Djokovic Era

[El Dude]

Broken, you keep selling your point of view as fact. Yes, Rafa was "the best hard court player in the world" - after winning the US Open, and for the previous six months. But that's not the entire year. What is there not to understand about this? Novak was far more dominant after the US Open, plus of course with the AO. So at the least, it IS debatable.

It is also debatable who was the best player in the world that year - ITF certainly doesn't agree with you.

 

[Riotbeard]

I would probably say Rafa and Novak split the hardcourts pretty evenly. Also Nadal lost in the final of 250 clay tournament he played after skipping the AO, so had he played the AO do you honestly think he would have won, so it's hard to see how hindsight makes the AO title any more or less important.

I will say this thread has really devolved into boring fanboying... Anyone who thinks rafa is a one surface wonder is a fool. He has the third best hard court career resume on tour after #1 Fed and #2 Novak. Of course his 2013 on hards was impressive.

That being said, Nadal fans really managed to make a thread about Novak into some sort of lame "nadal is good too!" thread...

The AO title is not any more or less important. It's just a title that Djokovic won when Nadal wasn't there, so when comparing their hard court resumes during that year, it counts for just as much on paper, but perhaps less so in perception, especially in light of what transpired thereafter. This may or may not be fair, but it's a fact. After Nadal won the US Open and had just won 4 hard court tournaments in a row with zero defeats, nobody would have offered a case for Novak being the best on player on hards that year (I'm not talking about abilities in general, since he obviously is the better hard court player), despite Novak having a GS title and a GS final on hards that year, since nobody held it against Nadal that he didn't do well at the AO since you know, he didn't play. The other thing that affects perception is the fact that Novak's dominant hard court run happened late in the year, when all the slams have been played out. That doesn't change the results but it does affect perception since the fall usually gets the least attention.

Regarding your last point, that's a bit rich considering the whole point of the thread seems to be: "Yeah, Novak's been great, but let's somehow make his achievements even greater by calling this an era and project about the future."

Plus, please inform me how can you talk about a Djokovic era without bringing up Nadal? For this to be an era, you compare it to his main rivals' results. Obviously, the player with the closest achievements during that span is Nadal, so we're going to compare the two to see if this is an era... I'm not being a jerk but I don't see your point at all. So yeah, 2013 is going to be brought up because during the supposed Novak "era," he wasn't even the best player in the world that year (that part is not debatable).

Well in the actual content of the thread, most Novak fans agreed this is not the djokovic era (thus not being very fanboyish), for much of the same reasons you are making, but I had not realized we were really talking about OP anymore so much as splitting hairs over who had the better hard court season in 2013, a guy with a slam and three masters and a long hardcourt winning streak or a guy with a slam 2 masters, the wtf, and a long hardcourt winning streak. Who cares? What point is actually being made by this debate?

 

[Kieran]

Broken, you keep selling your point of view as fact. Yes, Rafa was "the best hard court player in the world" - after winning the US Open, and for the previous six months. But that's not the entire year. What is there not to understand about this? Novak was far more dominant after the US Open, plus of course with the AO. So at the least, it IS debatable.

It is also debatable who was the best player in the world that year - ITF certainly doesn't agree with you.

If you count the WTF and Paris as indoor events, it's not really debatable as to who was the best HC player that year, but seriously, it's definitely not debatable who was the best player that year. Come on, buddy, you're the stats guy!

 

[Kieran]

What point is actually being made by this debate?

That when there's no tennis, there's grumbling and war! We have a Fedal war going on someplace else, and this is a Novak-Rafa war, soon we'll have a Djokerer battle and the board will explode... :snicker

 

[Riotbeard]

Broken, you keep selling your point of view as fact. Yes, Rafa was "the best hard court player in the world" - after winning the US Open, and for the previous six months. But that's not the entire year. What is there not to understand about this? Novak was far more dominant after the US Open, plus of course with the AO. So at the least, it IS debatable.

It is also debatable who was the best player in the world that year - ITF certainly doesn't agree with you.

If you count the WTF and Paris as indoor events, it's not really debatable as to who was the best HC player that year, but seriously, it's definitely not debatable who was the best player that year. Come on, buddy, you're the stats guy!

Cough, cough, I believe the term is indoor hardcourts.

