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

by socal1976 Sat May 28, 2011 6:09 pm

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.

by denzilsmom Sun Jul 03, 2011 5:35 pm

No...not yet

by socal1976 Sun Jul 03, 2011 5:36 pm

Top ten of all time is not what I am talking about, that is very select company. I am saying that he is an all time great, not top ten of all time. He could still get there but i think he needs 7 slams for top ten status. But he is certainly a legend of the game right now, and an all time great.

by Guest Sun Jul 03, 2011 5:40 pm

Talk about hyperbole,

He will be one of the greats once he gets to 5-6 slams.

He'll need to win at least 8-9, before being considered as one of the GOATs

by legendkillar Sun Jul 03, 2011 5:42 pm

Novak beat Tsonga, Murray and now Nadal in a GS final. I cannot believe how short sighted some tennis fans are. If Murray won 3 slams I wouldn't be banging my drum for him to be remembered as a 'great'

Let the guy have a career first before we start going on debating it. Like I said consistency.

by socal1976 Sun Jul 03, 2011 5:43 pm

Not hyperbole at all emancipator. 3 grandslam titles and the world #1 ranking that is about when you get the title of all time great. And he has done it in the Fedal era, won the davis cup, the year end master's cup, and 9 masters titles.

by legendkillar Sun Jul 03, 2011 5:44 pm

Del Potro beat Nadal and Federer on route to GS. Is he a great? No

Safin beat Sampras and Federer in GS's. Is he a great? No

If 3 GS and a number 1 ranking greatness, it shows just how low the bar is set.

by socal1976 Sun Jul 03, 2011 5:45 pm

Yes and in the finals he won at the AO, he beat Roger Federer in the semis to get to murray and Tsonga. You know Roger federer the consensus goat. It isn't shortsighted at all. Some people claim that 3 grandslams is not enough to be considered great, I disagree he is a legitimate multiple grandslam and an alltime great. Is he the goat no, is he in the top ten yet, no he isn't, but he is an all time legend of the game.

by socal1976 Sun Jul 03, 2011 5:46 pm

Del Potro, come on legend, Novak only has 2 grandslams and 9 master's shields on Del Potro.

by yummymummy Sun Jul 03, 2011 5:47 pm

socal1976 wrote:Excellent post by Chris, have to echo everything he is saying. It isn't just the three grandslams and the #1 ranking. Look at who he has to beat to win these grandslams. Novak is 11-1 and against the rest of the top 5 players in the world. 11-1 against the top 5 that is ridiculous. This year added to the rest of his body of work 5 straight years of being ranked in the top 3 in the Fedal era in my mind establishes him as an all time great. The knock against Novak was that he had only won 2 australians and that somehow the AO is inferior to the other slams, well what about wimbeldon, he just won the granddaddy of them all.

When he's done it 16 times socal - we MIGHT start considering him amongst
the *greats*

by legendkillar Sun Jul 03, 2011 5:48 pm

He isn't a legend yet. He has lost to Nadal and Federer in GS Finals. Just because he beats Nadal in one doesn't constitute him a legend. Like I said, let the guy have a career. Celebrate his victory. Don't get carried away with throwing prestigious claims on someone who hasn't seen out his career.

by socal1976 Sun Jul 03, 2011 5:51 pm

yummy, so only 16 grandslams makes you great. Pete wasn't great, Andre wasn't great, Becker wasn't great. Why is the bar of greatness set at 16 grandslam titles for Novak. Ok then there has only been one great player in tennis history and that is Roger Federer? Come on you guys are being way to dismissive of what you are watching.

by Guest Sun Jul 03, 2011 5:55 pm

To say he has done this in the 'Fedal' era is a bit misleading.

Federer is clearly not the player he used to be.

I'm sure you're going to mention AUS' 08, but let's be honest here, Fed was obviously hampered by Mono at the time; one only needs to to look at how he was sweating buckets after just 3 games in that match.

