What can you say, amazing stat.
On 6/11/2023 12:11 PM, Whisper wrote:
What can you say, amazing stat.
Indeed.
The Big 3 have shattered the previous notion that when a guy reaches 30
his career is basically over re slams.
IIRC, of the current Big 3, Nadal won his 15th slam a few days sooner
than Sampras won his 14th slam, while Federer won his 15th slam almost
two years sooner than Sampras won #14.
So only Federer clearly blitzed past Sampras at an earlier comparative age.
On 12/06/2023 4:56 am, stephenj wrote:But Djokovic's current comp is also soft with no major competition that come from the generation
On 6/11/2023 12:11 PM, Whisper wrote:
What can you say, amazing stat.
Indeed.
The Big 3 have shattered the previous notion that when a guy reaches 30 his career is basically over re slams.
IIRC, of the current Big 3, Nadal won his 15th slam a few days sooner
than Sampras won his 14th slam, while Federer won his 15th slam almost
two years sooner than Sampras won #14.
So only Federer clearly blitzed past Sampras at an earlier comparative age.
Federer did it before Novak and Rafa peaked and had very soft
competition. It's important to realize Novak has won 11 slams (and
counting) after age 31 while Roger only managed 3. Even Nadal has 8
after 31.
On 12/06/2023 4:56 am, stephenj wrote:Federer is a generation before Nadal and Djokovic, Djokovic also had much softer
On 6/11/2023 12:11 PM, Whisper wrote:
What can you say, amazing stat.
Indeed.
The Big 3 have shattered the previous notion that when a guy reaches 30 his career is basically over re slams.
IIRC, of the current Big 3, Nadal won his 15th slam a few days sooner
than Sampras won his 14th slam, while Federer won his 15th slam almost
two years sooner than Sampras won #14.
So only Federer clearly blitzed past Sampras at an earlier comparative age.
Federer did it before Novak and Rafa peaked and had very soft
competition. It's important to realize Novak has won 11 slams (and
counting) after age 31 while Roger only managed 3. Even Nadal has 8
after 31.
On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 7:47:38 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
On 12/06/2023 4:56 am, stephenj wrote:
On 6/11/2023 12:11 PM, Whisper wrote:
What can you say, amazing stat.
Indeed.
The Big 3 have shattered the previous notion that when a guy reaches 30 his career is basically over re slams.
IIRC, of the current Big 3, Nadal won his 15th slam a few days sooner than Sampras won his 14th slam, while Federer won his 15th slam almost two years sooner than Sampras won #14.
So only Federer clearly blitzed past Sampras at an earlier comparative age.
Federer did it before Novak and Rafa peaked and had very softFederer is a generation before Nadal and Djokovic, Djokovic also had much softer
competition. It's important to realize Novak has won 11 slams (and counting) after age 31 while Roger only managed 3. Even Nadal has 8
after 31.
competition from the generation that followed his generation. Federer rarely lost to
those who were born in 1990 onwards that also point to a weaker competition for almost
next 10 years.
What can you say, amazing stat.
On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 10:11:49 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
What can you say, amazing stat.True. But Pete could have won more.
On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 3:36:58 PM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:
On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 10:11:49 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:25?
What can you say, amazing stat.True. But Pete could have won more.
What can you say, amazing stat.
On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 7:47:38 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
On 12/06/2023 4:56 am, stephenj wrote:
On 6/11/2023 12:11 PM, Whisper wrote:
What can you say, amazing stat.
Indeed.
The Big 3 have shattered the previous notion that when a guy reaches 30 his career is basically over re slams.
IIRC, of the current Big 3, Nadal won his 15th slam a few days sooner than Sampras won his 14th slam, while Federer won his 15th slam almost two years sooner than Sampras won #14.
So only Federer clearly blitzed past Sampras at an earlier comparative age.
Federer did it before Novak and Rafa peaked and had very softBut Djokovic's current comp is also soft with no major competition that come from the generation
competition. It's important to realize Novak has won 11 slams (and counting) after age 31 while Roger only managed 3. Even Nadal has 8
after 31.
that followed his and nadal generation. he won 11 slams is a clear indication of that weak competiton
after 1986-1987 generation.
On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 7:47:38 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
On 12/06/2023 4:56 am, stephenj wrote:
On 6/11/2023 12:11 PM, Whisper wrote:
What can you say, amazing stat.
Indeed.
The Big 3 have shattered the previous notion that when a guy reaches 30 his career is basically over re slams.
IIRC, of the current Big 3, Nadal won his 15th slam a few days sooner than Sampras won his 14th slam, while Federer won his 15th slam almost two years sooner than Sampras won #14.
So only Federer clearly blitzed past Sampras at an earlier comparative age.
Federer did it before Novak and Rafa peaked and had very soft
competition. It's important to realize Novak has won 11 slams (and counting) after age 31 while Roger only managed 3. Even Nadal has 8
after 31.
Federer is a generation before Nadal and Djokovic,
On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 1:44:23 PM UTC-7, gap...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 3:36:58 PM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:
On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 10:11:49 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:25?
What can you say, amazing stat.True. But Pete could have won more.
Heh. Not sure.
On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 10:13:53 AM UTC-4, jlia...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 7:47:38 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
On 12/06/2023 4:56 am, stephenj wrote:
On 6/11/2023 12:11 PM, Whisper wrote:
What can you say, amazing stat.
Indeed.
The Big 3 have shattered the previous notion that when a guy reaches 30
his career is basically over re slams.
IIRC, of the current Big 3, Nadal won his 15th slam a few days sooner than Sampras won his 14th slam, while Federer won his 15th slam almost two years sooner than Sampras won #14.
So only Federer clearly blitzed past Sampras at an earlier comparative age.
Djokovic's current competition may be soft but remember he figured out and mastered the other two GOAT players, Nadal and Federer!Federer did it before Novak and Rafa peaked and had very soft competition. It's important to realize Novak has won 11 slams (and counting) after age 31 while Roger only managed 3. Even Nadal has 8 after 31.But Djokovic's current comp is also soft with no major competition that come from the generation
that followed his and nadal generation. he won 11 slams is a clear indication of that weak competiton
after 1986-1987 generation.
Also, the current younger generation of players like Medvedev, Alcaraz, Zverev, etc. isn't softer than previous players like Nishikori, Tsonga, Berdych, etc.
Fans have to stop coming up with all of these excuses for their favorite players to try and bolster their favorite players' status. It's ridiculous already. Djokovic is a bit better than Federer and Nadal. It should be obvious to everybody by now!
On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 10:17:33 AM UTC-4, jlia...@gmail.com wrote:of matches they've played against each other is the giveaway.
On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 7:47:38 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
On 12/06/2023 4:56 am, stephenj wrote:
On 6/11/2023 12:11 PM, Whisper wrote:
What can you say, amazing stat.
Indeed.
The Big 3 have shattered the previous notion that when a guy reaches 30
his career is basically over re slams.
IIRC, of the current Big 3, Nadal won his 15th slam a few days sooner than Sampras won his 14th slam, while Federer won his 15th slam almost two years sooner than Sampras won #14.
