Rolex Paris Masters 2023, Bercy, France - ATP Masters 1000

[Nadalfan2013]

Just tired of Djokovic...

Maybe when he’s still no.1 and physically dominating 20 year old opponents while he’s 50 years old then people will finally open their eyes.

 

[nehmeth]

Maybe when he’s still no.1 and physically dominating 20 year old opponents while he’s 50 years old

He will have retired by then. His son Stefan and the Federer boys will be taking over.

 

[Fiero425]

He will have retired by then. His son Stefan and the Federer boys will be taking over.

I recall an old Tennis Mag. article musing about Evert hanging on into her old age, but going against the daughter of Goolagong!

 

[MikeOne]

Why want to watch rublev vs dimitrov in finals? Why not want to watch tennis at highest level and instead want to watch lower level?

Djokovic has produced, arguably the highet quality matches in history. The level in the wimbledon finals vs roger, matches against stan, murray, rafa, roger at AO.. the battles with rafa on clay… no-one has produced more classics than djokovic vs all these greats. Roger was more erractic and at times would produce snoozefests of serving and UFEs.. rafa at times grinded his way to wins.. djokovic produced the highest level of offense/defense ever witnessed. He has pushed opponents to figure out a way to break gis defenses but at same time clubbered opponents with baseline supremacy. He has become a great server, volleyer, developed a strong slice. He has produced so many classic thrillers and even today, has 4 thrillers vs alcaraz… someone you need to just stop hating what you should be appreciating. Bot sure why you want a lesser level in order to more enjoy tennis. Nole beats these guys as he’s simply better so watching all these guys try to up their game, produce higher level to beat him is better than setting the standard lower, just to watch the rest win, by not having to produce the levek required to beat djokovic.

 

[Moxie]

Why want to watch rublev vs dimitrov in finals? Why not want to watch tennis at highest level and instead want to watch lower level?

Did you watch this final? It was rather less-than scintillating, though I blame Dimitrov. Not sure who was campaigning for a Rublev v Dimitrov final, though.

Djokovic has produced, arguably the highet quality matches in history.

Indeed, that is very arguable. Not that he hasn't produced some. But you have to remember that it takes high quality on both sides of the net to make a great match. Each player contributes to a great match.

The level in the wimbledon finals vs roger, matches against stan, murray, rafa, roger at AO.. the battles with rafa on clay… no-one has produced more classics than djokovic vs all these greats.

Maybe...if that's your list of greats, but still...very arguable point. I don't think anyone remembers the metronomic tediousness of many of the Murray v. Djokovic matches with much desire to rewatch them, though there were some great ones. And most of his greatest matches v. Stan he lost.

Roger was more erractic and at times would produce snoozefests of serving and UFEs.. rafa at times grinded his way to wins.. djokovic produced the highest level of offense/defense ever witnessed. He has pushed opponents to figure out a way to break gis defenses but at same time clubbered opponents with baseline supremacy. He has become a great server, volleyer, developed a strong slice.

No one would say that Novak isn't a great player, but your above is selective and hyperbole to support your point. You have a very short memory as to Roger and Rafa's greatness, or to when Djokovic was the lesser in their battles.

He has produced so many classic thrillers and even today, has 4 thrillers vs alcaraz…

Well, 3 thrillers. Or 3.5, if we're being generous.

someone you need to just stop hating what you should be appreciating. Bot sure why you want a lesser level in order to more enjoy tennis. Nole beats these guys as he’s simply better so watching all these guys try to up their game, produce higher level to beat him is better than setting the standard lower, just to watch the rest win, by not having to produce the levek required to beat djokovic.

You can ask people to appreciate Novak's tennis, which I'm sure most here do, but you can't force people to like him. That's the nature of fandom. Which is similar to why you feel the need to cut down Roger and Rafa. It's not that interesting watching Novak without much real competition, though, if you ask me. I felt the same in the early years of Roger...not really anyone available to challenge him, until Rafa came along. You do completely ignore that very compelling rivalry, which had them much more in their primes, and more exciting to watch because of how opposing their styles were.

 

[MikeOne]

Did you watch this final? It was rather less-than scintillating, though I blame Dimitrov. Not sure who was campaigning for a Rublev v Dimitrov final, though.