Novak has done amazingly well to dominate a GOAT candidate in Rafa, but for the last few years he has been playing a against a shadow of THE greatest.

by legendkillar Sun Jul 03, 2011 5:55 pm

socal I will be the first to say that this brand of tennis Novak is playing is fantastic to watch and is the best in the mens game at the moment. If he takes it with him till he retires he will be a great, not disputing that. I am saying that at this moment in time with his accomplishments, no he isn't a great. We have just passed the halfway stage of the season. I hope he does win more slams, I really do. But lets keep the champagne on ice. I understand the Novak fans are estatic with the win, I know I would be if Murray won his first, but I say look forward. The US Open is next. Win there or even a Slam next year, we start discussing great.

by Jeremy_Kyle Sun Jul 03, 2011 5:59 pm

Socal: fantastic win; today I im a Nole fan today and I am happy as a child.
Can you keep the GOAT debate in stand by for a minute and enjoy this moment?? I seem to remember Fed has 16 and Nole 3 btw Wink

PS: Nole from to today is officially a great champion!!!!!

by socal1976 Sun Jul 03, 2011 6:00 pm

Legend, come on you are the guy who said murray is better than Courier without winning anything. Novak beats Nadal in a wimbeldon final for his 3rd grandslam and you are saying Novak isn't a great player, sounds like a double standard to me. Emancipator, was federer a shell of himself when novak beat him in Canada in 2007. In fact, he beat Roddick, Nadal, and Federer on consecutive days to win the master's in Canada that year. Why is that significant these guys were the #3, 2, and 1 players in the world at that time. If Novak's wins over Roger are discounted because Roger is older, well do we discount Roger's wins over a teenage Djokovic years away from his prime, when Roger was at his absolute peak and Novak was still finding his way on tour? So is it your thesis that Roger's wins over a teenage Djokovic when Roger was at his absolute peak count, while Novak's wins over a Roger two years past his prime don't count?

by luciusmann Sun Jul 03, 2011 6:02 pm

Now I realise why Nadal was happy to win the French, does anyone think Nadal would have beaten Djokovic if he'd reached the final?

by legendkillar Sun Jul 03, 2011 6:02 pm

Murray has much more depth in his game than Courier socal. Most fans would agree there. Courier won in an era that favoured power. It is much more a different game now. Where did I say that Murray was great or Courier for that matter? Never. Aren't you the guy who said I don't do GOAT of all time because of different era's and then compare Murray and Courier? Sounds like Pot and Kettle.

Like I said. Let the guy have a career first.

by Guest Sun Jul 03, 2011 6:06 pm

socal1976 wrote:Legend, come on you are the guy who said murray is better than Courier without winning anything. Novak beats Nadal in a wimbeldon final for his 3rd grandslam and you are saying Novak isn't a great player, sounds like a double standard to me. Emancipator, was federer a shell of himself when novak beat him in Canada in 2007. In fact, he beat Roddick, Nadal, and Federer on consecutive days to win the master's in Canada that year. Why is that significant these guys were the #3, 2, and 1 players in the world at that time. If Novak's wins over Roger are discounted because Roger is older, well do we discount Roger's wins over a teenage Djokovic years away from his prime, when Roger was at his absolute peak and Novak was still finding his way on tour? So is it your thesis that Roger's wins over a teenage Djokovic when Roger was at his absolute peak count, while Novak's wins over a Roger two years past his prime don't count?

No.. I'm not objecting to any of his wins and obviously he is playing fantastic at the moment.

I only objected to your liberal use of the term 'Fedal' era. In reality, it was more of a Federer era, followed by a shorter Nadal era. People like to lump them together because it's quicker. Novak has truncated the Nadal era but he did not win against Roger at any slam in Roger's dominant years. That does not take anything away from Novak, because we do not know how it would have fared if they had been the same age. Hope that clears it up. Smile

by socal1976 Sun Jul 03, 2011 6:06 pm

Sorry, legend most people would consider Courier a great champion, if murray is better than courier because of the level of competition without winning anything, then where does that place Djokovic in pantheon of greats for winning 3 slams in this tougher era?

by legendkillar Sun Jul 03, 2011 6:11 pm

You asked me who the better player was? Now if we are saying that better players are determined by what they win, that is shallow. Like I said Murray had more variation in his game than Courier.

by yummymummy Sun Jul 03, 2011 6:19 pm

socal1976 wrote:yummy, so only 16 grandslams makes you great. Pete wasn't great, Andre wasn't great, Becker wasn't great. Why is the bar of greatness set at 16 grandslam titles for Novak. Ok then there has only been one great player in tennis history and that is Roger Federer? Come on you guys are being way to dismissive of what you are watching.