So only Federer clearly blitzed past Sampras at an earlier comparative age.
Federer did it before Novak and Rafa peaked and had very soft competition. It's important to realize Novak has won 11 slams (and counting) after age 31 while Roger only managed 3. Even Nadal has 8 after 31.
Federer is a generation before Nadal and Djokovic,But the number of matches they have played says differently! Federer vs Djokovic is one of the most prolific rivalries in history. They've played 50 matches! Federer may be six years older than Djokovic/Nadal but they're from the same era. The number
Federer was right there with Djokovic making it to finals in slams and outplaying Djokovic in those finals(but still losing) until the very end of his career! You can't say Federer was too old and infirm when he was doing that! It's stupidity.
On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 10:11:49 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
What can you say, amazing stat.True. But Pete could have won more.
On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 10:11:49 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
What can you say, amazing stat.
True. But Pete could have won more.
On 6/12/2023 2:36 PM, bmoore wrote:
On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 10:11:49 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
What can you say, amazing stat.
True. But Pete could have won more.I don't think so. Sampras went more than two years without winning a
slam before taking the 2002 US Open. During that time, IIRC he
consistently said he felt he had "one slam left in me", which is why he
kept playing when many of his supporters felt he should retire.
We'll never know for sure, of course, but IMO Sampras won all the slams
he would have had he kept playing.
On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 1:11:49 PM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:same in the 90s. I don't see how many people don't get this concept?
What can you say, amazing stat.
Because being a professional athlete in the 90s is a lot different than being a professional athlete now. Everything progresses(nutrition, racket & string technology, drugs, fitness.) Being a 31 year old professional athlete today is nothing like being
.
On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 10:19:52 AM UTC+10, Court_1 wrote:of matches they've played against each other is the giveaway.
On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 10:17:33 AM UTC-4, jlia...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 7:47:38 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
On 12/06/2023 4:56 am, stephenj wrote:
On 6/11/2023 12:11 PM, Whisper wrote:
What can you say, amazing stat.
Indeed.
The Big 3 have shattered the previous notion that when a guy reaches 30
his career is basically over re slams.
IIRC, of the current Big 3, Nadal won his 15th slam a few days sooner
than Sampras won his 14th slam, while Federer won his 15th slam almost
two years sooner than Sampras won #14.
So only Federer clearly blitzed past Sampras at an earlier comparative age.
Federer did it before Novak and Rafa peaked and had very soft competition. It's important to realize Novak has won 11 slams (and counting) after age 31 while Roger only managed 3. Even Nadal has 8 after 31.
Federer is a generation before Nadal and Djokovic,But the number of matches they have played says differently! Federer vs Djokovic is one of the most prolific rivalries in history. They've played 50 matches! Federer may be six years older than Djokovic/Nadal but they're from the same era. The number
Don't know what drug you are on to suggest two players 6 years difference in age would belong to the same generation. They are not.
Federer was right there with Djokovic making it to finals in slams and outplaying Djokovic in those finals(but still losing) until the very end of his career! You can't say Federer was too old and infirm when he was doing that! It's stupidity.But to say 39 years old is not that old is ridiculous.
On Tuesday, 13 June 2023 at 15:39:34 UTC+1, stephenj wrote:
On 6/12/2023 2:36 PM, bmoore wrote:
On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 10:11:49 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:I don't think so. Sampras went more than two years without winning a
What can you say, amazing stat.
True. But Pete could have won more.
slam before taking the 2002 US Open. During that time, IIRC he
consistently said he felt he had "one slam left in me", which is why he
kept playing when many of his supporters felt he should retire.
We'll never know for sure, of course, but IMO Sampras won all the slams
he would have had he kept playing.
so he would've lost the 2003 AO to Agassi? LOL
On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 10:19:52 AM UTC+10, Court_1 wrote:of matches they've played against each other is the giveaway.
On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 10:17:33 AM UTC-4, jlia...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 7:47:38 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
On 12/06/2023 4:56 am, stephenj wrote:
On 6/11/2023 12:11 PM, Whisper wrote:
What can you say, amazing stat.
Indeed.
The Big 3 have shattered the previous notion that when a guy reaches 30
his career is basically over re slams.
IIRC, of the current Big 3, Nadal won his 15th slam a few days sooner
than Sampras won his 14th slam, while Federer won his 15th slam almost
two years sooner than Sampras won #14.
So only Federer clearly blitzed past Sampras at an earlier comparative age.
Federer did it before Novak and Rafa peaked and had very soft competition. It's important to realize Novak has won 11 slams (and counting) after age 31 while Roger only managed 3. Even Nadal has 8 after 31.
Federer is a generation before Nadal and Djokovic,But the number of matches they have played says differently! Federer vs Djokovic is one of the most prolific rivalries in history. They've played 50 matches! Federer may be six years older than Djokovic/Nadal but they're from the same era. The number
Don't know what drug you are on to suggest two players 6 years difference in age would belong to the same generation. They are not.
Federer was right there with Djokovic making it to finals in slams and outplaying Djokovic in those finals(but still losing) until the very end of his career! You can't say Federer was too old and infirm when he was doing that! It's stupidity.
But to say 39 years old is not that old is ridiculous.
On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 10:10:21 AM UTC+10, Court_1 wrote:
Djokovic's current competition may be soft but remember he figured out and mastered the other two GOAT players, Nadal and Federer!
And both are older than him, one by 1 year and the other by 6 years.
Also, the current younger generation of players like Medvedev, Alcaraz, Zverev, etc. isn't softer than previous players like Nishikori, Tsonga, Berdych, etc.
Fans have to stop coming up with all of these excuses for their favorite players to try and bolster their favorite players' status. It's ridiculous already. Djokovic is a bit better than Federer and Nadal. It should be obvious to everybody by now!
How old is Alcaraz? and How long has he being a major force in the game? Not more than 2 years. Zevera is not really that much better than Berdych, in fact Berydch and Tsonga are both older than Djokovic.
On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 7:36:09 AM UTC-4, jlia...@gmail.com wrote:number of matches they've played against each other is the giveaway.
On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 10:19:52 AM UTC+10, Court_1 wrote:
On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 10:17:33 AM UTC-4, jlia...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 7:47:38 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
On 12/06/2023 4:56 am, stephenj wrote:
On 6/11/2023 12:11 PM, Whisper wrote:
What can you say, amazing stat.
Indeed.
The Big 3 have shattered the previous notion that when a guy reaches 30
his career is basically over re slams.
IIRC, of the current Big 3, Nadal won his 15th slam a few days sooner
than Sampras won his 14th slam, while Federer won his 15th slam almost
two years sooner than Sampras won #14.
So only Federer clearly blitzed past Sampras at an earlier comparative age.
Federer did it before Novak and Rafa peaked and had very soft competition. It's important to realize Novak has won 11 slams (and counting) after age 31 while Roger only managed 3. Even Nadal has 8 after 31.
