Most complete player ever - Djokovic or Federer

[britbox]

@mikeone - I don't think Fed played particularly well in the Wimbledon final.  Great semi admittedly.  I thought he was far more competitive in the US Open Final.

 

[MikeOne]

<cite>@brokenshoelace said:</cite>
I absolutely HAVE made this argument and stand by it. Nadal looked pretty shaky on clay in 2009 and I was saying it the whole time that year even before he lost to Soderling. People who were on tennis.com at the time remember that, including huntingyou, who argued with me about this. Then, in 2010, while he was great on clay, and that's undeniable (I mean, he dropped 2 sets the entire clay court season), it wasn't his 2008 level. He didn't move as well, and that's my main point of contention. Nadal's movement regressed post his 2009 injury. That's a fact. As a result, he had to adjust his game. That helped him immensely on hards, but hurt him on clay. Of course, he was so freaking good on clay that it didn't matter, but year after year, you could see the dominance ever so slightly fading.

I never said he'd have a better chance vs. Novak off clay though. That's silly. My point of contention in fact, was always that Djokovic needs to be absolutely perfect against Nadal on clay, and if he is, this makes it incredibly tough for Nadal to dictate, whereas on other surfaces he could at least use his serve to get cheap points and set-up 1-2 punches. However, I maintained that anything other than perfection from Djokovic (on clay) and Nadal wins. Simple as that.

Djokovic doesn't have to be perfect to beat Nadal, just play well. It's a matchup issue, period. Again, Djokovic always gave Nadal problems, even on clay and during 05-09. What's undeniable though, is that Djokovic wasn't physically as strong as he is today and physically Nadal always had an advantage, mentally too. Once Djokovic becomes stronger mentally and physically, it became purely about their games and this is problematic for Nadal.At their very very best, it's very very difficult for Nadal to find effective patterns against a guy who runs everything down, can play for 6 hours at a high level, take the ball early and dictate most points, consistently. Uncle Toni himself has said that he knew Djokovic was going to be a problem for Nadal, even when Djokovic was very young. Nobody knows Nadal's game better than Uncle Toni.

as far Nadal being better during 05-08, it's a myth. Let me remind you that Nadal wasn't destroying everyone as you imply back then. During 06, he needed 4 sets to beat Hewitt and Mathiew at FO? really? we all know Djokovic is WORLDS better than both of these guys. I totally see 2011 or 2015 Novak beating 06 Nadal on clay.  In 06, Moya took a set off at Rome and Roger almost beat him in finals, it was 5 sets. Jarko Neiminen took a set off Nadal at Barcelona! In 07, Nadal got destroyed by Federer in finals of Hamburg, 6-1, 6-0 after he won first set. In semis, Hewitt gave him all he could handle, a tough 3 setter. That very same year, Davydenko gave Nadal a titanic match at Rome masters, 7-6 in 3rd. In 08, he had that an amazing run at FO but at Hamburg, struggled vs Federer and Djokovic. At Rome, he got dusted by Ferrero in 1st round (blames blisters) and at Barcelona, had a 3 setter vs Ferrer.

What's my point? that looking back at 05-08 Nadal on clay tells a story of a player who was dominant on clay but being challenged by significantly lesser players than 11-15 Djokovic. Level-wise, none of these guys could match the level Djokovic has reached in past 5 years.

Nadal's best years were 08 onwards, he was simply better than he was between 05-7.

 

[MikeOne]

<cite>@britbox said:</cite>
@mikeone - I don't think Fed played particularly well in the Wimbledon final.  Great semi admittedly.  I thought he was far more competitive in the US Open Final.

ok, so he played brilliant tennis in semis of both Wimbledon and USO but loses in finals? What was the common denominator?

Becker and Edberg had insightful comments on the Wimbledon final. Tennis is a very mental sport and an opponent has a significant impact on your level, as we all know. When Becker was asked at how scary Federer looked vs Murray, he stated that yes, Federer looked unbelievable but that he had seen Murray play better so he wasn't that worried for finals. Edberg, after the match, agreed with interviewer that Federer didn't play badly. He said that Novak just got a lot of returns back and served very well, this had an effect on Federer. McEnroe brothers had a good analysis post match, that Djokovic isn't Murray and that was the major difference. Some may think it's on the server's hand but Djokovic is difficult to ace and a better returner than Murray, it had an effect.

