Novak's Place Among the All-Time Greats

[Riotbeard]

^ I can see that. But before Jo he did beat Roger in his prime in 2008. Same in 2011 at the US Open. Murray is still better than Federer's entire list with the exception of Safin, Nadal, and Agassi who was well on his way out.
So basically Novak wins this 7 - 2.

I don't buy that Roddick or Hewitt were nobodies, but I think the point should be taken, any claim to Novak having weak competition are relatively new. A lot of those wins came the hard way, and not all of Fed's prime wins were against all-time great by any stretch. I would say the three Rafa wins to Fed's one is pretty telling. That being said, I would say geriatric Fed is still pretty stiff competition at least on par with or better than a number of Fed's opponents. Point being, Nobody gets to as many slams as Fed, Rafa, or Nole without getting some figurative walkover and beating some really good players.

 

[nehmeth]

^ So can we expect him to send some pics to Djokovic's wife?

uzzled

:cover

You know, I was going to write "except for sending pictures", but I just didn't think you would go there.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Just take a look who for example "challenge" Fed for his first 10 slams

Federer first 10 slam wins:

Philippoussis 
Marat Safin 
Andy Roddick 
Lleyton Hewitt 
Andy Roddick 
Andre Agassi 
Marcos Baghdatis 
Rafael Nadal 
Andy Roddick 
Fernando González 

Djokovic first 10 slam wins:

Jo-Wilfried Tsonga 
Andy Murray 
Rafael Nadal 
Rafael Nadal 
Rafael Nadal 
Andy Murray 
Roger Federer 
Andy Murray 
Roger Federer 
Roger Federer 

This list actually shows a lot about "weak eras"

Same faulty logic again. "Roger is really not that great, but when other's beat him, he is the greatest!" Not buying it

 

[Denis]

^ I think it's more that their career trajectories are somewhat the opposite. Federer had it relatively easy at the beginning of his career, Novak might have it a bit easier at the end of his career.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

^ I think it's more that their career trajectories are somewhat the opposite. Federer had it relatively easy at the beginning of his career, Novak might have it a bit easier at the end of his career.

I just do not believe anyone ever has it easy to win a slam. And just showing who someone beat in the final is not the full story either. You beat 7 professional tennis players on your way. Anyone at any time can catch fire. If Roger's path was so easy, why was he the only one winning those slams? Anyone could have done it, right? But no, only Roger did it.

Even one slam wonders deserve respect.

 

[Denis]

^ I think it's more that their career trajectories are somewhat the opposite. Federer had it relatively easy at the beginning of his career, Novak might have it a bit easier at the end of his career.

I just do not believe anyone ever has it easy to win a slam. And just showing who someone beat in the final is not the full story either. You beat 7 professional tennis players on your way. Anyone at any time can catch fire. If Roger's path was so easy, why was he the only one winning those slams? Anyone could have done it, right? But no, only Roger did it.

Even one slam wonders deserve respect.

Surely, I wouldn't want to imply that they don't. I do think it is harder to beat Rafa in 2008 at the French than Gaudio in 2004. Relatively speaking I would say that some slams might have been more difficult to win than others.

 

[Mile]

^ I think it's more that their career trajectories are somewhat the opposite. Federer had it relatively easy at the beginning of his career, Novak might have it a bit easier at the end of his career.

I just do not believe anyone ever has it easy to win a slam. And just showing who someone beat in the final is not the full story either. You beat 7 professional tennis players on your way. Anyone at any time can catch fire. If Roger's path was so easy, why was he the only one winning those slams? Anyone could have done it, right? But no, only Roger did it.

Even one slam wonders deserve respect.

C'mon, Cilic ?

 

[dante1976]

Just take a look who for example "challenge" Fed for his first 10 slams

Federer first 10 slam wins:

Philippoussis 
Marat Safin 
Andy Roddick 
Lleyton Hewitt 
Andy Roddick 
Andre Agassi 
Marcos Baghdatis 
Rafael Nadal 
Andy Roddick 
Fernando González 

Djokovic first 10 slam wins:

Jo-Wilfried Tsonga 
Andy Murray 
Rafael Nadal 
Rafael Nadal 
Rafael Nadal 
Andy Murray 
Roger Federer 
Andy Murray 
Roger Federer 
Roger Federer 

This list actually shows a lot about "weak eras"

Geriatric Federer is being held as some enormous competition which is misleading. Aside from that you really just have Nadal and the semi-great Murray.

Well 6 of Djokos 10 GS titles comes from beating 2 guys with 31 GS titles in their resume!!!??? And by majority of ppl considered as 2 Goats too... not by beating some "lucky journeymen"/"geriatric Agassi"
And same old stories... "geriatric Fed" when he lose and a "God almighty Fed" when/if he wins
I am not Djokos die hard fan but everyone should admire his achievements considering that all of them was achieved in Fedal era
And they are even bigger considering that almost all spectators mostly booing him all the time
He deserves respect as big as Burj Khalifa

 

[DarthFed]

I don't think anyone is still calling Roger "God almighty Fed" anymore. Roger hasn't won a slam in 3 years and is just a good player at this point, he has his moments where he plays great but they aren't often and they tend to be on the smaller stages.