Indeed, that is very arguable. Not that he hasn't produced some. But you have to remember that it takes high quality on both sides of the net to make a great match. Each player contributes to a great match.

Maybe...if that's your list of greats, but still...very arguable point. I don't think anyone remembers the metronomic tediousness of many of the Murray v. Djokovic matches with much desire to rewatch them, though there were some great ones. And most of his greatest matches v. Stan he lost.

No one would say that Novak isn't a great player, but your above is selective and hyperbole to support your point. You have a very short memory as to Roger and Rafa's greatness, or to when Djokovic was the lesser in their battles.

Well, 3 thrillers. Or 3.5, if we're being generous.

You can ask people to appreciate Novak's tennis, which I'm sure most here do, but you can't force people to like him. That's the nature of fandom. Which is similar to why you feel the need to cut down Roger and Rafa. It's not that interesting watching Novak without much real competition, though, if you ask me. I felt the same in the early years of Roger...not really anyone available to challenge him, until Rafa came along. You do completely ignore that very compelling rivalry, which had them much more in their primes, and more exciting to watch because of how opposing their styles were.

The final was not a great final because of the standard djokovic sets. He defends well, abuses dinitrov’s bh and can defuse diimitrov’s slice by using his own slice, something medvedev struggled with. I rather see a player force another to meet a high standard vs lower the standard.

But what about rublev match? Rublev played out of his mind. Don’t take it from me, analysts agreed.. and he still lost. Would it have been best for rublev to crush someone else? Only if you hate watching djokovic win.

To me djokovic has played more exciting matches than anyone in history. He had battles vs rafa at masters and slams, same with roger. His game included defense and offense and recently has become an excellent volleyer too.

Nadal was the most exciting on clay, i saw him live at french open the year he crushed stan in finals. Having said this, rafa’s game on indoors was mighty boring, forgetful.. seemed weaponless in low bouncing courts where opponents could hit cleaner ball. Novak has produced electrifying tennis on all surfaces. Federer was similar but roger’s game became boring as he aged. His game during 04-07 when he had those battles with rafa on clay was more exciting as he played longer rallies yet was still explosive. He played great defense back then and stayed in long rallies. In his later years, he shortened rallies and made more UFEs… to me he became more boring towards end of his career. Novak has arguably become more entertaining, still consistent but using more offense and more variety. It’s the most complete game in history and why he owns all the records, even win % so it’s just not longevity, it’s dominance.

And i’m not asking people to like him, appreciate his tennis and the standard he sets. That’s it. Let’s be honest, it’s not his game peope hate, it’s the accomplishments, he keeps putting distance between him and others. GOAT debate is dead at this point.

 

[Kieran]

The final was not a great final because of the standard djokovic sets. He defends well, abuses dinitrov’s bh and can defuse diimitrov’s slice by using his own slice, something medvedev struggled with. I rather see a player force another to meet a high standard vs lower the standard.

But what about rublev match? Rublev played out of his mind. Don’t take it from me, analysts agreed.. and he still lost. Would it have been best for rublev to crush someone else? Only if you hate watching djokovic win.

To me djokovic has played more exciting matches than anyone in history. He had battles vs rafa at masters and slams, same with roger. His game included defense and offense and recently has become an excellent volleyer too.

Nadal was the most exciting on clay, i saw him live at french open the year he crushed stan in finals. Having said this, rafa’s game on indoors was mighty boring, forgetful.. seemed weaponless in low bouncing courts where opponents could hit cleaner ball. Novak has produced electrifying tennis on all surfaces. Federer was similar but roger’s game became boring as he aged. His game during 04-07 when he had those battles with rafa on clay was more exciting as he played longer rallies yet was still explosive. He played great defense back then and stayed in long rallies. In his later years, he shortened rallies and made more UFEs… to me he became more boring towards end of his career. Novak has arguably become more entertaining, still consistent but using more offense and more variety. It’s the most complete game in history and why he owns all the records, even win % so it’s just not longevity, it’s dominance.

And i’m not asking people to like him, appreciate his tennis and the standard he sets. That’s it. Let’s be honest, it’s not his game peope hate, it’s the accomplishments, he keeps putting distance between him and others. GOAT debate is dead at this point.

