Agassi: Djokovic is 30 but he has body of a 25 years old man

[Obsi]

I'll address one of your points... Why should Istomin be included? Because he knocked Novak out of the AO - his backyard. So, yeah... Istomin should also be included as the tough level of competition Novak faced in compiling these numbers.

I know what you mean but we don't know what would have happened if Federer achieved what Djokovic did last year: becoming the first player in tennis history to hold all four slams at once on 3 different surfaces. Had Roger done so, maybe he would've lost motivation and also lost to a player like Istomin.

Anyway, after today's news I'm not sure this is the opportune time to be telling the world how Novak's body is holding up as a man five years younger.

Are you sure Djokovic is that much injured? What if Novak decided to a take 6 months break because he is burnt out but needed an excuse for it for sponsors and tournaments obligations?

You are avoiding an obvious question. If Fed has an inferior game in every aspect he cannot possibly be competitive with peak Novak even if he was also at his peak which clearly isn't the case. The fact that he got beat around as he aged and still manages to get wins over Novak every year says opposite to your claim.

Hard to swallow I know, especially for Novak fans. But you simply cannot have an inferior player who is much older and slower and still score regular wins against someone at his peak, who is claimed to be 'superior'.

I didn't say Djokovic has game that is better in every aspect. I said his game is overall superior which in other words means Federer's game is better in some parts but taken everything into account, Novak's is better although not by much.

Federer has never beaten peak Djokovic. Yes, 2011 was peak year of Djokovic but he didn't play his best tennis in every single match. So, matches like semifinal at French Open in 2011 aren't instances when Novak was at his peak.

Hard to swallow I know.

Looking at the originator of this thread, I chuckled. Obsi, why don't you have your own original contributions?

I expressed many opinions of my own on this thread.

A paid surrogate by the way, that before his association with Novak, was quite clear about who he thinks is the best player.

Agassi Says Nadal — Not Federer — Is Greatest Tennis Player Ever
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/05/08/agassi-says-nadal-not-federer-is-greatest-tennis-player-ever/

 

[DarthFed]

So Djokovic wasn't in his prime at RG 2011 but let me guess, Nole gets credited for beating prime Roger in 2014 and 2015 (when he was in his 30's). Brilliant.

You are ignorant enough to think that Nole has more ways to disrupt an opponent's rhythm than Federer. That really says it all right there. I doubt even Novak would agree with that himself.

So you think Nole pretended to be injured enough at Wimbledon to withdraw against an opponent in the QF that he absolutely owns. Yeah, makes perfect sense to me.

I can assure you that if Roger had won all 4 slams in a row yet was a couple behind Rafa and Djokovic overall that he would not have lost motivation. He didn't lose motivation after winning RG and tying the all-time slam record. He didn't even lose motivation after setting the new record at Wimbledon in 2009.

 

[Moxie]

^ I agree with all of that, Darth. Novak was on the longest winning streak of his career when he lost to Roger. If that's not peak, I don't know what. You can't pick out one match during a run of peak form and say he wasn't. You can say he played less than his best that day, if you like, but it doesn't negate that he was in a peak period of his career and Roger beat him.

As to faking injury for a break, I thought of that, too, but again I agree with Darth: he'd have played that match out, or at least gone longer, if it was just loss of motivation. He had 4 sets and a lot of history behind him to still beat Tomas. I think you have to believe him on the injury.

Roger has never shown anything but motivation and love of the game. He didn't let down after finally winning the FO, and he didn't get too discouraged in 2008, after losing Wimbledon and at the Olympics, not to come back and win the USO.

 

[britbox]

Andre seemed to have revised his opinion this year (Obsi's link was 3 years old).

http://m.hindustantimes.com/tennis/...ndre-agassi/story-p1ZbtWAZoN75Cpgp5GGTbJ.html

 

[Federberg]

I know what you mean but we don't know what would have happened if Federer achieved what Djokovic did last year: becoming the first player in tennis history to hold all four slams at once on 3 different surfaces. Had Roger done so, maybe he would've lost motivation and also lost to a player like Istomin.



Are you sure Djokovic is that much injured? What if Novak decided to a take 6 months break because he is burnt out but needed an excuse for it for sponsors and tournaments obligations?



I didn't say Djokovic has game that is better in every aspect. I said his game is overall superior which in other words means Federer's game is better in some parts but taken everything into account, Novak's is better although not by much.

Federer has never beaten peak Djokovic. Yes, 2011 was peak year of Djokovic but he didn't play his best tennis in every single match. So, matches like semifinal at French Open in 2011 aren't instances when Novak was at his peak.

Hard to swallow I know.



I expressed many opinions of my own on this thread.



