Djokovic Era

[Obsi]

That's far too big an "if" for anyone to take seriously. Can you be a bit more realistic, and accept that most likely Rafa will win 3 majors over the next two seasons, and Nole 2 (max)?

So, who was more realistic?

And who had a sense of humour?

Who is being a sore loser?

Nothing like dredging up old posts and gloating.

It feels soooo damn good to say that famous "I told you so"

If I get my prediction wrong, for me it isn't difficult to say "Well done". Kieran has an ego problem.

 

[Kieran]

Who is being a sore loser?

Who is being a sore winner?

Not that you actually won anything, nor did I lose anything. We both sat on different sofas watching television and feeling the same thing about strangers who don't care for either of us.

If I get my prediction wrong, for me it isn't difficult to say "Well done". Kieran has an ego problem.

You don't actually know me, but I can guess from your posts that you have a sense of humour problem, as in, you're incapable of reading a post and see anything other than a literal meaning. That's why we have smileys - to help you. :cover

I don't mind people coming here to brag, by the way, but be careful: when Novak is on the way down, people will come bragging at you. However, I doubt you'd hang around when that happens...

 

[Obsi]

Who is being a sore loser?

Who is being a sore winner?

Not that you actually won anything, nor did I lose anything. We both sat on different sofas watching television and feeling the same thing about strangers who don't care for either of us.

If I get my prediction wrong, for me it isn't difficult to say "Well done". Kieran has an ego problem.

You don't actually know me, but I can guess from your posts that you have a sense of humour problem, as in, you're incapable of reading a post and see anything other than a literal meaning. That's why we have smileys - to help you. :cover

I don't mind people coming here to brag, by the way, but be careful: when Novak is on the way down, people will come bragging at you. However, I doubt you'd hang around when that happens...

This has nothing to do with sense of humour. It's bullshit. You need to fix your ego.

 

[Kieran]

You need to fix your ego.

(This post was last modified: Today 02:55 pm by Obsi.)

Good man, you fixed your "ago..." :snicker :hug

 

[Obsi]

You need to fix your ego.

(This post was last modified: Today 02:55 pm by Obsi.)

Good man, you fixed your "ago..." :snicker :hug

I underestimated how much butthurt you are.

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

I don't think we have ever seen a Djokovic era, so to speak. What we have seen since US Open 2010 is that Djokovic has been the most consistent player in the period 2010 US Open - 2016 Australian Open. But we have not witnessed an era that has belonged to one player. One can say Roger had an era from 2004 to 2007. But I don't think Djokovic has ever owned an era.

 

[nehmeth]

I don't think we have ever seen a Djokovic era, so to speak. What we have seen since US Open 2010 is that Djokovic has been the most consistent player in the period 2010 US Open - 2016 Australian Open. But we have not witnessed an era that has belonged to one player. One can say Roger had an era from 2004 to 2007. But I don't think Djokovic has ever owned an era.

So for you, in order for there to be an "era" it means one good player winning against a bunch of mediocre players. :nono Obviously, you do not think.

 

[El Dude]

I don't think we have ever seen a Djokovic era, so to speak. What we have seen since US Open 2010 is that Djokovic has been the most consistent player in the period 2010 US Open - 2016 Australian Open. But we have not witnessed an era that has belonged to one player. One can say Roger had an era from 2004 to 2007. But I don't think Djokovic has ever owned an era.

So your argument comes down to semantics. There is no "Djokovic era" using your own criteria for what an "era" is, and you use relatively narrow (although still subjective) criteria: that a player must "own" a time for it to be their era.

But what if we're a bit more flexible? First of all, we can say that Novak definitely owned 2011 and 2015. We can also say that he was the overall most consistent player from 2012-14, finishing #1 in two of the three years and a very close second in the third.

Overall he's won 10 of the last 21 Slams, 4 of the last 5 WTFs, finished #1 four of the last five years, and won 21 of the last 45 Masters, averaging over 8 titles a year.

I'm not sure how much more one could want.

On the other hand, your criteria pretty much limits an "era" to what Roger did in 2004-07, when he won 11 of 16 Slams. But that's a pretty high bar and basically makes the term "era" so narrow as to be pointless.

Perhaps we could, instead, use the term "era" to refer to a great player's best years and period of dominance. Then we could look at different eras, some that overlap:

Roger: 2004-09
Rafa: 2008-13
Novak: 2011-16

Maybe the most meaningful use of the term "era" would be for 2004-16, the Fedalkovic Era.

 

[BIG3]

[/quote]
Overall he's won 10 of the last 21 Slams, 4 of the last 5 WTFs, finished #1 four of the last five years, and won 21 of the last 45 Masters, averaging over 8 titles a year.

I'm not sure how much more one could want.

On the other hand, your criteria pretty much limits an "era" to what Roger did in 2004-07, when he won 11 of 16 Slams. But that's a pretty high bar and basically makes the term "era" so narrow as to be pointless.

