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

[Obsi]

You seem to be asking a lot of people to "prove" you're wrong... can you prove you're right? Can you prove Djokovic is a 25 year old in a 30 year old body? Can you prove Djokovic is a superior player to Federer?

Of course you can't because things are based on opinion...

It seems to me that Ricardo is saying that his conclusion are facts. Pay attention I didn't say "Prove it" but "Can you prove it?".

...opinions largely formed on things like an athletes overall body of work... and in the case of 25 year old bodies, your argument is kind of "well, 25 year olds can get injured"... fact is Novak is showing signs of being an older athlete rather than a younger one. He's lost some of his mental edge and his body is breaking down.

It is not a fact that Novak is showing signs of being older athlete rather than a younger one. It's an opinion. If by "loss of mental edge" you mean loss of motivation, it doesn't mean your proposition is true and the claim "his body is breaking down" is an exaggeration.

I read the interviews, you would know if you have too.

You failed to provide proof.

now you are the one who claimed Djoker to have superior game so you should be the one to prove your claim.

My proposition is an opinion.

however i'll be generous by providing simple facts that you cannot deny:

Fed is further away from his peak years than Djoker, and yet has remained competitive against Djoker in his peak years. You cannot have an ageing player do that unless his game is better. Apart from just looking at Fed vs Djoker, Fed still has significant edge in career achievement......which is used to judge players. Just combine the two, less achievements and regularly lost to a very old player in his prime.....your turn to 'prove' if you can, nothing delusional please.

Federer has remained competitive against Novak because Roger's style of play is far less taxing on body. Federer has significant edge in career achievement because he faced easier opponents

now i don't know if Novak fans automatically turn blind when he doesn't win, but i watched the RG 2011 semi and Novak had every shot working that day.

@Federberg agrees with me that Djokovic didn't play his best tennis that day. Federberg is not a Novak fan.

as commentators were saying Fed and Djoker were playing the best tennis at RG that year.

Steve Flink said Novak didn't play his best tennis against Federer

You can't say he wasn't peak after he dispatched other top players with ease but happened to drop his level only against Federer

Before the semifinal at 2011 French Open Djokovic didn't play for 5 days because Fognini withdrew from the quarterfinal so it's possible that Novak lost rhythm by the time he played Federer.

(or Stan).

Wawrinka didn't beat Djokovic in 2011.

 

[Federberg]

It seems to me that Ricardo is saying that his conclusion are facts. Pay attention I didn't say "Prove it" but "Can you prove it?".



It is not a fact that Novak is showing signs of being older athlete rather than a younger one. It's an opinion. If by "loss of mental edge" you mean loss of motivation, it doesn't mean your proposition is true and the claim "his body is breaking down" is an exaggeration.



You failed to provide proof.



My proposition is an opinion.



Federer has remained competitive against Novak because Roger's style of play is far less taxing on body. Federer has significant edge in career achievement because he faced easier opponents

@Federberg agrees with me that Djokovic didn't play his best tennis that day. Federberg is not a Novak fan.



Steve Flink said Novak didn't play his best tennis against Federer






Before the semifinal at 2011 French Open Djokovic didn't play for 5 days because Fognini withdrew from the quarterfinal so it's possible that Novak lost rhythm by the time he played Federer.



Wawrinka didn't beat Djokovic in 2011.

Huh? What I said was Novak wasn't allowed to play his best. If you understand tennis at the highest level, then you should know that you could be in your best form, but you come against a guy who finds a way to stifle your play and it won't matter. I'm sorry if you don't get this simple truth about sports then I think we're all wasting our time with you

 

[Fiero425]

Huh? What I said was Novak wasn't allowed to play his best. If you understand tennis at the highest level, then you should know that you could be in your best form, but you come against a guy who finds a way to stifle your play and it won't matter. I'm sorry if you don't get this simple truth about sports then I think we're all wasting our time with you

Evidence or epitome of that could be marked by Nole's 2015 where he played 8 Masters' finals, winning 6! OTOH the 2 he lost were to Andy and Roger at Canadian & Cinci.taking advantage of the faster courts and didn't allow him to defend and outlast them! Both were very aggressive, kept the ball low, and attacked the net more!