*ONLY* 16 slams + numerous other titles !

Federer WILL go down as one of the all time Greats. Like I said the jury is still out
concerning Djokovic Rolling Eyes

by Guest Sun Jul 03, 2011 6:22 pm

LK, I beg to differ,

Courier played a game that brought success in his era, perhaps his era did not require as much variety to win. To say Murray is a better player, simply because he appears to have more variety in his shots is unfair. By that token, one could argue that Murray is a better player than Becker, he certainly has more variety, is faster, has a better baseline game etc.
Additionally, raquet and string technology as well as advances in training and nutrition give modern players a huge advantage over their predecessors, if one starts making shot by shot comparisons.

Ultimately, all eras are different. Apart from the early years after the start of the open era, the competition has always been fierce at the top.

The top players have always adjusted to counter playing conditions and their rivals playing styles'.

Courier is by far a better player than Murray because he found a way to win in his era against all the other players, over whom he had no additional advantages.

by legendkillar Sun Jul 03, 2011 6:28 pm

I disagree about the Becker lack of depth. He was good from baseline and was a force at the net. Becker was better than Courier and Murray.

Like I said in shot variation Murray has more than Courier. Courier has achieved more than Murray from titles aspect. But Murray's career is yet to finish. So let's wait and see.

by socal1976 Sun Jul 03, 2011 6:28 pm

Legend based on your Murray sliding scale where Andy is ranked better than 2 time world #1 and 4 time grandslam champion because of the difficult era Murray is playing in. Well then based on the murray sliding scale, Novak gets a 4 grandslam minimum bump in status for playing in the same difficult era that gives Andy a 4 slam bump, that means Novak has 7 slams on the Andy sliding scale and would be ranked well into the top 10. I am not trying to be meanspirited. But you yourself rank Andy higher because he plays in this era, but you diminish Novak's 3 slams comparing them to hewitt and don't seem to be giving Novak the same type of status bump you are willing to give the slamless Andy.

Fair points emancipator, I personally always love the Fed Djoko rivalry, its my favorite. Well because Roger is too damn perfect and there is a bit of bad blood between him and Nole. There peace is kind of like the peace between Israel and Egypt.

by Guest Sun Jul 03, 2011 6:31 pm

Socal if you think he has joined the all time greats - then that is all that matters. For me the intensity he has shown this year so far has been on a par with some of the best runs ever (short term). The question is can he keep this going - obviously he doesn't have to play this good all the time - he has beaten Nadal in his past five matches - including clay and grass (Nadals favorite surfaces).

His win against Murray in the Rome semi-final was perhaps his most memorable (although clearly not his most important match).

by socal1976 Sun Jul 03, 2011 6:31 pm

Excellent post Emancipator. Could you imagine the damage a young Courier would do with luxlon strings on his forehand. Courier had the big western luxlon forehand without the luxlon strings. He would crush that thing with huge spin and power over and over again. It would be like a slighter earlier and flatter version of the nadal forehand, that is the type of spin JC would of gotten.

by legendkillar Sun Jul 03, 2011 6:31 pm

socal you asked who the better player was and my judgement was made on their abilities as tennis players. Your the one bringing in era's and what not considering you say you don't get into it. I won't deem Novak great until his career is finished. Like I said with Hewitt it was consistancy. Let's see Novak build on this win today.

by socal1976 Sun Jul 03, 2011 6:35 pm

No legend, when we had this debate before you brought up eras. The crux of your argument was that Murray was better than Courier because Courier won in a weaker era than murray. Although I brought courier had to win against Pete and Andre, you then did a break down of how the current era is stronger than the Courier period. You in effect gave murray a 4 slam bump in his status because of the era Murray plays in (same era as djokovic, exact same age). Well if Murray gets a bump in status of 4 slams based on the era than Djoko is at 7 slams right now.

