in the modern era and has sent him scurrying for answers in the last fortnight. It is no Djoke to beat federer and Nadal seven straight times. His record against top 5 competition is 10-0, against top ten players it is 13-0. Novak, you are one of the greatest players of all time, a legend of the game and with so much more left to accomplish.

Lydian, makes my point, he says Djokovic is in that elite group of 10-15, I say heck let him be top 20 or top 25. I would consider all those players as being alltime greats. In the open era there have only been 25 #1s. And Novak has already surpassed a few of them, Kuerten, roddick, hewitt, safin, rios, moya etc. Therefore, I have no problem in considering him an alltime great. I am not saying he is in the fed, bjorg, sampras, laver grouping of players.

If he wins another major maybe the US Open or Rolland Garros then he is up there. He is a fantastic player at the moment and the way he is playing could well end up a great.

But....he could be...with time.

You know I am going to bring this thread back up every time Novak does something really special.

He has time on his side to really rack up the slams and today he made a big breakthrough as it was his first win over Nadal in a slam so that will instill even more belief. Remember he has now won two out of the three slams played this year so if he carries on he could easily get into double figures for slam wins before he retires.

legendkillar wrote:
Like I said in shot variation Murray has more than Courier. Courier has achieved more than Murray from titles aspect. .

Hmmm, tough call as to which one I'd go by for deciding who's better.

Do I go with the one who played a between the legs shot in the comfort zone of his favorite tournament Queens, that none of the top players bother with.....or the smaller aspect of being a multiple major grand slam winning champion?

Infact, I'll go with neither. Santoro is better than both due to his "variety."

consigliare wrote:

legendkillar wrote:
Like I said in shot variation Murray has more than Courier. Courier has achieved more than Murray from titles aspect. .

Hmmm, tough call as to which one I'd go by for deciding who's better.

Do I go with the one who played a between the legs shot in the comfort zone of his favorite tournament Queens, that none of the top players bother with.....or the smaller aspect of being a multiple major grand slam winning champion?

Infact, I'll go with neither. Santoro is better than both due to his "variety."

If you want to look intelligent in your posts at least get the facts correct.

Nadal the Worlds No.1 was playing at Queens

sportslover wrote:

consigliare wrote:

legendkillar wrote:
Like I said in shot variation Murray has more than Courier. Courier has achieved more than Murray from titles aspect. .

Hmmm, tough call as to which one I'd go by for deciding who's better.

Do I go with the one who played a between the legs shot in the comfort zone of his favorite tournament Queens, that none of the top players bother with.....or the smaller aspect of being a multiple major grand slam winning champion?

Infact, I'll go with neither. Santoro is better than both due to his "variety."

If you want to look intelligent in your posts at least get the facts correct.

Nadal the Worlds No.1 was playing at Queens

Ah, but I said he wasn't bothered with it. And I stand by it...He has bigger fish to fry. The other big dogs wern't bothered about it in the context of not even turning up.

You nearly caught me out there...except for the fact that I deliberately covered myself so you wern't able to.

Haha Consigliare,

you win that one,

ps. weren't is the correct spelling.



















just kiddding

legendkillar wrote:

emancipator wrote:LK,

so your arguement is that more variety=better player. Murray had more variety than Courier so is a better player.

Perhaps a more varied baseline game with less power (relative to the time) would have resulted in less success in the early nineties. Courier played the game required to win slams in his day. If he had played in this era, no doubt his game would have been different.

Ultimately comparing eras is a futile endeavour and judging between players in different eras amounts to the same.

One can only go by the success that each player had in his own era.

Otherwise, the top 100 are all better players than Laver. More powerful, better athletes, better technique etc.

Courier is to date, streaks ahead of Murray.

So again like socal your basing your arguement by an achievement perspective. So when Nadal surpasses Federer's achievements, will acknowledge Nadal as the greatest?

Variation and Quality are high on my list to make a great player. Murray may lack in other departments, but for me having watched both, I think Murray is a better player than Courier. That is my opinion. You can pick logic out of it all you want, but I don't care.

Surely you mean, 'IF', Nadal surpasses Federer's achievements?

A very big 'IF' too, IF I may add.



emancipator - exposing the myths.

emancipator wrote:Haha Consigliare,

you win that one,

ps. weren't is the correct spelling.



















just kiddding

That's OK, even if you wern't. It's always a good sign when a spelling card is the only one being produced against you. Knowing tennis has always been more my forte than the spelling of that word, I will admit this.

Oooh, you humble fella, you.


BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO coooooooooooooooooooooome baaaaaaaaack

It is all darkness and despair

Woooooooooe onto meeeeeeee

I do feel like somehow people are underestimating Courier the player. He was a two time year end number 1 and played in the finals of every grandslam event. Frankly, I don't even want to know what a young JC would do to a tennis ball and luxlon strings with that forehand of his. And the guy had legendary borgesque fitness. When he was winning at Roland Garros there is a little story about how courier would play 3 hours in a match in the french open and after the match he would go and run a few miles on the treadmill at the workout facility for players at RG. He did this to kind of intimidate his opposition and it worked. Very good returner as well.

socal1976 wrote:I do feel like somehow people are underestimating Courier the player. He was a two time year end number 1 and played in the finals of every grandslam event. Frankly, I don't even want to know what a young JC would do to a tennis ball and luxlon strings with that forehand of his. And the guy had legendary borgesque fitness. When he was winning at Roland Garros there is a little story about how courier would play 3 hours in a match in the french open and after the match he would go and run a few miles on the treadmill at the workout facility for players at RG. He did this to kind of intimidate his opposition and it worked. Very good returner as well.

Yeah, yeah. OK so maybe he achieved the small matter of reaching the final on every surface, back when there was a difference between them, and maybe he was #1 and winning multiple slams in the terribly weak era of Sampras/Agassi/Edberg etc.....But who cares about any of that as he didn't have "variety"

I think if you have been number 1 and won a slam you will forever be rememebered. However, unless he goes on to completely dominate Nadal which is possible I think he might be remembered as the guy who battled with Nadal and Federer in their era instead of being part of a trio of Nadal Federer and Djokovic.

CAS wrote:I think if you have been number 1 and won a slam you will forever be rememebered. However, unless he goes on to completely dominate Nadal which is possible I think he might be remembered as the guy who battled with Nadal and Federer in their era instead of being part of a trio of Nadal Federer and Djokovic.

He will only be remembered for a having a lack of variety compared with GOAT in a different era (love that one BTW) Muzza. Nothing more.

Muzza's norm of straight set loss "battles" Vs the aforementioned are far greater credentials.

Part of my whole point CAS is that Djokovic doesn't need to surpass Nadal or Fed. Maybe we have been spoiled in thinking that unless a player wins double digit slams then he can't be considered great. Novak is already in a grouping of players that include vilas, ashe, courier, nastase, and kuerten. These guys where all great players and so is novak. Why does he have to equal Federer or Nadal?

socal1976 wrote:Part of my whole point CAS is that Djokovic doesn't need to surpass Nadal or Fed. Maybe we have been spoiled in thinking that unless a player wins double digit slams then he can't be considered great. Novak is already in a grouping of players that include vilas, ashe, courier, nastase, and kuerten. These guys where all great players and so is novak. Why does he have to equal Federer or Nadal?

I think purely because greatness his measured in title wins in any sport. People do love to have a greatest of all-time in their sport and the most logical way to do that is on slam wins first and foremost and then factor in other achievements in their careers. Jim Courier was one of the greatest from his era but in many peoples eyes that era was not particularly thrilling, exciting, jaw-droppingly good compared to the current era or the Mac, Borg, Connors era or early 80's era. No doubting him as a great of the game just that there are a good many players above him in the all-time pecking order.

Obviously, winning Wimbledon, reaching #1 and doing a fairly good job of demolishing Rafa's game has moved Djokovic up a bit both in the public perception and on what his legacy is.

He's obviously a great tennis player - you don't reach #1 in the world on merit ahead of Nadal and Federer without being bloody good. Whether that is enough to make him 'a great' eyt is debateable. If he was to retire tomorrow, in a decade he'd be largely forgotten about other than perhaps for yesterday's performance (in the same way that Safin is remembered for having twice dismantled Federer in his prime). However, if he goes on to take a couple more slams (as seems very likely considering his current form), he'll definitely be up there with the legends of the game.

consigliare wrote:

sportslover wrote:

consigliare wrote:

legendkillar wrote:
Like I said in shot variation Murray has more than Courier. Courier has achieved more than Murray from titles aspect. .

Hmmm, tough call as to which one I'd go by for deciding who's better.

Do I go with the one who played a between the legs shot in the comfort zone of his favorite tournament Queens, that none of the top players bother with.....or the smaller aspect of being a multiple major grand slam winning champion?

Infact, I'll go with neither. Santoro is better than both due to his "variety."

If you want to look intelligent in your posts at least get the facts correct.

Nadal the Worlds No.1 was playing at Queens

Ah, but I said he wasn't bothered with it. And I stand by it...He has bigger fish to fry. The other big dogs wern't bothered about it in the context of not even turning up.

You nearly caught me out there...except for the fact that I deliberately covered myself so you wern't able to.

So you know Nadal wasn't bothered with Queens?

Maybe you would like to indulge us with his favourite colour as you know him so well?

You didn't cover yourself. 0/10 for effort though.

I think Nole is playing great stuff now, but at 3 Slams it is staggeringly premature to enter into talk about being a "great".