 

[El Dude]

Broken, you keep selling your point of view as fact. Yes, Rafa was "the best hard court player in the world" - after winning the US Open, and for the previous six months. But that's not the entire year. What is there not to understand about this? Novak was far more dominant after the US Open, plus of course with the AO. So at the least, it IS debatable.

It is also debatable who was the best player in the world that year - ITF certainly doesn't agree with you.

If you count the WTF and Paris as indoor events, it's not really debatable as to who was the best HC player that year, but seriously, it's definitely not debatable who was the best player that year. Come on, buddy, you're the stats guy!

So you're saying ITF is completely off base?

I think it is debatable in that while Rafa was clearly the best player for six months or so of the season, six months is not the full year. I'd still give Rafa the edge, but it is a lot closer than some are implying.

Also, WTF and Paris are indoor hard court events.

 

[El Dude]

What point is actually being made by this debate?

That when there's no tennis, there's grumbling and war! We have a Fedal war going on someplace else, and this is a Novak-Rafa war, soon we'll have a Djokerer battle and the board will explode... :snicker

Interestingly enough there are never, or rarely, Djokerer battles. So let's see here:

Fedal wars - check
Novak-Raf wars - check
Djokerer wars - nope

Hmm...what's the common denominator?

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

What point is actually being made by this debate?

That when there's no tennis, there's grumbling and war! We have a Fedal war going on someplace else, and this is a Novak-Rafa war, soon we'll have a Djokerer battle and the board will explode... :snicker

Interestingly enough there are never, or rarely, Djokerer battles. So let's see here:

Fedal wars - check
Novak-Raf wars - check
Djokerer wars - nope

Hmm...what's the common denominator?

Kieren of course that goes without saying.....:snicker

 

[Kieran]

So you're saying ITF is completely off base?

I think it is debatable in that while Rafa was clearly the best player for six months or so of the season, six months is not the full year. I'd still give Rafa the edge, but it is a lot closer than some are implying.

It's not debatable. You have the stats to back it up. Rafa gained more points (even while missing the opening slam) and he won more majors. There's no reckoning on the planet can say that Novak was the best player in 2013. I'd love to hear about it if there was...

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

in 2013 I personally give Rafa the edge slightly over Novak.

I always rate the WTF as the second most important title after a Grand Slam title

 

[the AntiPusher]

Djoker is by far the number one player in the world. Rafa has to be at his very best to have any chance to defeat Djoker on hardcourts.. Stan and Fed can handle Djoker in a best of 3 but best of 5 they will have to be playing their very best..

 

[DarthFed]

I think a lot of Fed fans have respect for Nole's game and personality. At least that's the case for me, thus no need for djokerer battles even though they have dealt each other a lot of tough losses over the years.

 

[Kieran]

I think a lot of Fed fans have respect for Nole's game and personality. At least that's the case for me, thus no need for djokerer battles even though they have dealt each other a lot of tough losses over the years.

Not only tough losses, but they don't seem to like each other. There's been a few times when there's been bad blood. But the great rivalries of this last ten years are Fedal and Rafa-Novak. Djoker and Roger have a great rivalry too, of course, but it gets overshadowed by the other rivalries they have with Rafa. I'm not saying that because I'm a Rafa fan, but because I think that Rafa comes between the two of them chronologically, and in majors. Rafa and Roger were on their own as rivals for a long time, and then Novak came along to replace Roger.

Apart from times when Rafa is absent through injury, there's a generational thing which meant that Djokerer wasn't a huge rivalry in terms of both of them desperate to occupy the one space at the top...

 

[Riotbeard]

in 2013 I personally give Rafa the edge slightly over Novak.

I always rate the WTF as the second most important title after a Grand Slam title

Novak won a hardcourt slam in 2013 or are you talking the season in general. If so, to me no question really, rafa was number one in fact and in the overall feeling of the season.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

I think in his early days Novak did put a lot of people off side with some of his antics,also I feel that his parents at times didnt help his cause at all.They now seem content to take a back seat to his career,which I feel is a good thing.I still remember that incident in Monte Carlo when Roger told Novak's mother to 'Be Quiet'.

Novak has matured into a great ambassador for men's tennis,he is also proud of the history of tennis and takes his No.1 position with great pride.He also cherishes being a husband and father.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

in 2013 I personally give Rafa the edge slightly over Novak.

I always rate the WTF as the second most important title after a Grand Slam title

Novak won a hardcourt slam in 2013 or are you talking the season in general. If so, to me no question really, rafa was number one in fact and in the overall feeling of the season.