by socal1976 Sun Jul 03, 2011 6:36 pm

Nore, he has for me, and i think he has earned his own legacy and his own place in Tennis history for his whole body of work, right now we are just seeing the validation of what he has accomplished and he is at the height of his powers.

by legendkillar Sun Jul 03, 2011 6:42 pm

socal1976 wrote:No legend, when we had this debate before you brought up eras. The crux of your argument was that Murray was better than Courier because Courier won in a weaker era than murray. Although I brought courier had to win against Pete and Andre, you then did a break down of how the current era is stronger than the Courier period. You in effect gave murray a 4 slam bump in his status because of the era Murray plays in (same era as djokovic, exact same age). Well if Murray gets a bump in status of 4 slams based on the era than Djoko is at 7 slams right now.

Murray has much more depth in his game than Courier socal. Most fans would agree there. Courier won in an era that favoured power. It is much more a different game now. Where did I say that Murray was great or Courier for that matter? Never. Aren't you the guy who said I don't do GOAT of all time because of different era's and then compare Murray and Courier? Sounds like Pot and Kettle.

There is my statement socal. Where does it say the era Courier won in was weak? I am talking about playing styles. You sir are talking about achievements and formula proving nothing.

by Guest Sun Jul 03, 2011 6:43 pm

Djokovics 2011 record against Nadal

2011 Grand Slam Wimbledon Grass: wins 6-4 6-1 1-6 6-3
2011 ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Rome Clay: wins 6-4, 6-4
2011 ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Madrid Clay: wins 7-5, 6-4
2011 ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Miami Hard: wins 4-6, 6-3, 7-6(4)
2011 ATP World Tour Masters 1000 IWells Hard: wins 4-6, 6-3, 6-2

by socal1976 Sun Jul 03, 2011 6:46 pm

Well, my main point is this, I think you are being too dismissive about all that Novak has been able to accomplish. 3 grandslams and beating Nadal in wimbeldon and the world #1 ranking are all things that should not be so talked slightly about.

by socal1976 Sun Jul 03, 2011 6:47 pm

Nore Staat could anyone take 9 out of 10 sets against Nadal on hardcourt, clay, and Grass if he wasn't an all time great?

by yummymummy Sun Jul 03, 2011 6:48 pm

https://www.606v2.com/t8481-andy-murray-4-in-the-world

Peeps who don't like Murray can post on the above thread !

In the meantime Djoko is NOT a GOAT and WILL NOT be considered
as such until his career ends

by legendkillar Sun Jul 03, 2011 6:49 pm

I am not being dismissive at all socal. You deem his accomplishments to date as great and I don't. I want to see him win more. I am greedy like that. Like I said, his brand of tennis at the moment is the best in the world. I don't think there is anyone that can beat him when on song like this. If he sustains it and takes it forward for the next few years, there is no doubt he will be a great. It is the beginning. He is number 1 and Wimbledon Champion. I want to see him progress further to greater heights in the game.

by socal1976 Sun Jul 03, 2011 6:53 pm

My friend there are no more greater heights than wimbeldon champion and world #1. That is the pinnacle. We are talking about a multiple grandslam champion here this is no wozniacki syndrome. In the open era only 25 players have attained the number #1 ranking and even a more select group have won 3 grandslams.

by legendkillar Sun Jul 03, 2011 6:57 pm

There is. There is the US Open Championship and the French Open Championship. See I would love to see him complete the set. Like I would Murray. See a lot of people would settle for a Wimbledon title for Andy, but not me. I won't to see Djokovic become a force. See him stand out as his own. What is to stop him from going further and then being looked on as a legend on his own? I want Djokovic to stand out on his own like I do Murray. Looking back and having 'He played in the Federer and Nadal era. He was good' I want for people to look back and say 'Wow that Djokovic was great' or 'Andy Murray was great' that is what I want and shows the hunger and greed I have for players. Very Happy

by yummymummy Sun Jul 03, 2011 7:02 pm

Steady on LK Shocked

I STILL think that to class Djoko as a *GOAT* is premature
and a leetle bit over=stepping the mark .