I have no doubt that Federer would've steamrolled anyone else in that final but Novak was very tough. People forget how well he served... and returned.

 

[britbox]

Obviously the Djoker was the common denominator and I'm not one who ever bought into the "well he played that well on Friday, why couldn't he play that well on Sunday" argument because it's a different player, different day, different baggage. No arguments on that from me.

Still, I thought he brought close to his A game for large parts of the USO... whereas I thought he was flat at Wimbledon.  Sure, a lot rests with the opponents, but I didn't think Djokovic was playing out of his mind at Wimbey either....

Djokovic is so solid from both wings and forces the top guys to take risks they don't necessarily need to take against anyone else.  Right now he is as solid as rock.  Not unbeatable, but a very very tough out.  Federer isn't going to hit through Novak like a redlining Wawrinka, so he basically needs to execute almost flawlessly on the big points if he's going to win over 5.

 

[MikeOne]

<cite>@britbox said:</cite>
Obviously the Djoker was the common denominator and I'm not one who ever bought into the "well he played that well on Friday, why couldn't he play that well on Sunday" argument because it's a different player, different day, different baggage. No arguments on that from me.

Still, I thought he brought close to his A game for large parts of the USO... whereas I thought he was flat at Wimbledon.  Sure, a lot rests with the opponents, but I didn't think Djokovic was playing out of his mind at Wimbey either....

Djokovic is so solid from both wings and forces the top guys to take risks they don't necessarily need to take against anyone else.  Right now he is as solid as rock.  Not unbeatable, but a very very tough out.  Federer isn't going to hit through Novak like a redlining Wawrinka, so he basically needs to execute almost flawlessly on the big points if he's going to win over 5.

Federer played very well in the first set of Wimbledon but somehow Novak stole the set. This was tough to overcome mentally for Federer, losing a set where he outplayed Novak for most of the set. Roger did win second but i think that first set set the tone that even playing well, he could lose a set. Novak then just got into a groove with his serve and as Fed himself has stated, once Novak sinks his teeth into a match, he's very difficult.

no-one is impossible to beat, even Federer at his best. The way to beat Novak is to hit through him or give him no rhythm. The only guy i have seen who has been capable of hitting through Novak on slow-medium paced surfaces is Wawrinka, no surprise he's beaten Novak on slower surfaces (AO, FO). No-one else can hit through Novak consistently on clay or slow-meduim paced surfaces. On fast surfaces, Federer can disrupt Novak's rhythm and shorten points, this is key. Fed can be effective vs Novak on quick surfaces like Dubai and Cinci but he is fighting an uphill battle on other surfaces.

 

[brokenshoelace]

<cite>@MikeOne said:</cite>
Djokovic doesn't have to be perfect to beat Nadal, just play well. It's a matchup issue, period. Again, Djokovic always gave Nadal problems, even on clay and during 05-09. What's undeniable though, is that Djokovic wasn't physically as strong as he is today and physically Nadal always had an advantage, mentally too. Once Djokovic becomes stronger mentally and physically, it became purely about their games and this is problematic for Nadal.At their very very best, it's very very difficult for Nadal to find effective patterns against a guy who runs everything down, can play for 6 hours at a high level, take the ball early and dictate most points, consistently. Uncle Toni himself has said that he knew Djokovic was going to be a problem for Nadal, even when Djokovic was very young. Nobody knows Nadal's game better than Uncle Toni.

as far Nadal being better during 05-08, it's a myth. Let me remind you that Nadal wasn't destroying everyone as you imply back then. During 06, he needed 4 sets to beat Hewitt and Mathiew at FO? really? we all know Djokovic is WORLDS better than both of these guys. I totally see 2011 or 2015 Novak beating 06 Nadal on clay.  In 06, Moya took a set off at Rome and Roger almost beat him in finals, it was 5 sets. Jarko Neiminen took a set off Nadal at Barcelona! In 07, Nadal got destroyed by Federer in finals of Hamburg, 6-1, 6-0 after he won first set. In semis, Hewitt gave him all he could handle, a tough 3 setter. That very same year, Davydenko gave Nadal a titanic match at Rome masters, 7-6 in 3rd. In 08, he had that an amazing run at FO but at Hamburg, struggled vs Federer and Djokovic. At Rome, he got dusted by Ferrero in 1st round (blames blisters) and at Barcelona, had a 3 setter vs Ferrer.