Federer is a generation before Nadal and Djokovic,But the number of matches they have played says differently! Federer vs Djokovic is one of the most prolific rivalries in history. They've played 50 matches! Federer may be six years older than Djokovic/Nadal but they're from the same era. The
demolished Nadal in the SF! Please don't make excuses. It's crazy.Don't know what drug you are on to suggest two players 6 years difference in age would belong to the same generation. They are not.I didn't say they were from the same generation. I said they were from the same era. You can't play somebody 50 times and not be from the same era. They were rivals for almost 20 years!
Federer was right there with Djokovic making it to finals in slams and outplaying Djokovic in those finals(but still losing) until the very end of his career! You can't say Federer was too old and infirm when he was doing that! It's stupidity.
But to say 39 years old is not that old is ridiculous.One ace was all it would have taken for old and decrepit Federer to win that Wimbledon 2019 final! He said after the match that he could have kept on playing for hours. Yes, he sure looked ancient in that Wimbledon final! And that was after he
Let's just enjoy our memories of Federer's beautiful tennis. We don't have to create false narratives.
On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 7:36:09 AM UTC-4, jlia...@gmail.com wrote:number of matches they've played against each other is the giveaway.
On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 10:19:52 AM UTC+10, Court_1 wrote:
On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 10:17:33 AM UTC-4, jlia...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 7:47:38 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
On 12/06/2023 4:56 am, stephenj wrote:
On 6/11/2023 12:11 PM, Whisper wrote:
What can you say, amazing stat.
Indeed.
The Big 3 have shattered the previous notion that when a guy reaches 30
his career is basically over re slams.
IIRC, of the current Big 3, Nadal won his 15th slam a few days sooner
than Sampras won his 14th slam, while Federer won his 15th slam almost
two years sooner than Sampras won #14.
So only Federer clearly blitzed past Sampras at an earlier comparative age.
Federer did it before Novak and Rafa peaked and had very soft competition. It's important to realize Novak has won 11 slams (and counting) after age 31 while Roger only managed 3. Even Nadal has 8 after 31.
Federer is a generation before Nadal and Djokovic,But the number of matches they have played says differently! Federer vs Djokovic is one of the most prolific rivalries in history. They've played 50 matches! Federer may be six years older than Djokovic/Nadal but they're from the same era. The
Don't know what drug you are on to suggest two players 6 years difference in age would belong to the same generation. They are not.I didn't say they were from the same generation. I said they were from the same era. You can't play somebody 50 times and not be from the same era. They were rivals for almost 20 years!
demolished Nadal in the SF! Please don't make excuses. It's crazy.Federer was right there with Djokovic making it to finals in slams and outplaying Djokovic in those finals(but still losing) until the very end of his career! You can't say Federer was too old and infirm when he was doing that! It's stupidity.
But to say 39 years old is not that old is ridiculous.One ace was all it would have taken for old and decrepit Federer to win that Wimbledon 2019 final! He said after the match that he could have kept on playing for hours. Yes, he sure looked ancient in that Wimbledon final! And that was after he
Let's just enjoy our memories of Federer's beautiful tennis. We don't have to create false narratives.
On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 7:32:56 AM UTC-4, jlia...@gmail.com wrote:difference argument. You can't use the age difference argument when Federer was making it to Djokovic in finals and often outplaying him for large portions of the matches. It's just that Djokovic played the big points better.
On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 10:10:21 AM UTC+10, Court_1 wrote:
Djokovic's current competition may be soft but remember he figured out and mastered the other two GOAT players, Nadal and Federer!
And both are older than him, one by 1 year and the other by 6 years.LOL, so what? It's not enough of an age difference to explain how Djokovic has managed to pull ahead of both. If Federer wasn't making it to slam finals at age 37+ and was losing constantly in early rounds of slams for years, then we could use the age
Players are not "old" at 31+ these days. It's not 1988!most part.)
Also, the current younger generation of players like Medvedev, Alcaraz, Zverev, etc. isn't softer than previous players like Nishikori, Tsonga, Berdych, etc.
Fans have to stop coming up with all of these excuses for their favorite players to try and bolster their favorite players' status. It's ridiculous already. Djokovic is a bit better than Federer and Nadal. It should be obvious to everybody by now!
How old is Alcaraz? and How long has he being a major force in the game? Not more than 2 years. Zevera is not really that much better than Berdych, in fact Berydch and Tsonga are both older than Djokovic.Zverev is better than Berdych! Doesn't Zverev have a few Masters 1000 titles and he won the ATP Finals. Berdych has one Masters 1000 title if I remember correctly? Also, Zverev played the Big Three players tougher overall than Berdych ever did(for the
On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 6:16:40 AM UTC+10, Court_1 wrote:age difference argument. You can't use the age difference argument when Federer was making it to Djokovic in finals and often outplaying him for large portions of the matches. It's just that Djokovic played the big points better.
On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 7:32:56 AM UTC-4, jlia...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 10:10:21 AM UTC+10, Court_1 wrote:
Djokovic's current competition may be soft but remember he figured out and mastered the other two GOAT players, Nadal and Federer!
And both are older than him, one by 1 year and the other by 6 years.LOL, so what? It's not enough of an age difference to explain how Djokovic has managed to pull ahead of both. If Federer wasn't making it to slam finals at age 37+ and was losing constantly in early rounds of slams for years, then we could use the
Players are not "old" at 31+ these days. It's not 1988!
Also, the current younger generation of players like Medvedev, Alcaraz, Zverev, etc. isn't softer than previous players like Nishikori, Tsonga, Berdych, etc.
Fans have to stop coming up with all of these excuses for their favorite players to try and bolster their favorite players' status. It's ridiculous already. Djokovic is a bit better than Federer and Nadal. It should be obvious to everybody by now!
the most part.)How old is Alcaraz? and How long has he being a major force in the game? Not more than 2 years. Zevera is not really that much better than Berdych, in fact Berydch and Tsonga are both older than Djokovic.Zverev is better than Berdych! Doesn't Zverev have a few Masters 1000 titles and he won the ATP Finals. Berdych has one Masters 1000 title if I remember correctly? Also, Zverev played the Big Three players tougher overall than Berdych ever did(for
Berdych had back to back victory over Djokovic and Federer at Wimbledon, when did Zerveva beat Djokovic or Federer in a grand slam event?
On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 6:23:12 AM UTC+10, Court_1 wrote:number of matches they've played against each other is the giveaway.
On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 7:36:09 AM UTC-4, jlia...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 10:19:52 AM UTC+10, Court_1 wrote:
On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 10:17:33 AM UTC-4, jlia...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 7:47:38 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
On 12/06/2023 4:56 am, stephenj wrote:
On 6/11/2023 12:11 PM, Whisper wrote:
What can you say, amazing stat.
Indeed.
The Big 3 have shattered the previous notion that when a guy reaches 30
his career is basically over re slams.
IIRC, of the current Big 3, Nadal won his 15th slam a few days sooner
than Sampras won his 14th slam, while Federer won his 15th slam almost
two years sooner than Sampras won #14.