 

[Ricardo]

It seems to me that Ricardo is saying that his conclusion are facts. Pay attention I didn't say "Prove it" but "Can you prove it?".



It is not a fact that Novak is showing signs of being older athlete rather than a younger one. It's an opinion. If by "loss of mental edge" you mean loss of motivation, it doesn't mean your proposition is true and the claim "his body is breaking down" is an exaggeration.



You failed to provide proof.



My proposition is an opinion.



Federer has remained competitive against Novak because Roger's style of play is far less taxing on body. Federer has significant edge in career achievement because he faced easier opponents

@Federberg agrees with me that Djokovic didn't play his best tennis that day. Federberg is not a Novak fan.



Steve Flink said Novak didn't play his best tennis against Federer






Before the semifinal at 2011 French Open Djokovic didn't play for 5 days because Fognini withdrew from the quarterfinal so it's possible that Novak lost rhythm by the time he played Federer.



Wawrinka didn't beat Djokovic in 2011.

oh prove it and 'can you prove it'? what kind of simpleton response is that? you are just so butt hurt...

and you need to spin Federberg's words, that's just stupid but he's already clarified that.....you are caught so easily

Steve Flink said Novak didn't play his best tennis, who do i listen to? Steve who? i take Novak's words. And stop with this he didn't play for 5 days nonsense......he played quarter on 29 May 2011 and semi on 3 June, so that's 4 days and clearly that's why someone can't play his best because he had a bit of extra rest. Novak fans are known for making things up (5 days anyone?) and are therefore seen as bottom feeders.....they would say anything to gain some verbal advantage.

Wawrinka didn't beat Djoker in 2011 but the last few years he has numerous times and don't tell us it wasn't Novak's best tennis. Stan just played better.

 

[Ricardo]

Federer has remained competitive against Novak because Roger's style of play is far less taxing on body. Federer has significant edge in career achievement because he faced easier opponents

you still haven't answered to why a less taxing style would enable Federer to match a superior player in every aspect who happened to be in his prime. Hey a totally inferior player (in his prime or not) simply should not beat a superior player in his prime regularly......if ever. As it stands they are 22-23 h-h, and we all know Roger has played through all of Novak's prime (2011onwards) while Novak only caught end of Roger's prime. Any more stupid excuse? ill take care of it for you so better think hard.

now that useless diagram of yours.....how does it mean 'easier' opponents? how does that make a difference of 5 slams? you are out of your mind to be this delusional. The number that stood out, Federer's opponent's average ranking in slam finals of 15.89? i don't really bother to find out, but does it sound right anyone?

 

[Obsi]

Huh? What I said was Novak wasn't allowed to play his best. If you understand tennis at the highest level, then you should know that you could be in your best form, but you come against a guy who finds a way to stifle your play and it won't matter. I'm sorry if you don't get this simple truth about sports then I think we're all wasting our time with you

If Federer prevented Djokovic from playing his best tennis at 2011 FO, it means Novak didn't play his best tennis that day. You implied that Novak didn't play his best tennis against Roger and therefore I correctly interpreted what you said. I'm sorry, if you don't get this simple logical reasoning then I think I'm wasting my time with you.

By the way, you have not answered my question: was Federer losing his matches in 2013 because his opponents didn't alow him to play best tennis or because he had back injury?

oh prove it and 'can you prove it'? what kind of simpleton response is that? you are just so butt hurt...

and you need to spin Federberg's words, that's just stupid but he's already clarified that.....you are caught so easily

You're stupid as you can't comprehend what I explained above in my reply to Federberg.

Steve Flink said Novak didn't play his best tennis, who do i listen to? Steve who? i take Novak's words.