Perhaps we could, instead, use the term "era" to refer to a great player's best years and period of dominance. Then we could look at different eras, some that overlap:

Roger: 2004-09
Rafa: 2008-13
Novak: 2011-16

Maybe the most meaningful use of the term "era" would be for 2004-16, the Fedalkovic Era.
[/quote]

Fact won't lie, but sometimes might mask.

Very subjectively, as huge Nole's fan, I admit Nole era is not as dominant as Fed's. In other word, his peak is not as high as Fed. Result wise, they are close. But if we watched the entire MAJORS, we could easily see Fed was HEAD & SHOULDERS against the field, except on RG. However as Nole admitted himself on the AO16, he had roller coaster matches on every major he won. AO11&16 are the only finals without dropping a set. Sitting in front of TV, I just feel Fed's margin at his peak is much bigger than Nole's, though he paid price in some 5-sets classic.

Hypothetically, if another player wins RG consecutively 4-5 times, without dropping a set, not even through single TB all the way, is he more dominant than Rafa? He gets my vote, though Rafa is still well regarded as THE BEST in RG.

If we have to label Nole, I would put COMPLETE and CONSISTENT ahead of DOMINANT. Though Fed and Rafa (on RG) style are more entertaining (again, subjective) and result more convincing, I prefer to watch Nole's match. When all is said and done, trophy wise, Nole has decent shot to catch RAFA or even Fed if all stars align up. His jumping into GOAT debate simply far exceeds my expectation.

 

[Puppet Master]

Overall he's won 10 of the last 21 Slams, 4 of the last 5 WTFs, finished #1 four of the last five years, and won 21 of the last 45 Masters, averaging over 8 titles a year.

I'm not sure how much more one could want.

On the other hand, your criteria pretty much limits an "era" to what Roger did in 2004-07, when he won 11 of 16 Slams. But that's a pretty high bar and basically makes the term "era" so narrow as to be pointless.

Perhaps we could, instead, use the term "era" to refer to a great player's best years and period of dominance. Then we could look at different eras, some that overlap:

Roger: 2004-09
Rafa: 2008-13
Novak: 2011-16

Maybe the most meaningful use of the term "era" would be for 2004-16, the Fedalkovic Era.
[/quote]

Fact won't lie, but sometimes might mask.

Very subjectively, as huge Nole's fan, I admit Nole era is not as dominant as Fed's. In other word, his peak is not as high as Fed. Result wise, they are close. But if we watched the entire MAJORS, we could easily see Fed was HEAD & SHOULDERS against the field, except on RG. However as Nole admitted himself on the AO16, he had roller coaster matches on every major he won. AO11&16 are the only finals without dropping a set. Sitting in front of TV, I just feel Fed's margin at his peak is much bigger than Nole's, though he paid price in some 5-sets classic.

Hypothetically, if another player wins RG consecutively 4-5 times, without dropping a set, not even through single TB all the way, is he more dominant than Rafa? He gets my vote, though Rafa is still well regarded as THE BEST in RG.

If we have to label Nole, I would put COMPLETE and CONSISTENT ahead of DOMINANT. Though Fed and Rafa (on RG) style are more entertaining (again, subjective) and result more convincing, I prefer to watch Nole's match. When all is said and done, trophy wise, Nole has decent shot to catch RAFA or even Fed if all stars align up. His jumping into GOAT debate simply far exceeds my expectation.
[/quote]

People like you are truly lovely (don't take this the wrong way lol).
This phenomenon happens once every million posts, that a poster objectively analyses a situation and says the facts as they are without sugar-coating them. Well done. :clap
But you say 2016 like he just retired... Your boy is as strong as ever... God damn you

 

[BIG3]

Overall he's won 10 of the last 21 Slams, 4 of the last 5 WTFs, finished #1 four of the last five years, and won 21 of the last 45 Masters, averaging over 8 titles a year.

I'm not sure how much more one could want.

On the other hand, your criteria pretty much limits an "era" to what Roger did in 2004-07, when he won 11 of 16 Slams. But that's a pretty high bar and basically makes the term "era" so narrow as to be pointless.

Perhaps we could, instead, use the term "era" to refer to a great player's best years and period of dominance. Then we could look at different eras, some that overlap:

Roger: 2004-09
Rafa: 2008-13
Novak: 2011-16

Maybe the most meaningful use of the term "era" would be for 2004-16, the Fedalkovic Era.

Fact won't lie, but sometimes might mask.

Very subjectively, as huge Nole's fan, I admit Nole era is not as dominant as Fed's. In other word, his peak is not as high as Fed. Result wise, they are close. But if we watched the entire MAJORS, we could easily see Fed was HEAD & SHOULDERS against the field, except on RG. However as Nole admitted himself on the AO16, he had roller coaster matches on every major he won. AO11&16 are the only finals without dropping a set. Sitting in front of TV, I just feel Fed's margin at his peak is much bigger than Nole's, though he paid price in some 5-sets classic.

Hypothetically, if another player wins RG consecutively 4-5 times, without dropping a set, not even through single TB all the way, is he more dominant than Rafa? He gets my vote, though Rafa is still well regarded as THE BEST in RG.