Ignoring all the long winded bluster, this is childish fanboy nonsense. People don’t hate Novak because of his accomplishments, they don’t like his personality. His character flaws which have caused huge controversy in the game. His lack of popularity goes back to when he was a young player begging the crowd for lurve. He’s still begging them. His game itself is largely dull, like watching a ball being hit against a wall. This actually is a compliment to him. But it’s not exciting. He is a compelling, opportunistic figure, but the neediness and shadiness is not a nice feature - and a lot of his fans seem to be similarly shady and needy…

 

[roberto]

Ignoring all the long winded bluster, this is childish fanboy nonsense. People don’t hate Novak because of his accomplishments, they don’t like his personality. His character flaws which have caused huge controversy in the game. His lack of popularity goes back to when he was a young player begging the crowd for lurve. He’s still begging them. His game itself is largely dull, like watching a ball being hit against a wall. This actually is a compliment to him. But it’s not exciting. He is a compelling, opportunistic figure, but the neediness and shadiness is not a nice feature - and a lot of his fans seem to be similarly shady and needy…

LOLOLOL

 

[roberto]

Did you watch this final? It was rather less-than scintillating, though I blame Dimitrov. Not sure who was campaigning for a Rublev v Dimitrov final, though.

Indeed, that is very arguable. Not that he hasn't produced some. But you have to remember that it takes high quality on both sides of the net to make a great match. Each player contributes to a great match.

Maybe...if that's your list of greats, but still...very arguable point. I don't think anyone remembers the metronomic tediousness of many of the Murray v. Djokovic matches with much desire to rewatch them, though there were some great ones. And most of his greatest matches v. Stan he lost.

No one would say that Novak isn't a great player, but your above is selective and hyperbole to support your point. You have a very short memory as to Roger and Rafa's greatness, or to when Djokovic was the lesser in their battles.

Well, 3 thrillers. Or 3.5, if we're being generous.

You can ask people to appreciate Novak's tennis, which I'm sure most here do, but you can't force people to like him. That's the nature of fandom. Which is similar to why you feel the need to cut down Roger and Rafa. It's not that interesting watching Novak without much real competition, though, if you ask me. I felt the same in the early years of Roger...not really anyone available to challenge him, until Rafa came along. You do completely ignore that very compelling rivalry, which had them much more in their primes, and more exciting to watch because of how opposing their styles were.

Why MikeOne needs to cut down Roger and Rafa lol? You mean how in a post above you tried to diminish Novak's accomplishments by pointing out how many slams he won after Roger and Rafa aged out? Or the quality of his competition? I agree that fandom is totally subjective, but own your own tendencies please. Do I need to bring up the names of opponents in Grand Slam Finals won by Rafa? Multi-slam winners like Ferrer, Berdych, Kevin Anderson, Soderling, Ruud, Thiem (twice--before he won US OPEN) etc. etc. Oh wait--what's that you say---a player can only play who his opponents happen to be based on results......oh yeah that's right.

 

[Moxie]

Why MikeOne needs to cut down Roger and Rafa lol? You mean how in a post above you tried to diminish Novak's accomplishments by pointing out how many slams he won after Roger and Rafa aged out? Or the quality of his competition? I agree that fandom is totally subjective, but own your own tendencies please.

MikeOne can post whatever he likes, but I'm free to debate him. I have said that Novak is a great player, but if he feels the need to make chopped-liver out of Roger and Rafa, I will debate him on it. Why does he need to cut them down, indeed?

Do I need to bring up the names of opponents in Grand Slam Finals won by Rafa? Multi-slam winners like Ferrer, Berdych, Kevin Anderson, Soderling, Ruud, Thiem (twice--before he won US OPEN) etc. etc. Oh wait--what's that you say---a player can only play who his opponents happen to be based on results......oh yeah that's right.

Perhaps you missed this thread:

Who did each of the Big 3 beat in the final to win a Major?