I'm still waiting for you to provide link or video clip to see what Novak said. If you fail to do so, I'll conclude you're a liar.

And stop with this he didn't play for 5 days nonsense......he played quarter on 29 May 2011 and semi on 3 June, so that's 4 days

Dunce, read this time and time again until you understand it:

One day is 24 hours. Djokovic played in the afternoon on 29 May and the semifinal in the afternoon on 3 June.
From 29 May afternoon to 30 May afternoon is 24 hours so that's 1 day
30 May > 31 May - 2 days
31 May > 1 June - 3 days
1 June > 2 June - 4 days
2 June > 3 June - 5 days

So, that's practically 5 days.

and clearly that's why someone can't play his best because he had a bit of extra rest. Novak fans are known for making things up (5 days anyone?) and are therefore seen as bottom feeders.....they would say anything to gain some verbal advantage.

Dipstick, are you saying players can not lose rhythm if they play their next match 5 days after the previous one?

Wawrinka didn't beat Djoker in 2011 but the last few years he has numerous times and don't tell us it wasn't Novak's best tennis. Stan just played better.

It's a matter of opinion when Djokovic's highest level of play occurred. I think it was in 2011.

you still haven't answered to why a less taxing style would enable Federer to match a superior player in every aspect who happened to be in his prime. Hey a totally inferior player (in his prime or not) simply should not beat a superior player in his prime regularly......if ever. As it stands they are 22-23 h-h, and we all know Roger has played through all of Novak's prime (2011onwards) while Novak only caught end of Roger's prime. Any more stupid excuse? ill take care of it for you so better think hard.

You're more stupid than I thought. Federer has never beaten peak Djokovic, and since 2011 the head to head record at slams is 7-2 to Novak.

now that useless diagram of yours.....how does it mean 'easier' opponents? how does that make a difference of 5 slams? you are out of your mind to be this delusional.

I didn't say the diagram proves my claim. I'm using the diagram to support my opinion and opinions are unprovable. Can you prove the diagram doesn't prove Federer achieved more because he faced easier opponents?

The number that stood out, Federer's opponent's average ranking in slam finals of 15.89? i don't really bother to find out, but does it sound right anyone?

Baghdatis was No. 54 when he played Federer at AO in 2006.

 

[Federberg]

If Federer prevented Djokovic from playing his best tennis at 2011 FO, it means Novak didn't play his best tennis that day. You implied that Novak didn't play his best tennis against Roger and therefore I correctly interpreted what you said. I'm sorry, if you don't get this simple logical reasoning then I think I'm wasting my time with you.

By the way, you have not answered my question: was Federer losing his matches in 2013 because his opponents didn't alow him to play best tennis or because he had back injury?

I'm really bored of this now, but I'll humor you. Think 2013 was his back problems issue. Wasn't that the year he lost to Robredo at Flushing? Look.. the guy got on the court and played, he lost. Moving on... I can't even recall the relevance of this, or what point you're trying to make

 

[Obsi]

I'm really bored of this now, but I'll humor you. Think 2013 was his back problems issue. Wasn't that the year he lost to Robredo at Flushing? Look.. the guy got on the court and played, he lost. Moving on... I can't even recall the relevance of this, or what point you're trying to make

In the post #59 you said "Djokovic wasn't allowed to play his best tennis in RG11. That's how you get beaten". It means you implied that only way a player can get beaten is if they are not allowed by their opponents to play best tennis. You implied so because you did not say it is one of the ways how you can get beaten.

So, my point when asking the question regarding Federer's losses in 2013 is that you're talking bullshit.

 

[mrzz]

Baghdatis was No. 54 when he played Federer at AO in 2006.

