Laver: Djokovic is now Federer's equal

[Front242]

How can he be Federer's equal beating lame competition and when his biggest rival is almost 35? Tell that to the numpties over on tennis.com though and they think you're full of $h1t lol. A lot of delusional people out there. The last 2 years have been extremely weak overall with Murray and Nadal barely able to beat Novak and Federer too old to do it outside best of 3.

How can Federer be the best player ever beating lame competition? 2004-2006 were extremely weak years.

We've gone over this already. 2014-present is even worse, genius.

 

[Haelfix]

How can Federer be the best player ever beating lame competition? 2004-2006 were extremely weak years.

2004 was probably one of the strongest years in the past 15 years competition wise, so that is definitely not correct. 2005 was an average year, 2006 was a weak year.

2014-now have been weak years.

The biggest problem I have with putting Djokovic up with Federer is that when Federer was at the tail end of his prime, he was consistently beating early prime Novak (2008-2010) and beat him on several occasions as a post prime player and definitely played him extremely close in many others (Wimbledon, RG etc). Meanwhile when they played in Rogers absolute prime, it was similar to what we have now.

Meanwhile court conditions have continued to be slowed down, favoring Novaks game and one might wonder how things would go on a more equitable surface in many cases.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Read all about it here.

Because we haven't discussed the GOAT thing enough

I think sometimes these people are paid to say silly and/or controversial things to keep the topic alive.

 

[lob]

Meanwhile court conditions have continued to be slowed down, favoring Novaks game and one might wonder how things would go on a more equitable surface in many cases.

^This. The constant changing of surfaces to four very different surfaces four times in the same year is a great leveler. Even then..

ATP tennis is not an experiment with a control group to draw clear cut conclusions. We are susceptible to any number of fallacies when interpret past results. Hindsight bias is almost a given. We tend to forget the role of numerous other factors and chance that led to what happened. Try predicting the next three slam winners. The results may almost overhaul our relative perceptions of greatness but if greatness is so clear cut in determining results, lets see how confidently we can predict the winners of RG16,W16, USO16.

There are any number of other fallacies that interfere with clear interpretation of the the past. Illusion of Control. Availability Bias. Alternative Paths. Conjunction Fallacy. etc. etc.

 

[Obsi]

2014-present is even worse, genius.

2011-2016 have been stronger years than 2004-2009, idiot.

2004 was probably one of the strongest years in the past 15 years competition wise, so that is definitely not correct. 2005 was an average year, 2006 was a weak year.

2014-now have been weak years.

The biggest problem I have with putting Djokovic up with Federer is that when Federer was at the tail end of his prime, he was consistently beating early prime Novak (2008-2010) and beat him on several occasions as a post prime player and definitely played him extremely close in many others (Wimbledon, RG etc). Meanwhile when they played in Rogers absolute prime, it was similar to what we have now.

Meanwhile court conditions have continued to be slowed down, favoring Novaks game and one might wonder how things would go on a more equitable surface in many cases.

2004 one of the strongest years in the past 15 years competition wise? Are you serious? 2004-2006 are one of the weakest years in the Open Era.

The biggest problem I have with saying Federer is the best ever is that when he dominated he had a negative H2H agianst his main rival. If you look at Novak Djokovic, Rod Laver, Bill Tilden, Pancho Gonzales, Pete Sampras, Bjorn Borg they all had, during domination, positive H2H agianst their main rival.

 

[nehmeth]

If Laver were a hater, then maybe there'd be less credence to what he's saying. He was there at the Australian Open this year asking Cahill if he thought Fed had a chance against Novak... hopeful that Fed would win. Cahill was hesitant to disappoint him. Rocket has always loved Roger's game.

Neither is he like a Wilander or McEnroe, or some other former great that's known for gushing about each new thing that comes to tennis.

Finally, the guy knows the sport better than any of us ever will. What he's observed is filtered through over a half a century of seeing all of the greats play in each era. To write him off as having an addled brain at 77 isn't just silly; it's stupid.

You can give all the reasons and stats you like. It won't diminish Rod Laver's opinion.

 

[El Dude]

I agree, nehmeth.

We should also be clear about what he actually said:

"I don't think you put one of those two above the other when you look at their performances,"

You know what Roger's record is. But the way that Djokovic has been playing over the last year or so, I would say that Djokovic and Federer are equals.