So only Federer clearly blitzed past Sampras at an earlier comparative age.
Federer did it before Novak and Rafa peaked and had very soft competition. It's important to realize Novak has won 11 slams (and counting) after age 31 while Roger only managed 3. Even Nadal has 8
after 31.
Federer is a generation before Nadal and Djokovic,But the number of matches they have played says differently! Federer vs Djokovic is one of the most prolific rivalries in history. They've played 50 matches! Federer may be six years older than Djokovic/Nadal but they're from the same era. The
are actually older than Djokovic.Don't know what drug you are on to suggest two players 6 years difference in age would belong to the same generation. They are not.I didn't say they were from the same generation. I said they were from the same era. You can't play somebody 50 times and not be from the same era. They were rivals for almost 20 years!
You are caught retracting what you posted. I said for two generations that include those who came into pro tennis five or 10 years older than Djokovic, they did not present much challenge to Djokovic. I hope you can come up with better names than those
Federer was going toe to toe with Djokovic.
On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 10:19:52 AM UTC+10, Court_1 wrote:of matches they've played against each other is the giveaway.
On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 10:17:33 AM UTC-4, jlia...@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 7:47:38 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
But the number of matches they have played says differently! Federer vs Djokovic is one of the most prolific rivalries in history. They've played 50 matches! Federer may be six years older than Djokovic/Nadal but they're from the same era. The numberOn 12/06/2023 4:56 am, stephenj wrote:
On 6/11/2023 12:11 PM, Whisper wrote:Federer did it before Novak and Rafa peaked and had very soft
What can you say, amazing stat.
Indeed.
The Big 3 have shattered the previous notion that when a guy reaches 30 >>>>> his career is basically over re slams.
IIRC, of the current Big 3, Nadal won his 15th slam a few days sooner >>>>> than Sampras won his 14th slam, while Federer won his 15th slam almost >>>>> two years sooner than Sampras won #14.
So only Federer clearly blitzed past Sampras at an earlier comparative age.
competition. It's important to realize Novak has won 11 slams (and
counting) after age 31 while Roger only managed 3. Even Nadal has 8
after 31.
Federer is a generation before Nadal and Djokovic,
Don't know what drug you are on to suggest two players 6 years difference in age would belong to the same generation. They are not.
On 6/12/2023 2:36 PM, bmoore wrote:
On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 10:11:49 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
What can you say, amazing stat.
True. But Pete could have won more.
I don't think so. Sampras went more than two years without winning a
slam before taking the 2002 US Open. During that time, IIRC he
consistently said he felt he had "one slam left in me", which is why he
kept playing when many of his supporters felt he should retire.
We'll never know for sure, of course, but IMO Sampras won all the slams
he would have had he kept playing.
On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 4:23:12 PM UTC-4, Court_1 wrote:
Let's just enjoy our memories of Federer's beautiful tennis. We don't have to create false narratives.
Still remember how he outplayed $1 pete at the big W like yesterday, brilliant!
On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 7:36:09 AM UTC-4, jlia...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 10:19:52 AM UTC+10, Court_1 wrote:
demolished Nadal in the SF! Please don't make excuses. It's crazy.Federer was right there with Djokovic making it to finals in slams and outplaying Djokovic in those finals(but still losing) until the very end of his career! You can't say Federer was too old and infirm when he was doing that! It's stupidity.
But to say 39 years old is not that old is ridiculous.
One ace was all it would have taken for old and decrepit Federer to win that Wimbledon 2019 final! He said after the match that he could have kept on playing for hours. Yes, he sure looked ancient in that Wimbledon final! And that was after he
Let's just enjoy our memories of Federer's beautiful tennis. We don't have to create false narratives.
On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 4:51:57 PM UTC-4, jlia...@gmail.com wrote:those are actually older than Djokovic.
On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 6:23:12 AM UTC+10, Court_1 wrote:
On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 7:36:09 AM UTC-4, jlia...@gmail.com wrote:
You are caught retracting what you posted. I said for two generations that include those who came into pro tennis five or 10 years older than Djokovic, they did not present much challenge to Djokovic. I hope you can come up with better names than
I'm not doing any retracting. Federer first played with the Roddick/Hewitt generation but because he was so good, he crossed-over and held his own playing with the generation of players(Nadal, Djokovic.) The point I was making was Federer played vsDjokovic 50 times(much more than he did vs Hewitt or Roddick!)
Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic were each others main rivals. This is common knowledge. If you play somebody 50 times in your career, you are playing within the same era and in those 50 matches it is plenty to determine which player is better/greater.worthy. It's just that Djokovic has now separated himself from the other two. It's as clear as day. Federer fans won the battle but lost the war! I surrendered the white flag and realized Djokovic was the better player after that >Wimbledon 2019 final.
Federer was going toe to toe with Djokovic. He was great enough to make it to Djokovic 50 times despite being six years older. There were times when his brilliant play beat peak Djokovic(i.e. French Open 2011.) All the Big Three players >are goat-
On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 4:58:54 PM UTC-4, jlia...@gmail.com wrote:age difference argument. You can't use the age difference argument when Federer was making it to Djokovic in finals and often outplaying him for large portions of the matches. It's just that Djokovic played the big points better.
On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 6:16:40 AM UTC+10, Court_1 wrote:
On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 7:32:56 AM UTC-4, jlia...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 10:10:21 AM UTC+10, Court_1 wrote:
Djokovic's current competition may be soft but remember he figured out and mastered the other two GOAT players, Nadal and Federer!
And both are older than him, one by 1 year and the other by 6 years.LOL, so what? It's not enough of an age difference to explain how Djokovic has managed to pull ahead of both. If Federer wasn't making it to slam finals at age 37+ and was losing constantly in early rounds of slams for years, then we could use the
now!Players are not "old" at 31+ these days. It's not 1988!
Also, the current younger generation of players like Medvedev, Alcaraz, Zverev, etc. isn't softer than previous players like Nishikori, Tsonga, Berdych, etc.
Fans have to stop coming up with all of these excuses for their favorite players to try and bolster their favorite players' status. It's ridiculous already. Djokovic is a bit better than Federer and Nadal. It should be obvious to everybody by
the most part.)How old is Alcaraz? and How long has he being a major force in the game? Not more than 2 years. Zevera is not really that much better than Berdych, in fact Berydch and Tsonga are both older than Djokovic.Zverev is better than Berdych! Doesn't Zverev have a few Masters 1000 titles and he won the ATP Finals. Berdych has one Masters 1000 title if I remember correctly? Also, Zverev played the Big Three players tougher overall than Berdych ever did(for
recall correctly.Berdych had back to back victory over Djokovic and Federer at Wimbledon, when did Zerveva beat Djokovic or Federer in a grand slam event?That Berdych win over Djokovic was in 2010 before Djokovic became super-Djoke in 2011!
Beyond that, Berdych was Djokovic's complete pigeon(head to head 25.3 for Djokovic.)