Obsi, you know I like your direct no-bullshit style, but this is precisely why you have to take care when you uses statistics. You have one guy having the two weeks of his life that skew completely the data, which means that if you compute the same average excluding this outlier (and yet Federer would have more finals and titles than the others, so the average is still meaningful ), the average would drop considerably. There are still some other statistical things to consider, but this extreme example illustrate my point. Honestly, looking at this kind of numbers, only if you see a giant discrepancy you can infer something of real significance. My conclusion would be that them all faced basically the same opposition (technically I would justify it saying that the difference is within the expected error boundaries).

About the "not at his best/not allowed to play his best", logically you are right, but tennis wise you are wrong. We could give a guy a pass for waking up flat and playing like shit, but if the guy is red hot, gets to the court and meets an opponent who finds a way to deny him victory, all credit to the opponent. You have a point about Fognini´s withdrawal, but frankly it is hard to be sure of the net effect.

Anyway, if you change your phrase "superior overall player" for "more efficient overall player", comparing both guys at their primes, I would agree with you, remembering always that the big three are split apart by only inches in most categories...

 

[Federberg]

In the post #59 you said "Djokovic wasn't allowed to play his best tennis in RG11. That's how you get beaten". It means you implied that only way a player can get beaten is if they are not allowed by their opponents to play best tennis. You implied so because you did not say it is one of the ways how you can get beaten.

So, my point when asking the question regarding Federer's losses in 2013 is that you're talking bullshit.

You simply have to be more intelligent than this... Anyway you keep clinging to your view. I'm bored now

 

[Ricardo]

If Federer prevented Djokovic from playing his best tennis at 2011 FO, it means Novak didn't play his best tennis that day. You implied that Novak didn't play his best tennis against Roger and therefore I correctly interpreted what you said. I'm sorry, if you don't get this simple logical reasoning then I think I'm wasting my time with you.

By the way, you have not answered my question: was Federer losing his matches in 2013 because his opponents didn't alow him to play best tennis or because he had back injury?





You're stupid as you can't comprehend what I explained above in my reply to Federberg.



I'm still waiting for you to provide link or video clip to see what Novak said. If you fail to do so, I'll conclude you're a liar.



Dunce, read this time and time again until you understand it:

One day is 24 hours. Djokovic played in the afternoon on 29 May and the semifinal in the afternoon on 3 June.
From 29 May afternoon to 30 May afternoon is 24 hours so that's 1 day
30 May > 31 May - 2 days
31 May > 1 June - 3 days
1 June > 2 June - 4 days
2 June > 3 June - 5 days

So, that's practically 5 days.



Dipstick, are you saying players can not lose rhythm if they play their next match 5 days after the previous one?



It's a matter of opinion when Djokovic's highest level of play occurred. I think it was in 2011.



You're more stupid than I thought. Federer has never beaten peak Djokovic, and since 2011 the head to head record at slams is 7-2 to Novak.



I didn't say the diagram proves my claim. I'm using the diagram to support my opinion and opinions are unprovable. Can you prove the diagram doesn't prove Federer achieved more because he faced easier opponents?



Baghdatis was No. 54 when he played Federer at AO in 2006.

ok you asked for it, so i'll nicely give you little butt-hurt cool-aid drinking idiot something to think about....am in really good mood recently.

first, nobody gives a whatever how you tried to put your words into Federberg's mouth......the only thing that matters is Federberg himself, who clarified what he meant, and therefore exposed your less than clever attempt unfortunately ...your idiocy proven right here.

another thing, nobody counts the hours for days of rest except you, the proven idiot. Everyone would tell you that players at slams usually get one or two days in between matches....which don't include any time on the day of the matches. Get that common sense into your head and i'll have one thing less to educate you. And you cannot prove whatsoever that it is reason for loss of form.....just another dumb excuse

now this is where the real fun is. It's beyond debatable that peak Djoker was in 2011, so Fed did beat peak Djoker.....by definition. Unless of course as i have spotted, that you are about as thick-skinned as i know you are (along with many Djoker fans), you get to pick and choose:
Djoker loses, NEVER peak. Djoker wins, maybe peak.

