Time to crown Novak the GOAT?

BratSrbin

Pro Tour Champion
Joined
Apr 25, 2013
Messages
359
Reactions
175
Points
43
Not she is not... But when it comes to the people he infected during the Adria Tour and its after parties, or when he went in public while knowingly having Covid, I guess we will never know if someone caught it from him and then passed it on to their grand parents or other people at risk... Stop defending his foolishness and bad behaviour both on the court (for example how he was a complete embarrassment at the last Olympics) and outside the court... People have seen it all and that's why he will never be loved or seen as the GOAT. Being the GOAT is not only about stats it's also about the impact on the game, how people remember you and see you, he will always be in the shadow of Fedal.

I really do not understand foolishness about vaccine. Yours. Even less your understanding of GOAT.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fiero425

BratSrbin

Pro Tour Champion
Joined
Apr 25, 2013
Messages
359
Reactions
175
Points
43
That was not the measure for disqualification, though Djokovic fans seem to act like it ought to have been. Even Novak said, "Well, she didn't have to go to the hospital." SMH.

Was No1e right?

Let me ask, did that woman seek any medical treatment?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fiero425

Nadalfan2013

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Aug 23, 2018
Messages
2,768
Reactions
1,426
Points
113
Was No1e right?

Let me ask, did that woman seek any medical treatment?

No, he was not right because the rules don’t say that the person has to go to the hospital in order for the player to get disqualified. The ball hit her and that’s all that matters. So both you and Novak are wrong for using that stupid argument.

Just like if this racket had hit someone and the person didn’t go to the hospital Novak would have still been automatically disqualified:

3D815214-9C7B-4181-8088-BE6AFA19AE83.gif
 

MargaretMcAleer

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 30, 2013
Messages
46,824
Reactions
30,864
Points
113
This post has reached a Low Point,

A Novak fan asked did the women have to seek medical attention because Novak was reckless hitting a ball which hit her throat/Neck area? the women did received medical treatment on court she fell to the ground remember?
For starters,
Minor vocal cord weakens to fractures of the cartilage structures of the larynx or trachea? a person can die if the air cannot get through?
Second point,
The rules states if a ball hits a person, regardless of it been a reckless mistake you are disqualifed
There was nearly a another incident at Wimbledon last year between The Young Greek and Nick K, The Young Greek hit a ball into the stadium lucky for him it did not hit a person in the stands, he was given a warning.

Now I am going back to watching live tennis.Carry on, remember please check your facts before making insane comments
 
Last edited:

El Dude

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
10,240
Reactions
5,962
Points
113
What are you talking about?? Rafa had Roger at the beginning of his career and both Novak & Federer during the teeth of his career and even now Novak as Rafa nears the end of his career. The fact is Nadal hasnt had an easy window of opportunity, certsinly not the window Roger had.
Well, I'm not really talking about Rafa, for one. But I'm referring to the window of recent years, not early on. I'm pointing out that part of the reason Novak and Rafa are winning so many Slams in their mid-30s is because there are no young all-time greats taking over the tour, at least not as of now.
 
Last edited:

Fiero425

The GOAT
Joined
Jul 23, 2013
Messages
11,544
Reactions
2,593
Points
113
Location
Chicago, IL
Website
fiero4251.blogspot.com
Well, I'm not really talking about Rafa, for one. But I'm referring to the window of recent years, not early on. I'm pointing out that part of the reason Novak and Rafa are winning so many Slams in their mid-30s is because there are no young all-time greats taking over the tour, at least not as of now.

The Big 3 have just been so dominating; nothing like the past! I can still remember when NG'rs came on the scene & made an impression on all the top players; even with McEnroe, Connors, & Lendl! You had Wilander, then Edberg, Becker, & eventually having to deal w/ Sampras, Agassi, Chang, & Courier! Today's players have the talent & stamina, but it isn't enough to finish off the old guard for some reason! MP's can be w/i their grasp, but are unable to finish them off most of the time! :fearful-face: :face-with-tears-of-joy::face-with-hand-over-mouth::fearful-face:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jelenafan

El Dude

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
10,240
Reactions
5,962
Points
113
A bit more on the above.