Yes, Berdych beat Djokovic at a slam but Zverev has a more respectable h2h vs Djokovic(4-7) and he beat him in that historic Olympic match in 2021. I honestly don't think Berdych was a better player than Zverev. They both have one slam final if I
On 13/06/2023 9:36 pm, jlia...@gmail.com wrote:number of matches they've played against each other is the giveaway.
On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 10:19:52 AM UTC+10, Court_1 wrote:
On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 10:17:33 AM UTC-4, jlia...@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 7:47:38 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
But the number of matches they have played says differently! Federer vs Djokovic is one of the most prolific rivalries in history. They've played 50 matches! Federer may be six years older than Djokovic/Nadal but they're from the same era. TheOn 12/06/2023 4:56 am, stephenj wrote:
On 6/11/2023 12:11 PM, Whisper wrote:Federer did it before Novak and Rafa peaked and had very soft
What can you say, amazing stat.
Indeed.
The Big 3 have shattered the previous notion that when a guy reaches 30
his career is basically over re slams.
IIRC, of the current Big 3, Nadal won his 15th slam a few days sooner >>>>> than Sampras won his 14th slam, while Federer won his 15th slam almost >>>>> two years sooner than Sampras won #14.
So only Federer clearly blitzed past Sampras at an earlier comparative age.
competition. It's important to realize Novak has won 11 slams (and
counting) after age 31 while Roger only managed 3. Even Nadal has 8 >>>> after 31.
Federer is a generation before Nadal and Djokovic,
Don't know what drug you are on to suggest two players 6 years difference in age would belong to the same generation. They are not.That means Borg, Connors and McEnroe played in different eras and you
can never compare them.
On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 4:51:57 PM UTC-4, jlia...@gmail.com wrote:number of matches they've played against each other is the giveaway.
On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 6:23:12 AM UTC+10, Court_1 wrote:
On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 7:36:09 AM UTC-4, jlia...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 10:19:52 AM UTC+10, Court_1 wrote:
On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 10:17:33 AM UTC-4, jlia...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 7:47:38 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
But the number of matches they have played says differently! Federer vs Djokovic is one of the most prolific rivalries in history. They've played 50 matches! Federer may be six years older than Djokovic/Nadal but they're from the same era. TheOn 12/06/2023 4:56 am, stephenj wrote:Federer is a generation before Nadal and Djokovic,
On 6/11/2023 12:11 PM, Whisper wrote:Federer did it before Novak and Rafa peaked and had very soft
Indeed.
What can you say, amazing stat.
The Big 3 have shattered the previous notion that when a guy reaches 30
his career is basically over re slams.
IIRC, of the current Big 3, Nadal won his 15th slam a few days sooner >>>>>>>> than Sampras won his 14th slam, while Federer won his 15th slam almost >>>>>>>> two years sooner than Sampras won #14.
So only Federer clearly blitzed past Sampras at an earlier comparative age.
competition. It's important to realize Novak has won 11 slams (and >>>>>>> counting) after age 31 while Roger only managed 3. Even Nadal has 8 >>>>>>> after 31.
those are actually older than Djokovic.You are caught retracting what you posted. I said for two generations that include those who came into pro tennis five or 10 years older than Djokovic, they did not present much challenge to Djokovic. I hope you can come up with better names thanDon't know what drug you are on to suggest two players 6 years difference in age would belong to the same generation. They are not.I didn't say they were from the same generation. I said they were from the same era. You can't play somebody 50 times and not be from the same era. They were rivals for almost 20 years!
I'm not doing any retracting. Federer first played with the Roddick/Hewitt generation but because he was so good, he crossed-over and held his own playing with the generation of players(Nadal, Djokovic.) The point I was making was Federer played vsDjokovic 50 times(much more than he did vs Hewitt or Roddick!)
Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic were each others main rivals. This is common knowledge. If you play somebody 50 times in your career, you are playing within the same era and in those 50 matches it is plenty to determine which player is better/greater.worthy. It's just that Djokovic has now separated himself from the other two. It's as clear as day. Federer fans won the battle but lost the war! I surrendered the white flag and realized Djokovic was the better player after that Wimbledon 2019 final.
Federer was going toe to toe with Djokovic. He was great enough to make it to Djokovic 50 times despite being six years older. There were times when his brilliant play beat peak Djokovic(i.e. French Open 2011.) All the Big Three players are goat-
On 6/14/23 1:54 AM, Court_1 wrote:> On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 4:51:57 PM UTC-4, jlia...@gmail.com wrote:>> On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 6:23:12 AM UTC+10, Court_1 wrote:>>> On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 7:36:09 AM UTC-4, jlia...@gmail.comwrote:>>>> On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 10:19:52 AM UTC+10, Court_1 wrote:>>>>> On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 10:17:33 AM UTC-4, jlia...@gmail.com wrote:>>>>>> On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 7:47:38 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:>>>>>>> On 12/06/2023 4:56 am,
On 14.6.2023 11.54, Court_1 wrote:
Federer was going toe to toe with Djokovic.H2H-wise, Fed had a solid lead over Djok. Up until 2010. In the 2010
WTFs, he still breadsticked Djok in a straight sets victory.
2011 changed all these records against Nads and Feds. In all respects,
Djok was approaching in the rear view mirror. Djok was the Biblical Red Ferrari coming. Beware, masters of the bluff and masters of the proposition!
Fed has a slight tapering-of-the-career excuse. HOw big, that's
anybody's guess. But he was still on-court winning slams, and some of
those he lost were one putt losses. Rafa has no excuses. Zero. Except
the usual.
On 14/06/2023 6:23 am, Court_1 wrote:
On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 7:36:09 AM UTC-4, jlia...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 10:19:52 AM UTC+10, Court_1 wrote:
demolished Nadal in the SF! Please don't make excuses. It's crazy.Federer was right there with Djokovic making it to finals in slams and outplaying Djokovic in those finals(but still losing) until the very end of his career! You can't say Federer was too old and infirm when he was doing that! It's stupidity.
But to say 39 years old is not that old is ridiculous.
One ace was all it would have taken for old and decrepit Federer to win that Wimbledon 2019 final! He said after the match that he could have kept on playing for hours. Yes, he sure looked ancient in that Wimbledon final! And that was after he
Let's just enjoy our memories of Federer's beautiful tennis. We don't have to create false narratives.
Facts are facts it doesn't matter what excuses crazed fans come up with.
I just embarrassed them by suggesting Borg, McEnroe and Connors were
players from different eras thus we can never compare them if we use
their logic lol.
recall correctly.Yes, Berdych beat Djokovic at a slam but Zverev has a more respectable h2h vs Djokovic(4-7) and he beat him in that historic Olympic match in 2021. I honestly don't think Berdych was a better player than Zverev. They both have one slam final if I
Berdych had win over Djokovic and beat Federer in USO and Wimbledon, those are far better than Zeverva's wins in micky mouse events. Olympic match is not slam match. Slam matches are the ultimate test on that count Berdych is better than Zereva.
On 6/14/23 1:54 AM, Court_1 wrote:number of matches they've played against each other is the giveaway.