What's my point? that looking back at 05-08 Nadal on clay tells a story of a player who was dominant on clay but being challenged by significantly lesser players than 11-15 Djokovic. Level-wise, none of these guys could match the level Djokovic has reached in past 5 years.

Nadal's best years were 08 onwards, he was simply better than he was between 05-7.

Instances in which Novak played "well" against Nadal on clay:

2008 Hamburg semi. 2009 Monte Carlo final. 2009 Madrid semi. 2013 FO. What do they all have in common?

Now, compare it to instances in which Novak was sublime, such as Madrid and Rome 2011, Monte Carlo 2013, Rome 2014 and you get the point.

Oh, what's that? Novak played just "well" at Monte Carlo and RG this year and won? Maybe that has to do with his washed up opponent? But no, I'm sure it's just a coincidence. Novak, prior to this year, had never beaten Nadal on clay by just playing "well."

 

[MikeOne]

<cite>@brokenshoelace said:</cite>
Instances in which Novak played "well" against Nadal on clay:

2008 Hamburg semi. 2009 Monte Carlo final. 2009 Madrid semi. 2013 FO. What do they all have in common?

Now, compare it to instances in which Novak was sublime, such as Madrid and Rome 2011, Monte Carlo 2013, Rome 2014 and you get the point.

Oh, what's that? Novak played just "well" at Monte Carlo and RG this year and won? Maybe that has to do with his washed up opponent? But no, I'm sure it's just a coincidence. Novak, prior to this year, had never beaten Nadal on clay by just playing "well."

You make it sound like Novak of 11-15 was the same as Novak of 05-09 but just happened to have some hot streaks where he played 'sublime'. In 11, Djokovic played well but he played that well ALL YEAR. Let me remind you he was unbeaten until semis of FO. To make it sound like MC and Rome were just anomalies, is intellectually dishonest.

Here's the deal. Nadal's best years, WITHOUT A DOUBT, are 2008, 2010 and 2013 - NO DISPUTE. This is EVIDENCE that between 08-14 Nadal was playing his best tennis.

It is also indisputable that Novak's best years have been 11-15

So, guess what, we have some overlap here; i.e. between 11-14 both were at their very best... what does H2H tell us, on clay:

2011 - Djokovic straights sets Nadal in MC and Rome

2012 - Nadal beats Djokovic in MC, Rome and FO.

2013 - Djokovic beats Nadal at MC, Nadal barely gets past Novak 9-7 in 5th set at FO

2014 - Novak beats Nadal at Rome, Nadal beats Novak at FO

2015 - Novak beats Nadal at MC and FO

So between 11-15, clay H2H - 6-5 In favor of Djokovic.

Now, i'll be first to admit, in 2015 Nadal was playing ok but struggling with confidence so let's scratch that. So let's focus on 11-14, Nadal 5-4 on clay. This is how i see it going, TOP NADAL vs TOP Djokovic on clay, a slight edge to Nadal. Nadal WAS at his best between 11-14.. In 2011 he was coming off his best year ever; 2013 was one of his best years and he won FO in 12 and 14 as-well, winning Roland every year.

5-4 Nadal is how i see it going on clay, very slight edge to Rafa. The 2013 Roland was also a match which shows what happens when both are at their very best. I don't think Djokovic was at his top level on 12, 14 FO finals, partly due to pressure and partly due to weather events. In 2013, it was a semi-final so i think they played more freely and both were at their top level. Novak was up 4-2, made a catastrophic overhead error but Nadal played extremely well to come back and win 9-7. Nadal became very aggressive and started hitting forehand winner after winner and it was as an impressive display as i had ever seen from Nadal, it took this incredible level to topple Djokovic, at his best.

 

[Billie]

<cite>@britbox said:</cite>
Can't really compare the WTA.  It's basically a different sport in my opinion.