Dog days of summer. What else is there to do but dig up some records? @Kieran has been talking about Novak having it easy of late in the Majors. This year's Wimbledon draw was, frankly, kind, and I looked up last year's, and it was, too. Plus, Kieran, and myself, especially, have been...

www.tennisfrontier.com

Rafa has won a lot more Majors beating the other 2 in finals, and more beating them along the way, as well. It hasn't been easy being sandwiched in between 2 other ATG's, and yet he has 22 Majors.

 

[Kieran]

MikeOne can post whatever he likes, but I'm free to debate him. I have said that Novak is a great player, but if he feels the need to make chopped-liver out of Roger and Rafa, I will debate him on it. Why does he need to cut them down, indeed?

Perhaps you missed this thread:

Who did each of the Big 3 beat in the final to win a Major?

Dog days of summer. What else is there to do but dig up some records? @Kieran has been talking about Novak having it easy of late in the Majors. This year's Wimbledon draw was, frankly, kind, and I looked up last year's, and it was, too. Plus, Kieran, and myself, especially, have been...

www.tennisfrontier.com

Rafa has won a lot more Majors beating the other 2 in finals, and more beating them along the way, as well. It hasn't been easy being sandwiched in between 2 other ATG's, and yet he has 22 Majors.

It gets overlooked at that in the early part of Rafa’s career Roger was chomping up titles because he had nobody who could challenge him until Rafa was ready. And Novak is having similarly easy times for the last few years. I always complain about this, that Rafa never got a few years alone with the field, to buff to his resume on the cheap, but that’s okay. Rafa’s record speaks for itself. He’s been at the walls forever, it seems, alongside either one of two of his great rivals. Never alone. This is what sets him apart..

 

[Moxie]

It gets overlooked at that in the early part of Rafa’s career Roger was chomping up titles because he had nobody who could challenge him until Rafa was ready. And Novak is having similarly easy times for the last few years. I always complain about this, that Rafa never got a few years alone with the field, to buff to his resume on the cheap, but that’s okay. Rafa’s record speaks for itself. He’s been at the walls forever, it seems, alongside either one of two of his great rivals. Never alone. This is what sets him apart..

I won't go on about this, or we'll get it moved to the Fedalovic wars thread. But folks like @MikeOne and @roberto swoop in at the end of a tournament that Novak wins, and scold us for not loving Novak more. As you point out above, there are reasons for that. As to appreciating him, I think everyone here knows he's a great tennis player. It doesn't mean we have to like him. Or that we can't point out the opportunities splayed in front of him.

 

[roberto]

I won't go on about this, or we'll get it moved to the Fedalovic wars thread. But folks like @MikeOne and @roberto swoop in at the end of a tournament that Novak wins, and scold us for not loving Novak more. As you point out above, there are reasons for that. As to appreciating him, I think everyone here knows he's a great tennis player. It doesn't mean we have to like him. Or that we can't point out the opportunities splayed in front of him.

Just to be clear, I said NOTHING about whether or not you like Novak. I mentioned in my previous post that YOU do exactly what you accuse MikeOne of doing, i.e., you were denigrating the quality of Novak's opponents in slams and otherwise. And for the record, I don't "swoop in" after Novak wins a tournaments. Of course, if I did follow that strategy, I'd be "swooping in" quite often given his track record. I happen to read much more than I post, and criticizing the frequency (or lack therefore) of my posts is an "attack" you have tried to use on me before, I guess under the theory that someone who posts with, say, your frequency, has comments that are more "legitimate"??

 

[Moxie]

Just to be clear, I said NOTHING about whether or not you like Novak. I mentioned in my previous post that YOU do exactly what you accuse MikeOne of doing, i.e., you were denigrating the quality of Novak's opponents in slams and otherwise. And for the record, I don't "swoop in" after Novak wins a tournaments. Of course, if I did follow that strategy, I'd be "swooping in" quite often given his track record. I happen to read much more than I post, and criticizing the frequency (or lack therefore) of my posts is an "attack" you have tried to use on me before, I guess under the theory that someone who posts with, say, your frequency, has comments that are more "legitimate"??

I didn't do exactly what I accused MikeOne of doing...I was debating and countering his points. There's a difference.

As to posting little or often, that's your choice. But we're a small community, dependent on lively conversation. I'm sorry if I lumped you with those who show up only when Djokovic wins, to scold. You have other interesting posts. Do post more often!