On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 4:51:57 PM UTC-4, jlia...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 6:23:12 AM UTC+10, Court_1 wrote:
On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 7:36:09 AM UTC-4, jlia...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 10:19:52 AM UTC+10, Court_1 wrote:
On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 10:17:33 AM UTC-4, jlia...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 7:47:38 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote: >>>>>>> On 12/06/2023 4:56 am, stephenj wrote:But the number of matches they have played says differently! Federer vs Djokovic is one of the most prolific rivalries in history. They've played 50 matches! Federer may be six years older than Djokovic/Nadal but they're from the same era. The
Federer is a generation before Nadal and Djokovic,On 6/11/2023 12:11 PM, Whisper wrote:Federer did it before Novak and Rafa peaked and had very soft >>>>>>> competition. It's important to realize Novak has won 11 slams (and >>>>>>> counting) after age 31 while Roger only managed 3. Even Nadal has 8 >>>>>>> after 31.
Indeed.
What can you say, amazing stat.
The Big 3 have shattered the previous notion that when a guy reaches 30
his career is basically over re slams.
IIRC, of the current Big 3, Nadal won his 15th slam a few days sooner
than Sampras won his 14th slam, while Federer won his 15th slam almost
two years sooner than Sampras won #14.
So only Federer clearly blitzed past Sampras at an earlier comparative age.
those are actually older than Djokovic.You are caught retracting what you posted. I said for two generations that include those who came into pro tennis five or 10 years older than Djokovic, they did not present much challenge to Djokovic. I hope you can come up with better names thanDon't know what drug you are on to suggest two players 6 years difference in age would belong to the same generation. They are not.I didn't say they were from the same generation. I said they were from the same era. You can't play somebody 50 times and not be from the same era. They were rivals for almost 20 years!
Djokovic 50 times(much more than he did vs Hewitt or Roddick!)I'm not doing any retracting. Federer first played with the Roddick/Hewitt generation but because he was so good, he crossed-over and held his own playing with the generation of players(Nadal, Djokovic.) The point I was making was Federer played vs
worthy. It's just that Djokovic has now separated himself from the other two. It's as clear as day. Federer fans won the battle but lost the war! I surrendered the white flag and realized Djokovic was the better player after that Wimbledon 2019 final. It'Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic were each others main rivals. This is common knowledge. If you play somebody 50 times in your career, you are playing within the same era and in those 50 matches it is plenty to determine which player is better/greater.
Federer was going toe to toe with Djokovic. He was great enough to make it to Djokovic 50 times despite being six years older. There were times when his brilliant play beat peak Djokovic(i.e. French Open 2011.) All the Big Three players are goat-
Now to inject controversy... ;^)
If one simply watches Djokovich play and compare him to the other big 3
for "watchability of game"--this is a sort of intangible for tennis
fans, you'll know what I mean because you see the artistry and
aestheticism of Federer's game--his game is very blah. Nothing big,
nothing flashy. This is in part because it's not only well-rounded, but
each component--serve, FH, BH, RoS, defense--is roughly equal in effectiveness as the others. So with Rafa you had the truly brutal
forehand that sorta poked itself above his other outstanding talents.
With Fed, he, too, was pretty equal, but his BH, by comparison to his
FH, was a notably lesser area of talent.
I'd argue that Djokovich's tennis attributes are pretty evenly
distributed. Offhand, I don't recall his volleying as being notable, but
he dictates the point so that he seldom has to be in that position.
However, he'd be a better player, still, if he was as good at net as Rafa.
[NOTE: with the advent of the common tactical use of the drop shot,
we'll see if Djokovich makes a conscious effort to add this to his game.
It would improve it, and it would show some level of mental flexibility, much like Nadal's.]
But he has all of the top tier talents that are roughly equally
weighted, with none really standing out, and this is the definition of a game without a real hole in it. I see him somewhat vulnerable to
consistent flat power (Wawrinka, at his best), but such power has its
own risks; maintaining consistency for 3-5 sets for an entire tournament
is probably the biggest risk.
So I see Djokovich's game, from a viewer standpoint, as pretty blah.
I would now propose that maybe his mentality is his outstanding weapon.
I think that off-court he has completely befuddled many opponents:
they'd like to openly dislike him, but he *publicly* offers them
compliments and encouragement. But this, too, is a part of his
mind-trip. He is, in a sense, a very courteous public patronizer of
those who lose to him--which is most players. And because this is what
he says *publicly*, his opponent can not very well openly express his dislike/mistrust of Djokovich. If such were said privately,
face-to-face, they could attack him for patronizing them, but publicly
this is very hard to do without generating extra baggage for themselves
to carry around. An exception is Kyrgios, but he's got nothing to lose, having burned his bridges with the public long ago.
So off-court he has injected his opponents with very ambivalent feelings that are associated with his presence.
On court I think he plays it pretty straight, but if he can perceive any nervousness in his opponent at the start of a match, he tries to amplify this by acting openly loose and confident. Since he seems to have well-conserved stamina, they can take little encouragement from the
times he appears tired, and this is because he is *always* around at the
end of a 5-setter, whatever the length of time, whatever the weather.
I think his excessive fist-pumps are a part of this. Part of it is
genuinely felt, but another part of it is to get his opponent to dislike him, and this further feeds into their ambivalent feelings towards him: should I hate this publicly courteous and generous adversary?
Plus, he has this string of what appears to be the recipient of divine intervention. This appeals to the atavistic streak of superstition
that's still in most of us, like an appendix. He has pulled out wins in finals that seem impossible: either God really, really likes him, or he
has a pact with the Devil. Against Fed at Wimbledon in what? 2019, and against Tsitsi down 0-2, and once against a prime Sinner, but I can't
recall the match, exactly.
So he basically *owns*--deeply owns--most players on the tour.
A top-tier well rounded game with almost no weak spots (volley?), played
by a confident Svengali with outstanding stamina and confidence. This doesn't even touch upon his ability to tactically analyze and exploit
his opponents' weaknesses *on that day*, and to recognize them and
attack them.
On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 8:52:00 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:number of matches they've played against each other is the giveaway.
On 13/06/2023 9:36 pm, jlia...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 10:19:52 AM UTC+10, Court_1 wrote:
On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 10:17:33 AM UTC-4, jlia...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 7:47:38 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:But the number of matches they have played says differently! Federer vs Djokovic is one of the most prolific rivalries in history. They've played 50 matches! Federer may be six years older than Djokovic/Nadal but they're from the same era. The
On 12/06/2023 4:56 am, stephenj wrote:
On 6/11/2023 12:11 PM, Whisper wrote:Federer did it before Novak and Rafa peaked and had very soft
What can you say, amazing stat.
Indeed.
The Big 3 have shattered the previous notion that when a guy reaches 30
his career is basically over re slams.
IIRC, of the current Big 3, Nadal won his 15th slam a few days sooner
than Sampras won his 14th slam, while Federer won his 15th slam almost
two years sooner than Sampras won #14.