Roger, Rafa, and Novak all did something that Sampras didn't do - and most ATGs haven't done: they resurged after a down period in their late 20s to early 30s. Roger stumbled in 2013 (age 31-32), then revived in 2014-15 but couldn't get past peak Novak. He stumbled again in 2016, then had his swan song in 2017-18 at age 35-36, winning 3 Slams after turning 35. Rafa looked done in 2015-16, then revived in 2017 at age 30 and has won 8 Slams in his 30s, two of them after turning 35. Novak struggled in 2017-18, then revived in the second half of '18 and has won 10 Slams in his 30s, two after turning 35. So we have:

Roger: 4 Slams after turning 30, 3 after 35
Rafa: 8 Slams after turning 30, 2 after 35
Novak: 10 Slams after turning 30, 2 after 35

Meaning, the Big Three have won 7 Slams after turning 35, at least two each - and counting. You have to go back to Ken Rosewall in 1970-72 to find a 35-year old Slam winner. Meaning, from 1973-2016--a period of 44 years--there were no 35 year old Slam winners. Gimeno was 34 when he won his, but that was still 1972. The closest thing was Agassi in 2003 when he was 32.

I'd also suggest that the discrepancy between Roger's "mere" 4 post-30 and Rafa's 8 and Novak's 10 is that Roger had to deal with peak Rafa and Novak during his 30s, whereas--as I said--those two didn't have the equivalent as they entered their 30s. And Roger's 3 Slams in 2017-18 at age 35-36 is almost certainly at least partially due to Novak's down time during those years. I'm not sure Roger in 2017-18 was significantly better--if better at all--than he was in 2014-15, when he lost three finals to Novak (although to be fair to Roger, that was Novak's absolute peak).

Why have the Big Three won so many Slams in their 30s? Well, I think it is largely because the Big Three were just so much better than everyone else. It is kind of like mountain ranges: they are akin to the Himalayas. So even if they're not playing at "Everest level" (say, Roger in 2006, Rafa in 2013, Novak in 2015), they can still play at "Annapurna level" and be better than everyone else, because there are no Himalaya-caliber players on tour, except for maybe Andy in 2016.

So the Big Three are the Himalayas, and garden variety greats are the Andes, and non-great elite players are the Alps or Rockies. Consider that the highest mountain that isn't in the Himalayas or connected ranges, Aconcagua in Argentina, is not among the tallest couple hundred peaks in the world. In their mid-30s, the Big Three were like "lesser" Himalayas. The "problem" is compounded in that there haven't been any "Andes-level" players. Andy Murray was one, I'd say. But guys like Wawrinka and Del Potro were more Alps caliber (Stan = Mont Blanc, lol). That's my point about the "window of opportunity."

The best of NextGen, guys like Thiem, Zverev and Medvedev, were Alps/Rockies level. Meaning, other than Andy, since the retirement of Agassi, there have been no "Andes-level" players. And Andy Murray hasn't been at that level in over five years, since early 2017. Medvedev peaked at 2316 Elo in early 2022, when Rafa was still around 2400. In fact, when they faced each other in the AO final, Rafa was at 2376, Medvedev at 2330 - so it was his absolute peak. But he still wasn't good enough, even for post-peak Rafa.

Now if any of these guys were closer to, say, peak Becker or Edberg, then they'd have more of a problem. That's my point: We haven't had any guys like that in decades, other than the Big Three and Andy for a few years. LostGen certainly weren't there, and NextGen--while better than LostGen--still maxed out at the Alps/Rockies level. We can hope that with the young Millenial Gen, we might get one or two Andes caliber players - but they're not there yet. Again, the two guys with most upside--Alcaraz and Rune--turn 20 this year.
 