"When you look at Djokovic's performances and his results, you just have to say, 'Hey, this guy's unbelievable, and how can you look past him when discussing who is the best ever?'"

The article title is actually a bit misleading. What he actually seems to be saying is that Novak is now in the same territory, a candidate for the best ever. I think he's emphasizing Novak's performance over "the last year or so," which in my mind is a greater span than Roger ever had - and I've put forth numbers to support that notion.

Right now Roger still has a significantly better career resume. In fact, his career resume is better than anyone except for perhaps Laver and Rosewall. But in terms of peak dominance, Novak is probably his equal.

 

[nehmeth]

I agree, nehmeth.

We should also be clear about what he actually said:

"I don't think you put one of those two above the other when you look at their performances,"

You know what Roger's record is. But the way that Djokovic has been playing over the last year or so, I would say that Djokovic and Federer are equals.

"When you look at Djokovic's performances and his results, you just have to say, 'Hey, this guy's unbelievable, and how can you look past him when discussing who is the best ever?'"

The article title is actually a bit misleading. What he actually seems to be saying is that Novak is now in the same territory, a candidate for the best ever. I think he's emphasizing Novak's performance over "the last year or so," which in my mind is a greater span than Roger ever had - and I've put forth numbers to support that notion.

Right now Roger still has a significantly better career resume. In fact, his career resume is better than anyone except for perhaps Laver and Rosewall. But in terms of peak dominance, Novak is probably his equal.

Same things I gleaned from the article. It's the level of play, not the career achievement. Heck, at the end of it, the Rocket is still holding out hope for Roger to get another slam.

The title? I guess it had the desired result in getting people to notice. :s

 

[Front242]

2014-present is even worse, genius.

2011-2016 have been stronger years than 2004-2009, idiot.

Nice to be greeted with idiot when you get home but no matter how many times you type this crap, no one believes you so I dunno why you even bother. Haelfix spelled it out perfectly for you as to how Djokovic cannot possibly be considered better than Federer. Btw, as I've already posted I actually like Djokovic but tools like you give his fan base such a bad name that I actually hope he loses a lot this year just so you stfu. The last 2 years Nadal and Murray have won 2 matches between them against Djokovic out of 24 matches played. 1 of the last 11 won by Nadal and 1 of the last 13 by Murray. That's laughable and even more laughable that you think this is a strong era. Couple that with a totally inconsistent top 10 who can't challenge for slams besides Stan Wawrinka 2 matches in every decade and 34 year old Roger Federer who incidentally even at his age is still your supposed GOAT's biggest rival. Some strong era for sure. Keep smoking the good stuff

http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=4720&pid=229144#pid229144

2004 was probably one of the strongest years in the past 15 years competition wise, so that is definitely not correct. 2005 was an average year, 2006 was a weak year.

2014-now have been weak years.

The biggest problem I have with putting Djokovic up with Federer is that when Federer was at the tail end of his prime, he was consistently beating early prime Novak (2008-2010) and beat him on several occasions as a post prime player and definitely played him extremely close in many others (Wimbledon, RG etc). Meanwhile when they played in Rogers absolute prime, it was similar to what we have now.

Meanwhile court conditions have continued to be slowed down, favoring Novaks game and one might wonder how things would go on a more equitable surface in many cases.

2004 one of the strongest years in the past 15 years competition wise? Are you serious? 2004-2006 are one of the weakest years in the Open Era.

Yes, he's serious and he's right and no one cares how many times you keep telling us the opposite. El Dude also said the same thing and he's the master stats expert here

The biggest problem I have with saying Federer is the best ever is that when he dominated he had a negative H2H agianst his main rival. If you look at Novak Djokovic, Rod Laver, Bill Tilden, Pancho Gonzales, Pete Sampras, Bjorn Borg they all had, during domination, positive H2H agianst their main rival.

You play the field and not one player. Hope you realize Djokovic has only recently been ahead of Nadal in the h2h since Nadal has seriously declined but Nadal was well ahead of him in his prime years. Your GOAT has also had a losing h2h against Federer until the latter turned 34. Impressive. But not for Djokovic but the 34 year old to still be challenging and beating your GOAT years past his prime and not long from retirement. Oh and Andy Roddick finished with a winning h2h over your GOAT too. Not too bad for a guy from a "weak era" and it took till injuries crept in and near retirement when he was a pale imitation of his prime self before your GOAT managed to start beating him properly.