Well I am sorry, it is tennis.  Are you going to tell me that women in tennis are better as they age than men? :scratch:

I hate to break it to you BB, but tennis (both women's and men's) is not a sport where teenagers and youngsters are very successful now, on the contrary.  Look at the people winning matches and tournaments, all close to 30 or over 30, vast majority of them.  Poor youngsters, they don't stand a chance at some big glory until they are at least 22-23.

 

[brokenshoelace]

<cite>@MikeOne said:</cite>
You make it sound like Novak of 11-15 was the same as Novak of 05-09 but just happened to have some hot streaks where he played 'sublime'. In 11, Djokovic played well but he played that well ALL YEAR. Let me remind you he was unbeaten until semis of FO. To make it sound like MC and Rome were just anomalies, is intellectually dishonest.

Here's the deal. Nadal's best years, WITHOUT A DOUBT, are 2008, 2010 and 2013 - NO DISPUTE. This is EVIDENCE that between 08-14 Nadal was playing his best tennis.

It is also indisputable that Novak's best years have been 11-15

So, guess what, we have some overlap here; i.e. between 11-14 both were at their very best... what does H2H tell us, on clay:

2011 - Djokovic straights sets Nadal in MC and Rome

2012 - Nadal beats Djokovic in MC, Rome and FO.

2013 - Djokovic beats Nadal at MC, Nadal barely gets past Novak 9-7 in 5th set at FO

2014 - Novak beats Nadal at Rome, Nadal beats Novak at FO

2015 - Novak beats Nadal at MC and FO

So between 11-15, clay H2H - 6-5 In favor of Djokovic.

Now, i'll be first to admit, in 2015 Nadal was playing ok but struggling with confidence so let's scratch that. So let's focus on 11-14, Nadal 5-4 on clay. This is how i see it going, TOP NADAL vs TOP Djokovic on clay, a slight edge to Nadal. Nadal WAS at his best between 11-14.. In 2011 he was coming off his best year ever; 2013 was one of his best years and he won FO in 12 and 14 as-well, winning Roland every year.

5-4 Nadal is how i see it going on clay, very slight edge to Rafa. The 2013 Roland was also a match which shows what happens when both are at their very best. I don't think Djokovic was at his top level on 12, 14 FO finals, partly due to pressure and partly due to weather events. In 2013, it was a semi-final so i think they played more freely and both were at their top level. Novak was up 4-2, made a catastrophic overhead error but Nadal played extremely well to come back and win 9-7. Nadal became very aggressive and started hitting forehand winner after winner and it was as an impressive display as i had ever seen from Nadal, it took this incredible level to topple Djokovic, at his best.

Just to clarify, Nadal was up a break in the 4th set (2013 RG semi) at 4-3, got broken, then broke again to serve for the match at 5-4, was 30-15 up, then made some uncharacteristic mistakes and a lucky letchord. That match should have been over in 4, but yes, your point about the match on the whole, especially when Novak raised his level in the 5th, stands. I don't think you can just discount their 2008 and 2009 matches on clay though. Was Novak really playing worse in Madrid 2009 than he did in say, Rome 2012? I severely doubt it. I'm not saying Novak was the same player in general in 2009 as he was in 2012, but his level in 2009 clay season had many pretty much calling a Nadal-Djokovic final at the FO a gimme. Funny how that turned out.

 

[brokenshoelace]

<cite>@Billie said:</cite>
Well I am sorry, it is tennis.  Are you going to tell me that women in tennis are better as they age than men? :scratch:

I hate to break it to you BB, but tennis (both women's and men's) is not a sport where teenagers and youngsters are very successful now, on the contrary.  Look at the people winning matches and tournaments, all close to 30 or over 30, vast majority of them.  Poor youngsters, they don't stand a chance at some big glory until they are at least 22-23.

Men's tennis is much more dependent on movement (as evidenced by your boy covering every inch of the court like an alien). In fact, in years in which Fed's movement was noticeably below par (think 2013 for instance), his results were atrocious by his standards. It's no coincidence that when he regained his movement this year, he was able to do much better. Men's tennis is also much more physical and played over potentially 5 sets in majors. These are things that are crucial the older you get.