El Dude

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
10,240
Reactions
5,962
Points
113
The Big 3 have just been so dominating; nothing like the past! I can still remember when NG'rs came on the scene & made an impression on all the top players; even with McEnroe, Connors, & Lendl! You had Wilander, then Edberg, Becker, & eventually having to deal w/ Sampras, Agassi, Chang, & Courier! Today's players have the talent & stamina, but it isn't enough to finish off the old guard for some reason! MP's can be w/i their grasp, but are unable to finish them off most of the time! :fearful-face: :face-with-tears-of-joy::face-with-hand-over-mouth::fearful-face:
Thanks - that is sort of what I said in the lost post above. The Big Three really only had each other, except for the occasional challenger here and there. Novak will presumably be the last man standing, and when he is fully supplanted, it will be in the latter half of his 30s. Previous cohorts of greats were all supplanted at much younger ages.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fiero425

Jelenafan

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
3,691
Reactions
5,042
Points
113
Location
California, USA
A bit more on the above.

Roger, Rafa, and Novak all did something that Sampras didn't do - and most ATGs haven't done: they resurged after a down period in their late 20s to early 30s. Roger stumbled in 2013 (age 31-32), then revived in 2014-15 but couldn't get past peak Novak. He stumbled again in 2016, then had his swan song in 2017-18 at age 35-36, winning 3 Slams after turning 35. Rafa looked done in 2015-16, then revived in 2017 at age 30 and has won 8 Slams in his 30s, two of them after turning 35. Novak struggled in 2017-18, then revived in the second half of '18 and has won 10 Slams in his 30s, two after turning 35. So we have:

Roger: 4 Slams after turning 30, 3 after 35
Rafa: 8 Slams after turning 30, 2 after 35
Novak: 10 Slams after turning 30, 2 after 35

Meaning, the Big Three have won 7 Slams after turning 35, at least two each - and counting. You have to go back to Ken Rosewall in 1970-72 to find a 35-year old Slam winner. Meaning, from 1973-2016--a period of 44 years--there were no 35 year old Slam winners. Gimeno was 34 when he won his, but that was still 1972. The closest thing was Agassi in 2003 when he was 32.

I'd also suggest that the discrepancy between Roger's "mere" 4 post-30 and Rafa's 8 and Novak's 10 is that Roger had to deal with peak Rafa and Novak during his 30s, whereas--as I said--those two didn't have the equivalent as they entered their 30s. And Roger's 3 Slams in 2017-18 at age 35-36 is almost certainly at least partially due to Novak's down time during those years. I'm not sure Roger in 2017-18 was significantly better--if better at all--than he was in 2014-15, when he lost three finals to Novak (although to be fair to Roger, that was Novak's absolute peak).

Why have the Big Three won so many Slams in their 30s? Well, I think it is largely because the Big Three were just so much better than everyone else. It is kind of like mountain ranges: they are akin to the Himalayas. So even if they're not playing at "Everest level" (say, Roger in 2006, Rafa in 2013, Novak in 2015), they can still play at "Annapurna level" and be better than everyone else, because there are no Himalaya-caliber players on tour, except for maybe Andy in 2016.

So the Big Three are the Himalayas, and garden variety greats are the Andes, and non-great elite players are the Alps or Rockies. Consider that the highest mountain that isn't in the Himalayas or connected ranges, Aconcagua in Argentina, is not among the tallest couple hundred peaks in the world. In their mid-30s, the Big Three were like "lesser" Himalayas. The "problem" is compounded in that there haven't been any "Andes-level" players. Andy Murray was one, I'd say. But guys like Wawrinka and Del Potro were more Alps caliber (Stan = Mont Blanc, lol). That's my point about the "window of opportunity."

The best of NextGen, guys like Thiem, Zverev and Medvedev, were Alps/Rockies level. Meaning, other than Andy, since the retirement of Agassi, there have been no "Andes-level" players. And Andy Murray hasn't been at that level in over five years, since early 2017. Medvedev peaked at 2316 Elo in early 2022, when Rafa was still around 2400. In fact, when they faced each other in the AO final, Rafa was at 2376, Medvedev at 2330 - so it was his absolute peak. But he still wasn't good enough, even for post-peak Rafa.