 

[Obsi]

Nice to be greeted with idiot when you get home but no matter how many times you type this crap, no one believes you so I dunno why you even bother. Haelfix spelled it out perfectly for you as to how Djokovic cannot possibly be considered better than Federer.

What an idiot you are. Have you read the title of this thread? Rod Laver has said Djokovic is now Federer's equal. ROD LAVER.

Btw, as I've already posted I actually like Djokovic but tools like you give his fan base such a bad name that I actually hope he loses a lot this year just so you stfu.

I give bad name to Djokovic's fan base because I say the same thing as legends like Laver. You are really empty-headed.

That's laughable and even more laughable that you think this is a strong era.

I say 2011-2016 is a stronger era than 2004-2009.

Yes, he's serious and he's right and no one cares how many times you keep telling us the opposite. El Dude also said the same thing and he's the master stats expert here

I quote exactly what El Dude stated:

"2004 (quite weak)"

Here is the link http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=4699&pid=227159#pid227159

You play the field and not one player. Hope you realize Djokovic has only recently been ahead of Nadal in the h2h since Nadal has seriously declined but Nadal was well ahead of him in his prime years.

Djokovic had health problems due to gluten intolerance until 2010.

Your GOAT has also had a losing h2h against Federer until the latter turned 34. Impressive. But not for Djokovic but the 34 year old to still be challenging and beating your GOAT years past his prime and not long from retirement.

Ken Rosewall was challenging and beating Laver years past his prime. Rosewall was winning slams at age 34 and even 37.

Oh and Andy Roddick finished with a winning h2h over your GOAT too. Not too bad for a guy from a "weak era" and it took till injuries crept in and near retirement when he was a pale imitation of his prime self before your GOAT managed to start beating him properly.

Roddick never beat peak Djokovic.

 

[Fiero425]

Children please! This is a public forum; not your personal space! Take it outside! lol! :nono :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Riotbeard]

Children please! This is a public forum; not your personal space! Take it outside! lol! :nono :angel: :dodgy:

Thanks Fiero! This debate makes me :gross:

 

[nehmeth]

Children please! This is a public forum; not your personal space! Take it outside! lol! :nono :angel: :dodgy:

Says the tyke who can't manage a post without adding at least 5 emoticons.

 

[Front242]

Nice to be greeted with idiot when you get home but no matter how many times you type this crap, no one believes you so I dunno why you even bother. Haelfix spelled it out perfectly for you as to how Djokovic cannot possibly be considered better than Federer.

What an idiot you are. Have you read the title of this thread? Rod Laver has said Djokovic is now Federer's equal. ROD LAVER.

I'm well aware it was Laver who said it clown face but you backing up his stupid claim makes you just as senile as he is. Get it now? It's not that hard to grasp.

Btw, as I've already posted I actually like Djokovic but tools like you give his fan base such a bad name that I actually hope he loses a lot this year just so you stfu.

I give bad name to Djokovic's fan base because I say the same thing as legends like Laver. You are really empty-headed.

No, not because of this but your tone in all your posts.

That's laughable and even more laughable that you think this is a strong era.

I say 2011-2016 is a stronger era than 2004-2009.

Yes, he's serious and he's right and no one cares how many times you keep telling us the opposite. El Dude also said the same thing and he's the master stats expert here

I quote exactly what El Dude stated:

"2004 (quite weak)"

Here is the link http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=4699&pid=227159#pid227159

You've just out clowned yourself, genius. Your post above shows a span of 2004-2009 not just 2004. Anyway, 2004 was in no way weaker than 2014-2016 and was probably stronger. El Dude's "quite weak" referred to 2004 only. Learn to read properly.

You play the field and not one player. Hope you realize Djokovic has only recently been ahead of Nadal in the h2h since Nadal has seriously declined but Nadal was well ahead of him in his prime years.

Djokovic had health problems due to gluten intolerance until 2010.

That's most hilarious bs I've ever heard in my life and we all know it was NOT some miracle change in diet that turned him into Superman literally overnight from late 2010 to 2011. You've just shown the whole forum how naive you really are. CVAC machine ring any bells?