So only Federer clearly blitzed past Sampras at an earlier comparative age.
competition. It's important to realize Novak has won 11 slams (and >>>> counting) after age 31 while Roger only managed 3. Even Nadal has 8 >>>> after 31.
Federer is a generation before Nadal and Djokovic,
Don't know what drug you are on to suggest two players 6 years difference in age would belong to the same generation. They are not.That means Borg, Connors and McEnroe played in different eras and you
can never compare them.
Borg and Connors are obviously different generations of tennis players compared to McEnroe. Was Lendl the same generation as Edberg and Becker, Lendl is 6 or 7 years older than Edberg and Becke
There's a difference between generation and era. Players can be from different generations but if they play each other time and time again, a comparison between them is valid.
On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 11:07:24 AM UTC-4, jlia...@gmail.com wrote:number of matches they've played against each other is the giveaway.
On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 8:52:00 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
On 13/06/2023 9:36 pm, jlia...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 10:19:52 AM UTC+10, Court_1 wrote:
On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 10:17:33 AM UTC-4, jlia...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 7:47:38 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
But the number of matches they have played says differently! Federer vs Djokovic is one of the most prolific rivalries in history. They've played 50 matches! Federer may be six years older than Djokovic/Nadal but they're from the same era. TheOn 12/06/2023 4:56 am, stephenj wrote:
On 6/11/2023 12:11 PM, Whisper wrote:Federer did it before Novak and Rafa peaked and had very soft
What can you say, amazing stat.
Indeed.
The Big 3 have shattered the previous notion that when a guy reaches 30
his career is basically over re slams.
IIRC, of the current Big 3, Nadal won his 15th slam a few days sooner >>>>>>>> than Sampras won his 14th slam, while Federer won his 15th slam almost >>>>>>>> two years sooner than Sampras won #14.
So only Federer clearly blitzed past Sampras at an earlier comparative age.
competition. It's important to realize Novak has won 11 slams (and >>>>>>> counting) after age 31 while Roger only managed 3. Even Nadal has 8 >>>>>>> after 31.
Federer is a generation before Nadal and Djokovic,
That means Borg, Connors and McEnroe played in different eras and you
Don't know what drug you are on to suggest two players 6 years difference in age would belong to the same generation. They are not.
can never compare them.
Borg and Connors are obviously different generations of tennis players compared to McEnroe. Was Lendl the same generation as Edberg and Becker, Lendl is 6 or 7 years older than Edberg and Becke
There's a difference between generation and era. Players can be from different generations but if they play each other time and time again, a comparison between them is valid.
If Djoker/Rafa weren't around Fed would have been no.1 up until 2019, so that counts as his peak era in my eyes. It's not like he was ranked 35,
but oscillated between no.2 and no.3 the whole time.
For me, Zverev is better than Berdych, a more dangerous player when he's on.
On 6/14/23 1:54 AM, Court_1 wrote:
On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 4:51:57 PM UTC-4, jlia...@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 6:23:12 AM UTC+10, Court_1 wrote:Now to inject controversy... ;^)
I'm not doing any retracting. Federer first played with theOn Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 7:36:09 AM UTC-4, jlia...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 10:19:52 AM UTC+10, Court_1 wrote:You are caught retracting what you posted. I said for two generations
I didn't say they were from the same generation. I said they wereOn Monday, June 12, 2023 at 10:17:33 AM UTC-4, jlia...@gmail.com >>>>>> wrote:Don't know what drug you are on to suggest two players 6 years
On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 7:47:38 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote: >>>>>>>> On 12/06/2023 4:56 am, stephenj wrote:But the number of matches they have played says differently!
Federer is a generation before Nadal and Djokovic,On 6/11/2023 12:11 PM, Whisper wrote:Federer did it before Novak and Rafa peaked and had very soft
Indeed.
What can you say, amazing stat.
The Big 3 have shattered the previous notion that when a guy >>>>>>>>> reaches 30
his career is basically over re slams.
IIRC, of the current Big 3, Nadal won his 15th slam a few days >>>>>>>>> sooner
than Sampras won his 14th slam, while Federer won his 15th slam >>>>>>>>> almost
two years sooner than Sampras won #14.
So only Federer clearly blitzed past Sampras at an earlier
comparative age.
competition. It's important to realize Novak has won 11 slams (and >>>>>>>> counting) after age 31 while Roger only managed 3. Even Nadal has 8 >>>>>>>> after 31.
Federer vs Djokovic is one of the most prolific rivalries in
history. They've played 50 matches! Federer may be six years older >>>>>> than Djokovic/Nadal but they're from the same era. The number of
matches they've played against each other is the giveaway.
difference in age would belong to the same generation. They are not.
from the same era. You can't play somebody 50 times and not be from
the same era. They were rivals for almost 20 years!
that include those who came into pro tennis five or 10 years older
than Djokovic, they did not present much challenge to Djokovic. I
hope you can come up with better names than those are actually older
than Djokovic.
Roddick/Hewitt generation but because he was so good, he crossed-over
and held his own playing with the generation of players(Nadal,
Djokovic.) The point I was making was Federer played vs Djokovic 50
times(much more than he did vs Hewitt or Roddick!)
Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic were each others main rivals. This is
common knowledge. If you play somebody 50 times in your career, you
are playing within the same era and in those 50 matches it is plenty
to determine which player is better/greater.
Federer was going toe to toe with Djokovic. He was great enough to
make it to Djokovic 50 times despite being six years older. There were
times when his brilliant play beat peak Djokovic(i.e. French Open
2011.) All the Big Three players are goat-worthy. It's just that
Djokovic has now separated himself from the other two. It's as clear
as day. Federer fans won the battle but lost the war! I surrendered
the white flag and realized Djokovic was the better player after that
Wimbledon 2019 final. It's time you do the same. You'll feel better!
If one simply watches Djokovich play and compare him to the other big 3
for "watchability of game"--this is a sort of intangible for tennis
fans, you'll know what I mean because you see the artistry and
aestheticism of Federer's game--his game is very blah. Nothing big,
nothing flashy. This is in part because it's not only well-rounded, but
each component--serve, FH, BH, RoS, defense--is roughly equal in effectiveness as the others. So with Rafa you had the truly brutal
forehand that sorta poked itself above his other outstanding talents.
With Fed, he, too, was pretty equal, but his BH, by comparison to his
FH, was a notably lesser area of talent.
I'd argue that Djokovich's tennis attributes are pretty evenly
distributed. Offhand, I don't recall his volleying as being notable, but
he dictates the point so that he seldom has to be in that position.
However, he'd be a better player, still, if he was as good at net as Rafa.
[NOTE: with the advent of the common tactical use of the drop shot,
we'll see if Djokovich makes a conscious effort to add this to his game.
It would improve it, and it would show some level of mental flexibility,
much like Nadal's.]
But he has all of the top tier talents that are roughly equally
weighted, with none really standing out, and this is the definition of a
game without a real hole in it. I see him somewhat vulnerable to
consistent flat power (Wawrinka, at his best), but such power has its
own risks; maintaining consistency for 3-5 sets for an entire tournament
is probably the biggest risk.