Now if any of these guys were closer to, say, peak Becker or Edberg, then they'd have more of a problem. That's my point: We haven't had any guys like that in decades, other than the Big Three and Andy for a few years. LostGen certainly weren't there, and NextGen--while better than LostGen--still maxed out at the Alps/Rockies level. We can hope that with the young Millenial Gen, we might get one or two Andes caliber players - but they're not there yet. Again, the two guys with most upside--Alcaraz and Rune--turn 20 this year.

Another question is why was Federer and later Nadal and Novak were able to continue being a top 5 player and competitive at Majors past the age of 30. Some of the obvious reasons for Federer are innate talent, mental focus and a healthy lifestyle, as can be said about Nadal and Djokovic. So you have THREE athletes playing extremely well in their 30’s.

With Rafa and Novak’s longevity, IMO one thing I’m glad has been shredded is that explanation some of the Fed fans floated that Federer’s game was so perfect and economical in his strokes/footwork that his body wasn’t as battered or injured as other less “pretty” players, which of course was horse manure. (I would argue Novak has the more suited perfect gumby body for tennis) IMO Federer fans thought it was “logical” that Federer would have outstanding longevity, but if you look at the record of most of the players who preceded him, expecting him to win Majors at the same clip in his 30’s as his 20’s even if Nadal and Djokovic did not exist seemed a bit far-fetched to me. After all, the same could be said about Nadal or Djokovic without the other two.

Now what all 3 have in common:

Both Federer and Nadal and Djokovic have enjoyed early on being multimillionaire players who long with their supreme physical gifts, did not go crazy on indulgences (McEnroe, Safin, etc) AND had very expansive entourages of conditioners/nutritionists/trainers/medical personnel at their beck and call. It’s not a small thing, when you have an entire team monitoring everything you do, what you ingest in your body, and working to recuperate your body. Call it the rich getting richer. Of course you have to be willing to go the extra mile and listen to your team and have the self-discipline to do all that conditioning, so it’s not shocking that exceptionally mentally focused competitors Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have taken full advantage of this extra perk they have. I don’t think it’s not connected that they are the exception of players doing extremely well into their mid to late 30’s, as opposed to the generations of champions that preceded them. Most of those players were pretty much done by say, age 31 or 32. Andre Agassi who took conditioning to heart later in his career is one of those notable exceptions

The journeyman players does not have that. Mind you, of course it’s not the only reason nor even the biggest why they’ve lasted as long as they have, but it is a huge advantage. The closest equivalent would be someone like a Jerry Rice or Tom Brady in the NFL, who took very good care of their bodies and did the most they could for their conditioning, nutrition, etc, over and beyond most of their contemporaries.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moxie

BratSrbin

Pro Tour Champion
Joined
Apr 25, 2013
Messages
359
Reactions
175
Points
43
No, he was not right because the rules don’t say that the person has to go to the hospital in order for the player to get disqualified. The ball hit her and that’s all that matters. So both you and Novak are wrong for using that stupid argument.

Show me the rules for these and similar situations when you already refer to them so that we can discuss them.

Adding to this question you posted is plain trolling.
 

britbox

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
27,444
Reactions
6,272
Points
113
Location
Gold Coast, Australia
This post has reached a Low Point,

A Novak fan asked did the women have to seek medical attention because Novak was reckless hitting a ball which hit her throat/Neck area? the women did received medical treatment on court she fell to the ground remember?
For starters,
Minor vocal cord weakens to fractures of the cartilage structures of the larynx or trachea? a person can die if the air cannot get through?
Second point,
The rules states if a ball hits a person, regardless of it been a reckless mistake you are disqualifed
There was nearly a another incident at Wimbledon last year between The Young Greek and Nick K, The Young Greek hit a ball into the stadium lucky for him it did not hit a person in the stands, he was given a warning.

Now I am going back to watching live tennis.Carry on, remember please check your facts before making insane comments
Stefan Edberg killed a lines judge with a serve, so players should really know better when it comes to firing balls around in a fit of peak.
 