If we have to label Nole, I would put COMPLETE and CONSISTENT ahead of DOMINANT. Though Fed and Rafa (on RG) style are more entertaining (again, subjective) and result more convincing, I prefer to watch Nole's match. When all is said and done, trophy wise, Nole has decent shot to catch RAFA or even Fed if all stars align up. His jumping into GOAT debate simply far exceeds my expectation.
[/quote]

People like you are truly lovely (don't take this the wrong way lol).
This phenomenon happens once every million posts, that a poster objectively analyses a situation and says the facts as they are without sugar-coating them. Well done. :clap
But you say 2016 like he just retired... Your boy is as strong as ever... God damn you
[/quote]

:snicker:snicker
TENNIS is bigger than player, right?

 

[El Dude]

Fact won't lie, but sometimes might mask.

Very subjectively, as huge Nole's fan, I admit Nole era is not as dominant as Fed's. In other word, his peak is not as high as Fed. Result wise, they are close. But if we watched the entire MAJORS, we could easily see Fed was HEAD & SHOULDERS against the field, except on RG. However as Nole admitted himself on the AO16, he had roller coaster matches on every major he won. AO11&16 are the only finals without dropping a set. Sitting in front of TV, I just feel Fed's margin at his peak is much bigger than Nole's, though he paid price in some 5-sets classic.

Hypothetically, if another player wins RG consecutively 4-5 times, without dropping a set, not even through single TB all the way, is he more dominant than Rafa? He gets my vote, though Rafa is still well regarded as THE BEST in RG.

If we have to label Nole, I would put COMPLETE and CONSISTENT ahead of DOMINANT. Though Fed and Rafa (on RG) style are more entertaining (again, subjective) and result more convincing, I prefer to watch Nole's match. When all is said and done, trophy wise, Nole has decent shot to catch RAFA or even Fed if all stars align up. His jumping into GOAT debate simply far exceeds my expectation.

Great post, and I don't disagree with a single word of it. Like you, I try to be objective about my favorite player--Roger--and sometimes overshoot a bit and under-sell him. But I agree that Roger was more dominant relative to the field during his peak, but also consider that Roger didn't have a peer that was his equal like Novak and Rafa have of each other. I think of players like Becker and Edberg who "only" won 6 Slams each, but peaked during the most competitive years of the Open Era, when tons of greats were at or near their peaks.

The bottom line is that all three of the today's greats each have an interesting and unique narrative, and can be appreciated without needing to compare them to the others.

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

Let me make my stand clear.

What I mean by an era is "A period that is dominated by a single player". One example for my definition of an era is what Roger did in 2004-2007 period. I think there would be a good possibility of Rod Laver making an era had he not been disallowed in the period 1963-1968. Let me also make it clear that I don't give more credit to "owning" an era than I do to being the supreme player for a period of 4/5 years in an era which has a lot of competitive players. I am treating my concept of an "era" as an artifact that will help me give a rank to a player in the list of all the all time great players. There has to be a theory to evaluate Roger's 2004-2007 period so as to give him a reasonable rank in the list of all time greats.

 

[El Dude]

Yes, I hear you, shivashish. But again, you are narrowing "era" so that it only really applies to Federer, because he's the only player that has dominated like that, at least during the Open Era and for several years in a row. Other players have had dominant years, or periods in which they had dominant years or were the most dominant player in the sport, but no one--in the Open Era, at least--has dominated like Roger did for those four years.

By the way, Laver did actually dominate the 60s--he was just dominating the professional tour, and the Pro Slams. From 1964-67, Laver won 8 of 12 Pro Slams, and all three in 1967. Note that during those years, most of the very best players were on the pro tour.

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

What Djokovic has been doing since Jan 2011 is special in its own way. Its unbelievable that after 2013 which was dominated by Rafa, Djokovic had two good seasons, viz. 2014 and 2015. He has already won a grand slam in Australian Open 2016. He has been consistent for so long.

 

[nehmeth]

What Djokovic has been doing since Jan 2011 is special in its own way. Its unbelievable that after 2013 which was dominated by Rafa, Djokovic had two good seasons, viz. 2014 and 2015. He has already won a grand slam in Australian Open 2016. He has been consistent for so long.

2015 was a "good" season. :lolz::laydownlaughing


....it was one of the best seasons ever.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Who is being a sore loser?

Who is being a sore winner?

Not that you actually won anything, nor did I lose anything. We both sat on different sofas watching television and feeling the same thing about strangers who don't care for either of us.

If I get my prediction wrong, for me it isn't difficult to say "Well done". Kieran has an ego problem.

You don't actually know me, but I can guess from your posts that you have a sense of humour problem, as in, you're incapable of reading a post and see anything other than a literal meaning. That's why we have smileys - to help you. :cover

I don't mind people coming here to brag, by the way, but be careful: when Novak is on the way down, people will come bragging at you. However, I doubt you'd hang around when that happens...

This has nothing to do with sense of humour. It's B.S.. You need to fix your ego.

Never been a fan of the 2 nd and 19th letters of the alphabet:nono