So I see Djokovich's game, from a viewer standpoint, as pretty blah.
I would now propose that maybe his mentality is his outstanding weapon.
I think that off-court he has completely befuddled many opponents:
they'd like to openly dislike him, but he *publicly* offers them
compliments and encouragement. But this, too, is a part of his
mind-trip. He is, in a sense, a very courteous public patronizer of
those who lose to him--which is most players. And because this is what
he says *publicly*, his opponent can not very well openly express his dislike/mistrust of Djokovich. If such were said privately,
face-to-face, they could attack him for patronizing them, but publicly
this is very hard to do without generating extra baggage for themselves
to carry around. An exception is Kyrgios, but he's got nothing to lose, having burned his bridges with the public long ago.
So off-court he has injected his opponents with very ambivalent feelings
that are associated with his presence.
On court I think he plays it pretty straight, but if he can perceive any nervousness in his opponent at the start of a match, he tries to amplify
this by acting openly loose and confident. Since he seems to have well-conserved stamina, they can take little encouragement from the
times he appears tired, and this is because he is *always* around at the
end of a 5-setter, whatever the length of time, whatever the weather.
I think his excessive fist-pumps are a part of this. Part of it is
genuinely felt, but another part of it is to get his opponent to dislike
him, and this further feeds into their ambivalent feelings towards him: should I hate this publicly courteous and generous adversary?
Plus, he has this string of what appears to be the recipient of divine intervention. This appeals to the atavistic streak of superstition
that's still in most of us, like an appendix. He has pulled out wins in finals that seem impossible: either God really, really likes him, or he
has a pact with the Devil. Against Fed at Wimbledon in what? 2019, and against Tsitsi down 0-2, and once against a prime Sinner, but I can't
recall the match, exactly.
So he basically *owns*--deeply owns--most players on the tour.
A top-tier well rounded game with almost no weak spots (volley?), played
by a confident Svengali with outstanding stamina and confidence. This
doesn't even touch upon his ability to tactically analyze and exploit
his opponents' weaknesses *on that day*, and to recognize them and
attack them.
Just my opinion, however.
On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 3:48:43 AM UTC+3, Court_1 wrote: horrific(3-25!) Also, as I said above both Berdych and Zverev made one slam final.
For me, Zverev is better than Berdych, a more dangerous player when he's on.
Zverev's creds for "the best ever without a slam title" are currently the best.
2xYEC title
Olympic Gold
GS Final
A good tune-up record
.mikko
Ruud is the only player in open era to make 3 slam finals and never win
one. Bit unlucky having to face goat level opponent in each final.
On Thursday, 15 June 2023 at 14:32:44 UTC+1, MBDunc wrote:
On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 3:18:07 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:
Ruud is the only player in open era to make 3 slam finals and never win one. Bit unlucky having to face goat level opponent in each final.Though Lendl and Murray started with 4 GS final losses. Both managed to have a good career.
I am not surprised if Zverev/Ruud keep remain slamless.
At least Zverev has already won something significant (2xYEC + Olympic Gold).Ruud just seems too small, reminds of Nishikori. Zverev has everything required physically and skillswise.
On Thursday, 15 June 2023 at 12:18:50 UTC+1, MBDunc wrote:
On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 3:48:43 AM UTC+3, Court_1 wrote:interesting points, he was also prob one of the youngest #2's ever, always said he was the best, had good chance vs Thiem at USO final and if he hadn't been injured at FO last year have good idea he may have won it, but he prob needs to recoup mentally.
horrific(3-25!) Also, as I said above both Berdych and Zverev made one slam final.
For me, Zverev is better than Berdych, a more dangerous player when he's on.Zverev's creds for "the best ever without a slam title" are currently the best.
2xYEC title
Olympic Gold
GS Final
A good tune-up record
On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 3:18:07 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:
Ruud is the only player in open era to make 3 slam finals and never win one. Bit unlucky having to face goat level opponent in each final.Though Lendl and Murray started with 4 GS final losses. Both managed to have a good career.
I am not surprised if Zverev/Ruud keep remain slamless.
At least Zverev has already won something significant (2xYEC + Olympic Gold).
On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 3:48:43 AM UTC+3, Court_1 wrote: horrific(3-25!) Also, as I said above both Berdych and Zverev made one slam final.
For me, Zverev is better than Berdych, a more dangerous player when he's on.Zverev's creds for "the best ever without a slam title" are currently the best.
2xYEC title
Olympic Gold
GS Final
A good tune-up record
It is funny, Ice, but when I first saw Zverev it was about the same time
I first saw Med, Katchanov, Shapo, Tsitsi. At that time I thought
Katchanov was best.
On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 5:36:16 PM UTC+3, The Iceberg wrote:
On Thursday, 15 June 2023 at 14:32:44 UTC+1, MBDunc wrote:
On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 3:18:07 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:Ruud just seems too small, reminds of Nishikori. Zverev has everything required physically and skillswise.
Ruud is the only player in open era to make 3 slam finals and never win >>>> one. Bit unlucky having to face goat level opponent in each final.Though Lendl and Murray started with 4 GS final losses. Both managed to have a good career.
I am not surprised if Zverev/Ruud keep remain slamless.
At least Zverev has already won something significant (2xYEC + Olympic Gold).
Ruud misses one inch? He is 6ft (same as Wawrinka).
Big three: Djoker 6ft 2", Fed/Nadal 6ft 1"
Also Sampras 6ft 1".
Looks like the sweetspot is what is shown by the most successful?
.mikko
On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 3:18:07 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:
Ruud is the only player in open era to make 3 slam finals and never win
one. Bit unlucky having to face goat level opponent in each final.
Though Lendl and Murray started with 4 GS final losses. Both managed to have a good career.
On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 3:48:43 AM UTC+3, Court_1 wrote: horrific(3-25!) Also, as I said above both Berdych and Zverev made one slam final.
For me, Zverev is better than Berdych, a more dangerous player when he's on.Zverev's creds for "the best ever without a slam title" are currently the best.
2xYEC title
Olympic Gold
GS Final
A good tune-up record
.mikko
On 15/06/2023 10:51 am, Court_1 wrote:
There's a difference between generation and era. Players can be from different generations but if they play each other time and time again, a comparison between them is valid.
Yes, the question is did they play in the same era rather than same gen (whatever a gen is). The answer is yes, more times than any other
rivals in history, but we can't draw any conclusions from all those
matches lol.
If Djoker/Rafa weren't around Fed would have been no.1 up until 2019, so that counts as his peak era in my eyes. It's not like he was ranked 35,
but oscillated between no.2 and no.3 the whole time.
Federer was mowing through the field in his late 30s. If not for Djokovic he'd have five more slams and be undisputed goat. How could a player who is too old mop up the entire field? He'd be struggling to make it past early rounds in tournaments andhis ranking would plummet. Yes, he was older and had declined physically but he continued to work hard and compensate for his decline by improving his backhand, his serve, etc. Djokovic is doing same now.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 125:15:34 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,334,851 |