I should have qualified my post saying 'the season in general'.

 

[El Dude]

It's not debatable. You have the stats to back it up. Rafa gained more points (even while missing the opening slam) and he won more majors. There's no reckoning on the planet can say that Novak was the best player in 2013. I'd love to hear about it if there was...

Well again, I've already said that I'd give Rafa the edge, but only slight and I think there's an argument that Novak was his equal in 2013. It is "debatable" in that the International Tennis Federation rated Djokovic as the world champion in 2013. If you think that's a joke then fine, but at least point your disagreement in the right direction!

Let's go through the stats, though. Consider:

Slams: Rafa has two Slams but he missed one and went out in the 1R of the other, while Novak only has the one but made it to two other Finals and one SF - so he actually has more ATP points from Slams. Sure, Novak would rather have the second Slam but "greatest player" is about overall performance, not desirability of titles. Consider that Rafa was either out or essentially useless in half of the Slams, while Novak was a SF or better in all four.

Masters: Rafa has five to Novak's three, so the edge is clear here. Rafa was also very strong in the Masters he didn't win. Novak performed very well in Masters but Rafa's performance was just absurd.

WTF: This is clear - Novak beat Rafa in the final. Both did well, but this is a clear edge to Novak.

Other Titles: Novak won two ATP 500s in addition to the big tournaments, while Rafa won three--two ATP 500s and one ATP 250. If Rafa gets an edge here it is only very slight, especially considering that the ATP 250 was just a warm-up for him after a long lay-off, and he beat a decrepit David Nalbandian in the final to win it!

Other: Rafa has a small edge in winning percentage, 91% to 89%. Novak has a more balanced resume - both in that he played in every Slam (and did well in all), but also in that he was excellent on hards (91%), clay (83%) and grass (100%) while Rafa was more lop-sided in his performance: excellent on both hards (90%) and clay (95%) but losing his only match on grass (0%).

All things tolled I will still give the edge to Rafa, but again, there's an argument to be made that Novak was at least his equal in 2013. So yeah, "debatable."

 

[Kieran]

It's not debatable! 2 slams >>>> 1 slam, one final and 2 semis. It can't be scanned otherwise, or we'll have people looking up Roy Emerson's semi-final records to see if he's better at majors than Roger and Rafa and Pete. Plus, Rafa beat Nole in both of these slams, the only times they faced off at the top level over five that year.

You give a "clear edge" to Nole at the WTF, as if this is crucial, but no "clear edge" to Rafa at the slams? At the MS events, a very clear edge to Rafa.

I'm surprised you think it's debatable, being a statistician. What were the YE points totals? Exactly. The best man on top, who was also the best man at the big events...

 

[brokenshoelace]

It is also debatable who was the best player in the world that year - ITF certainly doesn't agree with you.

With all due respect, I can't take that comment seriously. Ask Novak if he'd rather have the titles Nadal won in 2013 or the super prestigious ITF award.

FACT: Nadal was the best player in the world in 2013 because he won the most slams, the most masters 1000 events, and finished the year as the world number 1... Your counter-argument to this not being a fact is...ITF? Yeah Ok.

And please, can we please stop with the "you think your opinion is fact" argument. It is the laziest cop out out there. Just because I don't preface every sentence with "In my opinion" doesn't mean I'm presenting my opinion as fact. If I come off as assertive it's because i believe what I'm saying to be true...which, guess what, everyone else does (ie they believe what they're saying is true, not what I'm saying). Have you ever encountered anyone who has an opinion they believe to be wrong?

The only time I present my opinion to be a fact is the when I say the word "fact." So here I go again:

FACT: Rafael Nadal was the best player in the world in 2013. By any standard imaginable. You calling that an opinion is just...an opinion

Now it's more debatable whether he was the best hard court player, but I believe he was, which means I believe it's a fact. The difference is, EVERYONE believes him being the best player in general in 2013 is a fact. And yes, everyone...except the ITF.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Well again, I've already said that I'd give Rafa the edge, but only slight and I think there's an argument that Novak was his equal in 2013.

There is an an argument that Novak was his equal...it's just, a very weak argument. Because it somehow ignores that 2 slams > 1. 3 Masters 1000 events > 2 and world number 1 ranking = best player in the year. That's how it works.