Call back after another 5 or 6 Slams.

Q. You've achieved some firsts now for you: No. 1, first Wimbledon final. Now you have another that you're going to try to achieve: beating Rafael Nadal in a Grand Slam. Can you describe that challenge and how the other ones may have helped you prepare for this one?

NOVAK DJOKOVIC: Well, it is quite different playing Nadal in a Grand Slam because it's a best of five. So physically we all know that he's superior and he's the strongest player around, you know, most prepared.
So I'm ready for long rallies, you know, long points. You know, I need to be physically ready, which I am. I feel fit in this moment, and mentally obviously motivated. It's my first Wimbledon final.
The four times I won against him this year can probably help me in some ways mentally prior to this match.

I am obviously not the only one stressing on the physicality of the game. And clearly, yeterday we saw how that "physicality" was influencing the mental side of it. A mentally strong player was not so strong when physically challenged.

There you have the difference between this era and teh pre-Nadal era explained in a few simple words!

graf_the_greatest wrote:Now we truly have a smirking, arrogant, egotist as No.1 that can truly rival the Mr. 'Look at me I'm so wonderful' Federer from a few years ago.[/color]

That's funny. First time I heard it's bad for a champion to be egoistic! Do you think Nadal is kind, altruistic and generous enough to share his slams with the less fortunate players? I think Stepanek would like to get Wimbledon title doyou think Rafa can give one of his?!

Is it really what makes you lean for a player instead of another?

graf_the_greatest wrote:Going back to the original post, I am sure that Djokovic is the greatest player of all time in his own head.

Now we truly have a smirking, arrogant, egotist as No.1 that can truly rival the Mr. 'Look at me I'm so wonderful' Federer from a few years ago.

I'm afraid this post belongs with the fangirls in the Rafalitos section. It certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with tennis.

Oh dear......

Djokovic: Continually applauds opponents shots. Calls balls in by his opponent, gives sincere congratulations in defeat.

Federer: Says what he thinks, doesn't hide behind false modesty and absurd poses. Excellent behaviour on court, the odd temper aside, plays promptly, doesn't mess about and delay game.

What's the problem?

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/DEUCE-Tennis/Djokovic-No1/Djokovic-Tribute.aspx

Just for you socal and NITB

legendkillar wrote:http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/DEUCE-Tennis/Djokovic-No1/Djokovic-Tribute.aspx

Just for you socal and NITB

Thanks, Legend

Very nice indeed legend thanks.

Three Slams is a good achievement and. incidentally, Djoko is the only current player with more than two slams apart from Fedal. Indeed, since Agassi retired no one playing has won more more than two which only goes to stress the Fedal monopoly.
Incidentally, Fed could be indebted to Djoko as Nole could slow Nadal's race to reach the magic 16 Slam figure. All we need now - but may not see - is the slams "going the rounds" with Fed perhaps getting one more and Murray and del Potty pitching in. People say that Rafa's all-out game will cause injury probs later his career, but will the same happen to Djoko?

sirfredperry wrote:Three Slams is a good achievement and. incidentally, Djoko is the only current player with more than two slams apart from Fedal. Indeed, since Agassi retired no one playing has won more more than two which only goes to stress the Fedal monopoly.
Incidentally, Fed could be indebted to Djoko as Nole could slow Nadal's race to reach the magic 16 Slam figure. All we need now - but may not see - is the slams "going the rounds" with Fed perhaps getting one more and Murray and del Potty pitching in. People say that Rafa's all-out game will cause injury probs later his career, but will the same happen to Djoko?

Nole is not playing all-out game, his game is yet to peak, and the direction of that peaking is going in reducing defence to offence ratio.

[quote="noleisthebest"]

sirfredperry wrote:, his game is yet to peak, and the direction of that peaking is going in reducing defence to offence ratio.

Yes. That shoudl be his aim and much easier to do as confidence is booming.

I actually don't see Novak as having the same type of injury issues as Nadal and or even murray. Novak's style while emphasizing his defense is a more offensive style than Nadal and Murray. And as he gets older as other's have pointed out he needs to get better and better at finishing points off earlier.

Novak's game is certainly more adventurous than Nadal or Murray, so he probably won't have to deal too much on injury front

I think that what was *impeding* Novak was his Gluten
allergy. Until this year it was not diagnosed so he was
lethargic and breathless .

It's a bit like saying (I'm allergic to Coca-Cola but what
the hell I'll still 3 cans of the stuff a day)

Gluten-Free = Better vitality

Simples !

Bluten-Free = Better vitality

Simples !
----
Thanks for the lesson Stephen Hawkins

After his back to back slam wins at the two most prestigious grandslams wimby and the USO, do any of you feel like reapprasing your denials of Djokovic's greatness? Is he an all time great in your books now?