 

[Riotbeard]

^ I think it's more that their career trajectories are somewhat the opposite. Federer had it relatively easy at the beginning of his career, Novak might have it a bit easier at the end of his career.

I just do not believe anyone ever has it easy to win a slam. And just showing who someone beat in the final is not the full story either. You beat 7 professional tennis players on your way. Anyone at any time can catch fire. If Roger's path was so easy, why was he the only one winning those slams? Anyone could have done it, right? But no, only Roger did it.

Even one slam wonders deserve respect.

I agree but I believe these lists were in response to discussion of Djokovic's 'supposed' weak competition. I could be wrong, but I think the point was more along with what you are saying...

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

^ I think it's more that their career trajectories are somewhat the opposite. Federer had it relatively easy at the beginning of his career, Novak might have it a bit easier at the end of his career.

I just do not believe anyone ever has it easy to win a slam. And just showing who someone beat in the final is not the full story either. You beat 7 professional tennis players on your way. Anyone at any time can catch fire. If Roger's path was so easy, why was he the only one winning those slams? Anyone could have done it, right? But no, only Roger did it.

Even one slam wonders deserve respect.

C'mon, Cilic ?

You must have missed his level of tennis during his run. And I am talking about tennis only. Not other stuff. His performance against Roger was sublime. he did not choke that win away in the final either. Respect.

 

[Denis]

So next year is the Olympics on hard courts.

My bet is that Djokovic is making that a top priority alongside the French.

Suppose, hypothetically speaking, Djokovic does the golden calander slam next year, what would be his place among the all time greats? GOAT status looming?

 

[El Dude]

If Novak wins the golden calendar Slam, I think he'll be considered the GOAT before he's through. He's probably end his career with the most Masters, most Slams, and pretty much everything else you could want.

But let's not be too hasty...the chances of him winning the four Slams next year is slim indeed.

 

[Riotbeard]

If Novak wins the golden calendar Slam, I think he'll be considered the GOAT before he's through. He's probably end his career with the most Masters, most Slams, and pretty much everything else you could want.

But let's not be too hasty...the chances of him winning the four Slams next year is slim indeed.

What seems more plausible is four in a row, which would still be a unique achievement in the Open Era. Barring injury, it's hard to not see him as the favorite going into the Aussie and the French (Unless Rafa were to sweep the clay masters)...

 

[Denis]

If Novak wins the golden calendar Slam, I think he'll be considered the GOAT before he's through. He's probably end his career with the most Masters, most Slams, and pretty much everything else you could want.

But let's not be too hasty...the chances of him winning the four Slams next year is slim indeed.

Well Novak did make every slam final this year and I doubt stan will play another match like that in his lifetime.

 

[Denis]

If Novak wins the golden calendar Slam, I think he'll be considered the GOAT before he's through. He's probably end his career with the most Masters, most Slams, and pretty much everything else you could want.

But let's not be too hasty...the chances of him winning the four Slams next year is slim indeed.

What seems more plausible is four in a row, which would still be a unique achievement in the Open Era. Barring injury, it's hard to not see him as the favorite going into the Aussie and the French (Unless Rafa were to sweep the clay masters)...

First goal should be defending the AO title, which is doable. Then moving on to the French, that will be crucial. From there anything can happen.

 

[herios]

^ I think it's more that their career trajectories are somewhat the opposite. Federer had it relatively easy at the beginning of his career, Novak might have it a bit easier at the end of his career.

I just do not believe anyone ever has it easy to win a slam. And just showing who someone beat in the final is not the full story either. You beat 7 professional tennis players on your way. Anyone at any time can catch fire. If Roger's path was so easy, why was he the only one winning those slams? Anyone could have done it, right? But no, only Roger did it.

Even one slam wonders deserve respect.

C'mon, Cilic ?

Yes, him. Have you ever imagined he would defeat Roger in such manner on fast HC? That alone deserves a lot of respect.

 

[herios]

If Novak wins the golden calendar Slam, I think he'll be considered the GOAT before he's through. He's probably end his career with the most Masters, most Slams, and pretty much everything else you could want.

But let's not be too hasty...the chances of him winning the four Slams next year is slim indeed.

What seems more plausible is four in a row, which would still be a unique achievement in the Open Era. Barring injury, it's hard to not see him as the favorite going into the Aussie and the French (Unless Rafa were to sweep the clay masters)...

The only thing Rafa may sweep next year is the floor of the sweat spots.

 

[Denis]

Lol herios is having a field day with rafa's late misfortunes

 

[herios]

Lol herios is having a field day with rafa's late misfortunes

I am just dumbfounded where is the belief coming from thinking that Rafa may come back where he once was. His misfortunes are mainly physical erosion and there is no remedy for that.
If he changes his tactics and strategy becoming an attacking player like Roger, yes, there will be significant improvement, but I don't think he will ever do that. He will insert some surprise appearances at the net as he already does, but those will always be opportunistic and not his main path to construct his points.