Agassi Says Nadal — Not Federer — Is Greatest Tennis Player Ever
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/05/08/agassi-says-nadal-not-federer-is-greatest-tennis-player-ever/

Lol! How old are you?. Seriously! Never been beaten during his peak..

 

[mrzz]

Ugh... (about the OP).

That Djokovic is extremely fit, and during his dominance he showed a level of fitness hardly seen before, no one has doubts. But, before we discuss how many years he has in his body, does Agassi know how to differentiate a body from a 25 years old from a 30 years old? Obviously not. The guy is impressed with Djokovic´s physique, fine, everyone would, and used a superlative phrase to describe it. If he is saying that he still can win majors, duh, everyone knows that (please note that "can" is different than "will").

 

[shawnbm]

I think Andre might say Roger had the body of a twenty-five year old actually. Lol

 

[Federberg]

Nearly 10 years from his peak he's still winning. But we have trollish people talking about how Novak is better than Roger? It's beyond delusional. Good grief... Rafa and Roger have won almost as many slams in one major as Novak has accumulated in his entire career

 

[Front242]

Andre seemed to have revised his opinion this year (Obsi's link was 3 years old).

http://m.hindustantimes.com/tennis/...ndre-agassi/story-p1ZbtWAZoN75Cpgp5GGTbJ.html

So basically he had a 25 year old body at 27. Truly incredible stuff right there.

 

[Moxie]

This thread comes out of Andre's quote from the other day. But I get that the Nole fans have long been invested in the notion that he has a "younger" body than his chronological age, or that his yoga and flexibility will keep him competing longer at a high level, etc. This is because of the stall period after his first slam, and the fact that he has to beat the odds post-30 to get a much bigger haul than he has. It's not at all unlikely that he'll take a break and come back fit and with his desire to win renewed. But you can't beat the clock forever, and it's still ticking.

 

[Obsi]

So Djokovic wasn't in his prime at RG 2011 but let me guess, Nole gets credited for beating prime Roger in 2014 and 2015 (when he was in his 30's). Brilliant.

When did I say Federer was at his prime in 2014 and 2015?

You are ignorant enough to think that Nole has more ways to disrupt an opponent's rhythm than Federer. That really says it all right there. I doubt even Novak would agree with that himself.

We're taking about tennis intelligence.

So you think Nole pretended to be injured enough at Wimbledon to withdraw against an opponent in the QF that he absolutely owns.

I didn't say he pretended. It something shouldn't be ruled out. If he decided to take a 6 months break because he is burnt out, then he needed a very, very strong excuse for sponsors and tournaments obligations.

I can assure you that if Roger had won all 4 slams in a row yet was a couple behind Rafa and Djokovic overall that he would not have lost motivation. He didn't lose motivation after winning RG and tying the all-time slam record. He didn't even lose motivation after setting the new record at Wimbledon in 2009.

You failed to assure me.

^ I agree with all of that, Darth. Novak was on the longest winning streak of his career when he lost to Roger. If that's not peak, I don't know what. You can't pick out one match during a run of peak form and say he wasn't. You can say he played less than his best that day

The definition of the word "peak" is "highest level" http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/peak So, if Djokovic played less than his best against Federer at 2011 French Open, it means Novak wasn't at his peak that day.

Andre seemed to have revised his opinion this year (Obsi's link was 3 years old).

http://m.hindustantimes.com/tennis/...ndre-agassi/story-p1ZbtWAZoN75Cpgp5GGTbJ.html

According to your link, Agassi said "arguably" so it isn't clear whether he changed his mind. If someone says "Federer is arguably the GOAT" it can be interpreted that they think Roger is a GOAT candidate. In the link I provided Andre is very clear who is the greatest in his opinion:

"I'd put Nadal No. 1, Federer No. 2"

But, before we discuss how many years he has in his body, does Agassi know how to differentiate a body from a 25 years old from a 30 years old? Obviously not. The guy is impressed with Djokovic´s physique, fine, everyone would, and used a superlative phrase to describe it. If he is saying that he still can win majors, duh, everyone knows that (please note that "can" is different than "will").

What if Agassi talked with someone who knows Novak professionally and who knows how to differentiate a body from a 25 years old from 30 years old? And what if Andre based on that discussion genuinely believes Novak has body 5 younger than his age? Can you prove that's not the case?

 

[Federberg]

Can you just summarise for all of us the point you're trying to make here please? We're getting lost in all the... &*^%

 

[Obsi]

It's clear what I wanted say. Read carefully.

 

[Federberg]

It's clear what I wanted say. Read carefully.

Lol! It's not clear at all? You're clearly suggesting that Novak Djokovic shits gold, and pisses champagne. But there seems to be no factual basis. Oh yeah... Agassi said! Agassi who's made similar comments about Federer or Nadal at some point. The guy shifts with the wind. How about basing your contributions on something more substantial than that. And you persist at a time when Federer has moved even further away from Novak. I should just laugh and ignore all this nonsense

 

[mrzz]

What if Agassi talked with someone who knows Novak professionally and who knows how to differentiate a body from a 25 years old from 30 years old? And what if Andre based on that discussion genuinely believes Novak has body 5 younger than his age? Can you prove that's not the case?