Your GOAT has also had a losing h2h against Federer until the latter turned 34. Impressive. But not for Djokovic but the 34 year old to still be challenging and beating your GOAT years past his prime and not long from retirement.

Ken Rosewall was challenging and beating Laver years past his prime. Rosewall was winning slams at age 34 and even 37.

Good for him, doesn't change what I said about Djokovic though. Plus, he played with a wooden racket and not against guys getting fake cardio from a machine claimed to be twice as effective as illegal blood doping. Back in Rosewall and Laver's day people actually had to train properly in the gym and run to get fit.

Oh and Andy Roddick finished with a winning h2h over your GOAT too. Not too bad for a guy from a "weak era" and it took till injuries crept in and near retirement when he was a pale imitation of his prime self before your GOAT managed to start beating him properly.

Roddick never beat peak Djokovic.

Djokovic hardly ever beat peak Roddick. A whopping 2 times, once in 2007 and once in 2008. Those were not Roddick's peak years and Roddick then beat Djokovic 4 straight times. Due to age differences you will rarely get cases where one player's peak coincides with another's. It's not rocket science. Djokovic was good enough to win a slam in 2008 so (A) your nonsense about health problems is complete and utter bs and (B) if he's good enough to win a slam then you can't really defend Roddick beating him 4 straight times.

 

[Fiero425]

 

[El Dude]

Just to clarify, the statements I made were based on very preliminary findings. I promise to do a more extensive study on "Weak Era Theory" soon. But please don't take those statements to be some kind of definitive stance on the issue. For instance, if you look at the top 10 in 2004, it was actually relatively strong with an interesting array of talents:

1. Federer
2. Roddick
3. Hewitt
4. Safin
5. Moya
6. Henman
7. Coria
8. Agassi
9. Nalbandian
10. Gaudio

My initial assessment of 2004 as "weak" was based on a limited methodology. With more research I may support that assessment, but just looking at that group, I don't see a weak year. Seems stronger than the few years before, and overall moderate, but not as strong as, say, 2007-10.

 

[Obsi]

I'm well aware it was Laver who said it clown face but you backing up his stupid claim makes you just as senile as he is. Get it now? It's not that hard to grasp.

Idiot, you're giving Federer fans a bad name with your attitude towards Rod Laver. He is a greater tennis expert than anyone here.

No, not because of this but your tone in all your posts.

What do you mean by "tone"?

You've just out clowned yourself, genius. Your post above shows a span of 2004-2009 not just 2004. Anyway, 2004 was in no way weaker than 2014-2016 and was probably stronger. El Dude's "quite weak" referred to 2004 only. Learn to read properly.

Idiot, we are discussing about Haefilx's claim that 2004 is one of the strongest years in the last 15 years.

That's most hilarious bs I've ever heard in my life and we all know it was NOT some miracle change in diet that turned him into Superman literally overnight from late 2010 to 2011. You've just shown the whole forum how naive you really are. CVAC machine ring any bells?

You've just shown the whole forum what a fool you are. How many people believe you that Djokovic's success since 2011 has been due to CVAC machine?

Good for him, doesn't change what I said about Djokovic though. Plus, he played with a wooden racket and not against guys getting fake cardio from a machine claimed to be twice as effective as illegal blood doping. Back in Rosewall and Laver's day people actually had to train properly in the gym and run to get fit.

How do you explain that Federer has not won a slam since he turned 31 unlike Rosewall who won 4 slams since he turned 31 (problably would have won more if Open Era had started in 1966). How do you explain that?

Djokovic hardly ever beat peak Roddick. A whopping 2 times, once in 2007 and once in 2008. Those were not Roddick's peak years and Roddick then beat Djokovic 4 straight times. Due to age differences you will rarely get cases where one player's peak coincides with another's. It's not rocket science. Djokovic was good enough to win a slam in 2008 so (A) your nonsense about health problems is complete and utter bs and (B) if he's good enough to win a slam then you can't really defend Roddick beating him 4 straight times.

1. The fact that Djokovic won a slam in 2008 does not mean he did not have health problems before 2011.
2. Every reasonable person understands that peak Djokovic is a better player than peak Roddick.