Meanwhile, Serena can just use her power and serve to bully an underwhelming crop of female players (not doubting that Serena is a supreme athlete and one of the greatest of all time). This would never be possible on the men's tour. Remember Clijsters and Henin taking over a year off and just returning by breezing their way into a major final (a major win in the case of Kim). This would never be possible on the men's tour.

 

[calitennis127]

<cite>@brokenshoelace said:</cite>
You're smarter than this. Never said Djokovic can't or hasn't beaten Nadal on clay when Nadal was perfectly fine. I'm saying clearly, this year, it wasn't the case.

Also, you're smart enough to know that beating Nadal on clay is one thing, and beating him at RG is another. In fact, you made a thread once about why Djokovic may never beat Nadal at RG, despite having beaten him on clay multiple times. Have you not?

So, you're telling me, that Djokovic was able to so routinely do at RG this year what he couldn't do in a million previous tries purely through his own play? Nadal, the 9 time champ, the man who had lost a grand total of one match at RG, couldn't even take a set. You have a whole body of evidence this year, both before and after said loss to suggest Nadal wasn't himself. To act otherwise is insulting.

And remember, all I said in this thread is that Djokovic had never been a favorite against Nadal on clay up until this year, not that he hadn't beaten him. The only time when Djokovic would have been a favorite is if they'd met at RG in 2011. Too bad Djokovic couldn't get past Roger that year.

 

Broken, as I said multiple times on the Tennis Censorship forum, I mean Tennis Frontier (excuse me), I do not think that this year's quarterfinal at the French was as easy for Djokovic as the scoreline would indicate. He was very close to losing that second set, and had he done so, I think it was anyone's match to take at that point, with Nadal having all the momentum no less.

A 3-set loss on paper looks completely one-sided, but that isn't always the case (just look at Nadal's 2011 US Open win over Nalbandian in the third round for a perfect example). The second set was the key to this year's RG quarterfinal, and in 2015 Djokovic won it, unlike in 2014. People have talked about Nadal being so off and so poor this year, and really I just think it is a huge exaggeration. His only losses on clay in the main clay events were to Murray, Wawrinka, and Djokovic. And aside from 2013, he has pretty much always struggled on the summer hardcourt swing. He should not have lost to Lopez, but in his defense Lopez is one of the most irritating players to go up against because of how wicked his lefty serve is. It is tough to find a rhythm against him.

 

 

[Billie]

<cite>@brokenshoelace said:</cite>
Men's tennis is much more dependent on movement (as evidenced by your boy covering every inch of the court like an alien). In fact, in years in which Fed's movement was noticeably below par (think 2013 for instance), his results were atrocious by his standards. It's no coincidence that when he regained his movement this year, he was able to do much better. Men's tennis is also much more physical and played over potentially 5 sets in majors. These are things that are crucial the older you get.

Meanwhile, Serena can just use her power and serve to bully an underwhelming crop of female players (not doubting that Serena is a supreme athlete and one of the greatest of all time). This would never be possible on the men's tour. Remember Clijsters and Henin taking over a year off and just returning by breezing their way into a major final (a major win in the case of Kim). This would never be possible on the men's tour.

So was Nole covering the court better in 2008-2010 when he was younger than now when he is past his prime?    They lose a little bit of ability from past years, but on the other hand they become more savvy, more technically sound and smarter in how they play, otherwise they develop different skills as they age.  How about other tennis players, have you looked at top 10-20 and past that.  We had 2 winners last week both 30 and older.  So how do you explain that?

Yeah, Serena's physical strength reflected in her shots and her serve are her main weapons and reasons why she has dominated so much when she turned 30, while when she was younger she wasn't nearly this dominant.  The fact remains that at her age, she is still #1 and Federer is #2.  Like I said, mature players' game, tennis is now. B-)

 

[brokenshoelace]

<cite>@Billie said:</cite>
So was Nole covering the court better in 2008-2010 when he was younger than now when he is past his prime?    They lose a little bit of ability from past years, but on the other hand they become more savvy, more technically sound and smarter in how they play, otherwise they develop different skills as they age.  How about other tennis players, have you looked at top 10-20 and past that.  We had 2 winners last week both 30 and older.  So how do you explain that?