I cannot prove that it is not the case, I can only tell you that´s a difficult thing to do, even for a specialist. Honestly, I do hope Djokovic´s body holds up and he keeps playing for some years still -- it will be only good for tennis. But the test of time is the ultimate one, no matter what one or another may say. And the level these guys (I mean, big three) are bringing to the sport is surely unprecedented. We all have our personal preferences, but I truly believe that their collective work should be appreciated: they pushed each other in a chain reaction, and pulled the rest of the field with them.

So, if your point is: don´t count Djokovic out of the slam count race just yet, I agree with you. But, as you are seeing, to keep winning is harder than people might think... Djokovic has a new hill to climb. Let´s see him try.

 

[Obsi]

Lol! It's not clear at all? You're clearly suggesting that Novak Djokovic shits gold, and pisses champagne. But there seems to be no factual basis. Oh yeah... Agassi said! Agassi who's made similar comments about Federer or Nadal at some point. The guy shifts with the wind. How about basing your contributions on something more substantial than that. And you persist at a time when Federer has moved even further away from Novak. I should just laugh and ignore all this nonsense

Are you stupid or what? What did I say in the opening post?

 

[Federberg]

Are you stupid or what? What did I say in the opening post?

Nope but clearly you are. You proceeded to say some ridiculous things after that. Are we supposed to ignore them? Here are some classics...

"Federer is superior to Djokovic in just one aspect: more aesthetically pleasing game to the eye. In everything else, Roger is inferior to Novak."

And this doozy...

"I didn't say Djokovic has game that is better in every aspect. I said his game is overall superior which in other words means Federer's game is better in some parts but taken everything into account, Novak's is better although not by much.

Federer has never beaten peak Djokovic. Yes, 2011 was peak year of Djokovic but he didn't play his best tennis in every single match. So, matches like semifinal at French Open in 2011 aren't instances when Novak was at his peak.

Hard to swallow I know."

And you're asking me if I'm stupid. I think the majority of folks in this forum would probably throw that question back at you! Don't ever let the evidence get in the way of your BS mate

 

[Obsi]

Nope but clearly you are. You proceeded to say some ridiculous things after that. Are we supposed to ignore them? Here are some classics...

"Federer is superior to Djokovic in just one aspect: more aesthetically pleasing game to the eye. In everything else, Roger is inferior to Novak."

And this doozy...

"I didn't say Djokovic has game that is better in every aspect. I said his game is overall superior which in other words means Federer's game is better in some parts but taken everything into account, Novak's is better although not by much.

Federer has never beaten peak Djokovic. Yes, 2011 was peak year of Djokovic but he didn't play his best tennis in every single match. So, matches like semifinal at French Open in 2011 aren't instances when Novak was at his peak.

Hard to swallow I know."

And you're asking me if I'm stupid.

You're an idiot. According to you I'm stupid because I believe Djokovic didn't play his best tennis against Federer at 2011 French Open. Unbelievable.

I think the majority of folks in this forum would probably throw that question back at you!

Are you saying that if majority of posters agree with you, it means you're right?

 

[Federberg]

You're an idiot. According to you I'm stupid because I believe Djokovic didn't play his best tennis against Federer at 2011 French Open. Unbelievable.



Are you saying that if majority of posters agree with you, it means you're right?

Aha! Something interesting to respond to. I don't think I'm the idiot here, I'm not even going to call you stupid. I just think you're deluded. Djokovic wasn't allowed to play his best tennis in RG11. That's how you get beaten if you didn't realise Clearly you're a bit of a clueless fanboy, we're talking about pro-tennis here not Wii-tennis. Let me try to help you. Try I say, because you can lead an ass to water but you can't force it to drink! To your more interesting question, which by the way utterly exposes you. You ask if the majority of posters agree with me would I be right? Well... first of all they don't have to agree with me to see the utter garbage you write. But the more interesting point is that yet again you're so deeply insecure you seem to require the agreement or support of other posters, or dare I say it a pundit, like Agassi, to support your point to make you think that you're making a valid point. That's the core of your problem mate. Post some substance and I might argue with you, but at least I'll respect your view point. Until then... dismissed!

 

[El Dude]

I don't want to pile on @Obsi, but I do want to bring up a point that s/he seems to be missing.

If we say that Roger has never beaten "peak" Novak (understanding that by "peak" s/he means highest level), can we not say the opposite, that Novak has never beaten peak Roger? Or can you provide examples of when Novak has beaten Roger playing at his best level?