Hey BB, do you still think he is the second coming of Lleyton hewitt, hewitt in his dreams couldn't ensivage 3 grandslams and 5 masters in a season.

3 grandslams, 10-1 against Federer and Nadal this season, 64-2 overral, 5 masters, 10 titles and a massive points lead for world #1.

socal1976 wrote:Of course I am highly partial. But I think its time to discuss this issue.

You've done nothing but discuss the "issue" all year.

The undoubtedly taken over as the leader of the new game but he cannot be compared to players from before because the physical side of the game was never so important. How do we compare John McEnroe, whose game was based on volleying and virtuosity, using first a wooden racquet then a midsized Dunlop to these guys with their slow courts, unbelievable fitness and bigger racquets with weird strings that allow them to do all sorts of stuff?

It's a different game now. In my opinion a lesser game. But irrespective of that, it's not the same sport.

So now you are making a weaker era argument, I get it I knew you had this agenda of diminishing every champion after Fed, just like you did to Nadal. So is tennis the only sport that has gotten more physical? By the way Roger won everyone of his grandslams with these quote weird strings.

Djokovic is clearly shooting up the list of all time greats and your agenda of diminishing every champion after Fed has been exposed, its funny Roger won all his slams with weird strings and slowed conditions, so is he inferior to the past champions who played an S and V game with a wood racquet?

You prefer a certain style of play, while I and many other fans prefer the modern game, you keep confusing your personal preference with talent. Its obvious to anyone who doesn't have a bias how talent Novak and the modern champions are.

No, I don't believe in weak eras. That's your bag. I have said over and over there is no weak era, it's the hiding place of fools and clowns.

Roger played a S&V game. Then he chaged it as the conditions were altered. Whether he'd have done the same or better will never be known, but it is clear that he could do it all.

And I said "these guys".

Yes and what is clear is that the game has been changing for over 35 years and in my mind for the better. You prefer S and V, I find it dull and boring and prefer aggressive baseline play. However, I don't diminish one style as being superior to the other. Either way you look pretty silly with your Hewitt comparison.

The Hewitt comparison is more relevent than ever; this was a classic Hewitt victory, achieved with the technology and fitness regime of 2011.

It was based on superb returning, astonishing mobility, changing defence to attack and the preparedness to attack from the back when the opening came. Serve was reliable but not the decisive weapon, the ability to prevent his opponent from holding serve was key.

Frankly I think I just described Lleytons game.

The new lleyton hewitt as you dubbed him hit as many winners as your shotmaking genius Roger federer in the semi. Doesn't seem like there are as many people willing to jump all over me for calling Novak an alltime great now, which is understandable. My sagacious analysis as usual proves correct. Novak is more like Agassi than Hewitt stylistically. He is faster than Andre but not quite as good at taking the ball early and not quite as good on the forehand. Agassi after the arrival of the luxlons hit a much heavier and less flat ball utilizing the technology admits it himself in his book which i just completed reading.

Clearly a difference between BB and socal is that BB rates Hewitt very highly and therefore to compare Djoko to him is a compliment.
Whereas socal doesn't rate Hewitt at all, and so sees the comparison as an insult.

"My sagacious analysis as usual proves correct" - frankly, why not just write "Your opinions are meaningless and irrelevant, as I am mentally your superior in every way"?
Crikey, you make Federer look humble!

Julius, your analysis is correct I don't rate transitional #1 of the weaker era particularly highly. I threw my sagacious analysis line in for sh**ts and giggles, I am not 100% serious all the time. But I did want to toot my horn after everyone jumped all over me for this post in the spring. I may have to change my name to Nostrafreakingdamus.

socal1976 wrote:After his back to back slam wins at the two most prestigious grandslams wimby and the USO, do any of you feel like reapprasing your denials of Djokovic's greatness? Is he an all time great in your books now?

Getting closer - for me the floor of the all-time greats is set somewhere between Courier (just below) and Becker/Edberg (above). Djoko is on the train headed from Station Courier to Station Edberg/Becker and whilst I fully expect him to be there by Christmas 2012 the acid test must be what would happen were his career to end abruptly today. Were that to happen he'd be a top rank player who had one truly great year but did not have the chance to show the consistency of winning slams in more than just a couple of years which in my view is required to be a true great. I look forward to seeing where Djoko takes his current brilliance and I hope that he has more duals with Fed over the next 12 months - that is the truly great tennis matchup of the moment in my view. The matchup with Nadal is extraordinary - but a bit brutal for my tastes, and clearly not sustainable without pushing the envelope vis-a-vis MTO's and time-wasting.

No problem - but did you see my prediction during the 3rd/4th set (can't remember) of the semi - that Djoko would once again win after saving 2 match points. Now there's a real CosaNostraDamusthingy moment!
Let the horn tooting commence!