Yeah, Serena's physical strength reflected in her shots and her serve are her main weapons and reasons why she has dominated so much when she turned 30, while when she was younger she wasn't nearly this dominant.  The fact remains that at her age, she is still #1 and Federer is #2.  Like I said, mature players' game, tennis is now. B-)

Nole was not covering the court better in 2008 than he is now, but I guarantee you he won't cover the court when he's 33 as well as he does now because not a single player in history has been able to do that... That's kinda the whole point.

 

[MikeOne]

<cite>@brokenshoelace said:</cite>
Nole was not covering the court better in 2008 than he is now, but I guarantee you he won't cover the court when he's 33 as well as he does now because not a single player in history has been able to do that... That's kinda the whole point.

33 is young and if Novak remains healthy, he may surprise you. Your argument about history is pointless because nowadays, the prime age has increased. In the past, players seemed to be in their prime in early 20s, now it's late 20s... soon it all be 30ish. Borg retired at 25/26! Becker, at 28, was considered past his prime... etc... Novak is IN HIS PRIME, at 28 and could possibly be moving like today, at 33... depends on motivation, fitness etc..

 

[brokenshoelace]

<cite>@MikeOne said:</cite>
33 is young and if Novak remains healthy, he may surprise you. Your argument about history is pointless because nowadays, the prime age has increased. In the past, players seemed to be in their prime in early 20s, now it's late 20s... soon it all be 30ish. Borg retired at 25/26! Becker, at 28, was considered past his prime... etc... Novak is IN HIS PRIME, at 28 and could possibly be moving like today, at 33... depends on motivation, fitness etc..

Yeah no shit. Still don't see how this refutes that people well into their 30's don't move as well as people in their 20's because nobody in history of tennis has done it. The closest thing is Federer and even he obviously does not move as well as he did in his prime, and went through matches where he moved like garbage.

 

[Billie]

<cite>@brokenshoelace said:</cite>
Yeah no shit. Still don't see how this refutes that people well into their 30's don't move as well as people in their 20's because nobody in history of tennis has done it. The closest thing is Federer and even he obviously does not move as well as he did in his prime, and went through matches where he moved like garbage.

Well this is typical you so no wonder you don't see all the other things, like older players becoming smarter, more skillful, not to mention the mental resolve that best players have over any young, prime good players.

 

You still dodge answering questions to which you don't know answers and just hang on to one thing stubbornly.  Here is the link, go and look at all winners of all ATP tournaments so far and count how many winners are 20-22 years old (hint: you will need fingers  of one hand only).

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/scores/results-archive

So how do you explain overwhelming amount of tournament winners this year that are close to 30 or over 30?  To me it doesn't not make a big difference if they move as well as they were in their early 20ties as long as they are winning.   :scratch:

 

And please don't talk about what Nole might or might not do in few years, you have a poor track record of predicting it. B-)

 

[brokenshoelace]

<cite>@Billie said:</cite>
Well this is typical you so no wonder you don't see all the other things, like older players becoming smarter, more skillful, not to mention the mental resolve that best players have over any young, prime good players.

You still dodge answering questions to which you don't know answers and just hang on to one thing stubbornly.  Here is the link, go and look at all winners of all ATP tournaments so far and count how many winners are 20-22 years old (hint: you will need fingers  of one hand only).

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/scores/results-archive

So how do you explain overwhelming amount of tournament winners this year that are close to 30 or over 30?  To me it doesn't not make a big difference if they move as well as they were in their early 20ties as long as they are winning.   :scratch:

And please don't talk about what Nole might or might not do in few years, you have a poor track record of predicting it. B-)

OK I eagerly await your stat showing the number of Grand Slams on the men's tour won by 30+ players in the past decade. Yes, players can become smarter and more skillful. I'd argue Federer is a tactically much smarter player now than he was 7-8 years ago, and he has added so many tools to his repertoire that he didn't back then. No question. And yet, how many majors has he won since turning 30? How many majors did he win before that? Ahem...