The gold rule to be Djoker fan, put on the thickest skin you can find and never admit to anything that doesn't suit you

 

[Ricardo]

Obsi, you know I like your direct no-bullshit style, but this is precisely why you have to take care when you uses statistics. You have one guy having the two weeks of his life that skew completely the data, which means that if you compute the same average excluding this outlier (and yet Federer would have more finals and titles than the others, so the average is still meaningful ), the average would drop considerably. There are still some other statistical things to consider, but this extreme example illustrate my point. Honestly, looking at this kind of numbers, only if you see a giant discrepancy you can infer something of real significance. My conclusion would be that them all faced basically the same opposition (technically I would justify it saying that the difference is within the expected error boundaries).

About the "not at his best/not allowed to play his best", logically you are right, but tennis wise you are wrong. We could give a guy a pass for waking up flat and playing like shit, but if the guy is red hot, gets to the court and meets an opponent who finds a way to deny him victory, all credit to the opponent. You have a point about Fognini´s withdrawal, but frankly it is hard to be sure of the net effect.

Anyway, if you change your phrase "superior overall player" for "more efficient overall player", comparing both guys at their primes, I would agree with you, remembering always that the big three are split apart by only inches in most categories...

he can't run with that 'superior player' claim anymore. evidence would be that the said 'inferior player in every aspect' (Federer) simply cannot compete or beat regularly the superior player who happens to be in his prime........results are concrete evidence. I also know that he cannot prove otherwise to this fact but i bet he'll either turn blind or find something else shameless to spit out.

an important to point out again, is that Djoker only really played at end of Federer's prime; while Federer has played ALL of Djoker's. Another point that can't be denied, even if one is as thick skinned as Obsi.

 

[Busted]

I don't know how to start a new thread - or if I even have the ability to - but, just an FYI - the Serbian tennis federations doctor says Djokovic has "bone bruise" and probably won't play the US Open and needs 6-12 weeks to heal to avoid surgery. If true that mean Djokovic won't be defending his Canada Masters title either. So there goes 2200 points down the drain for Djokovic. Better to just skip the rest of the season than come back for the Paris Masters just to try to make the Tour Finals - which would be a long shot since he's currently #7 by only about 600 points.

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2017/07/novak-djokovic-bone-bruise-wimbledon-us-open-injury/67951/

 

[Fiero425]

I don't know how to start a new thread - or if I even have the ability to - but, just an FYI - the Serbian tennis federations doctor says Djokovic has "bone bruise" and probably won't play the US Open and needs 6-12 weeks to heal to avoid surgery. If true that mean Djokovic won't be defending his Canada Masters title either. So there goes 2200 points down the drain for Djokovic. Better to just skip the rest of the season than come back for the Paris Masters just to try to make the Tour Finals - which would be a long shot since he's currently #7 by only about 600 points.

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2017/07/novak-djokovic-bone-bruise-wimbledon-us-open-injury/67951/

If no one else has reposted this info in a new thread, I'll take care of it! :suicide:

 

[Moxie]

I'll do it. I thought it might go here, but it's true that Busted wanted a new thread. This one's probably bogged down with rehashing old stuff, anyway.

 

[isabelle]

the body of 25 millions of years apparently needs some rest....

 

[Obsi]

Obsi, you know I like your direct no-bullshit style, but this is precisely why you have to take care when you uses statistics. You have one guy having the two weeks of his life that skew completely the data, which means that if you compute the same average excluding this outlier (and yet Federer would have more finals and titles than the others, so the average is still meaningful ), the average would drop considerably. There are still some other statistical things to consider, but this extreme example illustrate my point. Honestly, looking at this kind of numbers, only if you see a giant discrepancy you can infer something of real significance. My conclusion would be that them all faced basically the same opposition (technically I would justify it saying that the difference is within the expected error boundaries).

I've already said that those stats do not prove my proposition. The statistics are facts so I use facts to support my opinion.