Let's re-judge him in 2014 and see hows hes progressed thumbsup

by Guest Sun Jul 03, 2011 7:03 pm

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.

by socal1976 Sun Jul 03, 2011 7:04 pm

Again you have no set standard. So he has to win the career slam to be great. I think he has a real good chance at the French in the future by the way. Either way he has won a slam on grass, what was considered his worst surface and he has two hardcourt slams as well. Either way I think maybe your standards are just either subjective or to restrictive and dismissive of what we are witnessing.

by yummymummy Sun Jul 03, 2011 7:09 pm

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.

I would say go back to 606 - but it doesn't exists anymore Emancipator

And btw BOOOOOOOO BOOOOOOOOO is here but he doesn't want to talk to you egg

by legendkillar Sun Jul 03, 2011 7:14 pm

socal1976 wrote:Again you have no set standard. So he has to win the career slam to be great. I think he has a real good chance at the French in the future by the way. Either way he has won a slam on grass, what was considered his worst surface and he has two hardcourt slams as well. Either way I think maybe your standards are just either subjective or to restrictive and dismissive of what we are witnessing.

Again you have minced my words up. Where did I say a career grand slam makes you great? I said that I want for him to win more. Whether he does or not is decided by time. Like I said numerous times. I am thinking chicken before the egg with your standards.

by Guest Sun Jul 03, 2011 7:15 pm

thx Yummy,

I'd forgotten about Boo for a while.

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, where for art thou oh BOOOOOOOO?

We are loooooooooooooooost

ghost

by Tenez Sun Jul 03, 2011 7:20 pm

I dont think it's the arrival of a new GOAT as much as it's the end of a possible GOAT status for the other one.

Nadal's status as the possible GOAT is well and truly over. Being beaten sos consistently and convincingly at the peak of his form simply ends the discussion.

Regarding Djoko, well it;s just going to be done to the slam number. So far he can only be compared to guys like Kuerten and Courier maybe.

Way to go. It's irrelevant the fact he played along with 2 greats...he simply has to be a great himself....and for that I woudl say he needs to accumulate 8 slams. That's a lot and a long way to go.

by lydian Sun Jul 03, 2011 7:32 pm

I think its still too early to say he's a true "great" of the game already with "just" 3 slams but clearly this guy has the potential to blow all records away - a GOAT in the making? Quite possibly. Exciting tennis times indeed!

by legendkillar Sun Jul 03, 2011 7:48 pm

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.

by socal1976 Sun Jul 03, 2011 7:56 pm

I am not again making a goat debate, I am saying that he is an all time great. As compared to kuerten I would say he has already surpassed kuerten by winning different slams on different surfaces and by winning wimbeldon the most prestigious of all the slams. Djokovic is great on all surfaces Kuerten on one surface, and pretty good on the other surfaces. What i am saying is that he is an alltime great on his own, not the greatest, just one of the select group of champions in the sport can be considered a great or legend of the game.

by lydian Sun Jul 03, 2011 8:04 pm

I think he's currently in a large group of players socal (maybe 10-15 of them). I think we see he has the potential to get into, say, the top 5, maybe even top 1-2. Lets see, anything can happen of course but he does still have a long way to go to reach the top 5. Its also depends on what is meant by an "all time great".

by legendkillar Sun Jul 03, 2011 8:05 pm

socal give Djokovic time. Like you say he will be remembered in his own right. But today isn't the end of what he can achieve in the game. When he won his first Slam he didn't really kick on from it. Now he has shown great consistency this year. What other posters are saying is that we want to see him kick on from this year. No doubt this year belongs to him, but how far can he go on this form?

by yummymummy Sun Jul 03, 2011 8:09 pm

legendkillar wrote:socal give Djokovic time. Like you say he will be remembered in his own right. But today isn't the end of what he can achieve in the game. When he won his first Slam he didn't really kick on from it. Now he has shown great consistency this year. What other posters are saying is that we want to see him kick on from this year. No doubt this year belongs to him, but how far can he go on this form?

I quite agree LK !!!

Like I said (before Doh

)

let's re evaluate his progress in 2014 thumbsup

by Sponsored content