I'm not even sure why you seem insulted by the notion that as your athleticism declines, you suffer. Now, you might be able to compensate in different ways, as Roger has, but on the men's tour (and that's the whole point), this isn't enough, because guys are just such elite movers and have such insane fitness levels, that no matter how close you make it, in key moments, that extra bit of athleticism/youth proves decisive.

Federer, for all his improvements, still comes off second best from the baseline to Nadal/Novak, and he's been coming off second best from the baseline against them since 2008 and 2010 respectively, with the exception of a few matches here and there. More importantly, when matches go deep, they have the stamina and physicality to keep it up.

On the women's tour, this isn't as crucial, at least not with Serena, since movement isn't quite as decisive in match outcomes, and someone with Serena's serve and overwhelming ground strokes can easily compensate for her loss in speed. On the men's tour, this just isn't enough. Nobody, no matter how good you are, is just going to stand in the middle of the baseline and just blast balls left and right as younger, better athletes helplessly chase, and dominate the tour doing that. It's never happened. That is a fact.

I'm not dodging anything. You just refuse to see basic points on this topic because you're biased/emotional about its subjects (Novak and females, in this case). You show me stats about players winning tournaments at 20-22 years of age despite the fact that not once did I bring this up. The whole argument started when you made a post making a comparison to the women's tour, which britbox refuted and you disagreed. I agreed with britbox by stating that a woman dominating in her 30's means little with regards to the men's tour. Note, the argument is about athletes in their 30's. Not 20 or 22. I'm sure you've studied math and understand how to read numbers. I really don't want to be rude so early in the forum's life but you come off firing shots and attacking despite completely missing the point, and have the audacity to be condescending about it when you're missing it by a mile. Again, show me stats about men winning majors and dominating the tour in their 30's.

Could Novak be the first to do it? Right now, he's far better equipped than anyone else especially with the current state of the tour. Does that mean it's likely? In my mind, no it isn't. 33 years of age is 5 years from now. That's a LONG time in tennis. To put it in perspective, 5 years ago, Novak had 1 slam to his credit.

Also I have a poor track record of predicting Novak's career? Hey, I know you dislike me but are any of your accusations towards me ever backed by facts? I predicted even back in 2012-2013 when Nadal "turned his rivalry around with Novak" that Novak will be the one who enjoys far greater success moving forward and will win the lion's share of their matches. I predicted that Novak will be the best player for years to come even back in 2012 after Nadal won the FO. Just because I'm a dick to Djokovic fans does not mean I have any illusions about the player himself. He's one of the most talented players ever and I always held him in the highest regard, despite never taking a liking to him. The TennisFrontier forums are still around, unfortunately, you can look at my history of posting about Novak there. You must have me confused with Herios, who's been predicting Fedal's demise since literally 2008.

To be clear, I expect Novak to dominate for at least 2 more years, and still be very good after that.

 

[brokenshoelace]

By the way, in the interest of fairness, the only thing where I admittedly sold Novak short on was the number of Wimbledon titles I thought he could win as his game on grass didn't convince me early on. I was wrong about that.

What people don't understand however, is that has nothing to do with bias, as even fellow Nadal fans can attest I never thought Nadal could win the US Open. I in fact remember telling Samson in 2010 that if Rafa were to win the US Open (as he was predicting. Then again he predicted Nadal would win every tournament ever), I'd start calling him "Hard Court Warrior." Luckily, Samson forgot about that once Rafa lifted the trophy a couple of months later. And never in my wildest dreams did I imagine Nadal going unbeaten on hard courts for about 4 major tournaments and dominating the summer hards as if it were clay. So yeah, I've been wrong before. Alert the media.

 

[britbox]

Yeah, we've all got a few skeletons in the closet on long term predictions. I thought Nadal would win 8 slams and be cooked at the age of 25. Likewise, I didn't think he could win the US Open either.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I would also like to add that we're not talking about being competitive and winning tournaments here. If Kevin Anderson wins against Djokovic at Wimbledon we would have been talking about Roger being an 18 time champion. So clearly, it is possible to win at an advanced age and it took a phenomenal Djokovic to stop Federer from winning two majors this year. The point is about domination and consistency. And even in the case of the latter, for all of Fed's awesomeness this year, it's like we're conveniently ignoring that he was a non factor on slower surfaces. So for 6 months, he didn't achieve much.