About the "not at his best/not allowed to play his best", logically you are right, but tennis wise you are wrong. We could give a guy a pass for waking up flat and playing like shit, but if the guy is red hot, gets to the court and meets an opponent who finds a way to deny him victory, all credit to the opponent. You have a point about Fognini´s withdrawal, but frankly it is hard to be sure of the net effect.

But it's very reasonable to believe that the Fognini's withdrawal is the reason why Djokovic didn't play his best tennis against Federer at 2011 French Open isn't it?

Anyway, if you change your phrase "superior overall player" for "more efficient overall player", comparing both guys at their primes, I would agree with you, remembering always that the big three are split apart by only inches in most categories...

The word "superior" does not mean being much better. I quote the definition from dictionary: "better than average or better than other people or things of the same type"
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/superior

In the post #41 I said that Novak is better but not by much.

...

You've failed to provide a link or video that confirms Novak said what you claim. So, I have no choice but to conclude you're a liar.

first, nobody gives a whatever how you tried to put your words into Federberg's mouth......the only thing that matters is Federberg himself, who clarified what he meant, and therefore exposed your less than clever attempt unfortunately ...your idiocy proven right here.

Blockhead, in my previous post I provided an argument which both Federberg and you failed to refute.

another thing, nobody counts the hours for days of rest except you, the proven idiot. Everyone would tell you that players at slams usually get one or two days in between matches....which don't include any time on the day of the matches. Get that common sense into your head and i'll have one thing less to educate you. And you cannot prove whatsoever that it is reason for loss of form.....just another dumb excuse

Dimwit, it's correct to say both that Djokovic didn't play 5 days and 4 days. It depends which method is used. It's a fact that one day is 24 hours so it can be said that five days passed.

now this is where the real fun is. It's beyond debatable that peak Djoker was in 2011, so Fed did beat peak Djoker.....by definition. Unless of course as i have spotted, that you are about as thick-skinned as i know you are (along with many Djoker fans), you get to pick and choose:
Djoker loses, NEVER peak. Djoker wins, maybe peak.

Plonker, "peak" is the highest level of play. Djokovic's highest level of play did occur in 2011 but not in every single match. There is another word called "prime" which means the most successful period in a player's career. Djokovic's prime is 2011-2016 so Federer beat prime Novak but not peak.

he can't run with that 'superior player' claim anymore. evidence would be that the said 'inferior player in every aspect'

I did not say Djokovic is better in "every" aspect so that's another proof you're a liar.

an important to point out again, is that Djoker only really played at end of Federer's prime; while Federer has played ALL of Djoker's. Another point that can't be denied, even if one is as thick skinned as Obsi

Lamebrain, since 2011 head to head record in slams is 7-2 to Novak.

 

[Federberg]

So... with the news that Novak won't play in 2017 again. He's effectively following the same path as Federer, shutting down his year at the same time Roger did last year. Can we all agree, that given that Novak is a "superior" player to Roger, Djokovic has to achieve the same success as Federer has achieved this year... at a minimum! After all... he'll only have a 26 year old body next year right?

 

[isabelle]

So... with the news that Novak won't play in 2017 again. He's effectively following the same path as Federer, shutting down his year at the same time Roger did last year. Can we all agree, that given that Novak is a "superior" player to Roger, Djokovic has to achieve the same success as Federer has achieved this year... at a minimum! After all... he'll only have a 26 year old body next year right?

1st one to do it was Manacor's bull...then Mr Vavrinec and then Nole....it's hip to play only half of the season ??? a new fashon ???

 

[Obsi]

So... with the news that Novak won't play in 2017 again. He's effectively following the same path as Federer, shutting down his year at the same time Roger did last year. Can we all agree, that given that Novak is a "superior" player to Roger, Djokovic has to achieve the same success as Federer has achieved this year... at a minimum! After all... he'll only have a 26 year old body next year right?

What a stupid logic. At age 29 Djokovic won 4 slams in row which Federer couldn't achieve when he was younger. Can we all agree this means Novak is a superior player to Roger