BratSrbin

Pro Tour Champion
Joined
Apr 25, 2013
Messages
359
Reactions
175
Points
43
This post has reached a Low Point,

A Novak fan asked did the women have to seek medical attention because Novak was reckless hitting a ball which hit her throat/Neck area? the women did received medical treatment on court she fell to the ground remember?
For starters,
Minor vocal cord weakens to fractures of the cartilage structures of the larynx or trachea? a person can die if the air cannot get through?
Second point,
The rules states if a ball hits a person, regardless of it been a reckless mistake you are disqualifed
There was nearly a another incident at Wimbledon last year between The Young Greek and Nick K, The Young Greek hit a ball into the stadium lucky for him it did not hit a person in the stands, he was given a warning.

Now I am going back to watching live tennis.Carry on, remember please check your facts before making insane comments

A completely wrong interpretation.


The first question was just a conclusion to No1e's position, which I consider completely legitimate.


Another issue is the continuation of the conclusion about the line judge's health condition, because on that basis No1e was excluded from the most important tournament where big money could be earned. And ATP points should not be neglected either.

If you give me a link to the rule you're talking about I might be able to see your story as correct in that part.
 

MargaretMcAleer

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 30, 2013
Messages
46,824
Reactions
30,864
Points
113
My post was correct on all accounts I am in the medical profession for starters, and know the rules regarding players hitting balls,if they contact another player, person etc. regardless of being reckless, they are disqualifed.To view the actual rule go to the ATP rule book you will find the full explanation there., you can google the ATP rule book.End of conversation
 

Fiero425

The GOAT
Joined
Jul 23, 2013
Messages
11,544
Reactions
2,593
Points
113
Location
Chicago, IL
Website
fiero4251.blogspot.com
Thanks - that is sort of what I said in the lost post above. The Big Three really only had each other, except for the occasional challenger here and there. Novak will presumably be the last man standing, and when he is fully supplanted, it will be in the latter half of his 30s. Previous cohorts of greats were all supplanted at much younger ages.

The Big 3 will be a debatable topic of discussion for at least 20 years or so no matter the agreement on most issues; real #'s & length of dominance! The problem w/ the desenters is more subjective as to go "off the grid!" The passion was even w/ me early on giving Roger every benefit of the doubt when Rafa was schooling him on all surfaces by the end of 2009 Aussie Open! We couldn't keep saying it was all about "the clay!" HC & grass wasn't a sanctuary to keep the H2H at least close! That was why I welcomed the ascent of Novak in '08! He brought me back to the tour as it was just too sad after Rafa was embarrassing Roger by then! I saw the potential and started Nole-blogg when it appeared he was going to catch up after 2016 FO and a total of 12 majors at the time! The Big 3 will have every angle explored in the way of books & movies; mark my word (as if it means so much more)! :astonished-face: :face-with-tears-of-joy::fearful-face::face-with-hand-over-mouth:
 
Last edited:

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,777
Reactions
14,944
Points
113
Show me the rules for these and similar situations when you already refer to them so that we can discuss them.

Adding to this question you posted is plain trolling.
After all this time you still need the rules again, and similar situations? See below:


Cogent passages:

N. ABUSE OF BALLS
Players shall not violently, dangerously or with anger hit, kick or throw a tennis ball within the precincts of the tournament site except in the reasonable pursuit of a point during a match (including warm-up).
Violation of this Section shall subject a player to fine up to $20,000 for each violation. In addition, if such violation occurs during a match (including the warm- up) the player shall be penalised in accordance with the Point Penalty Schedule hereinafter set forth.
For the purposes of this Rule, abuse of balls is defined as intentionally hitting a ball out of the enclosure of the court, hitting a ball dangerously or recklessly within the court or hitting a ball with negligent disregard of the consequences.

T. DEFAULTS
The Referee in consultation with the Grand Slam Chief of Supervisors may declare a default for either a single violation of this Code or pursuant to the Point Penalty Schedule set out above.
In all cases of default, the decision of the Referee in consultation with the Grand Slam Chief of Supervisors shall be final and unappealable.
Any player who is defaulted as herein provided shall lose all ranking points earned for that event at that tournament and may be fined up to the prize money won at the tournament in addition to any or all other fines levied with respect to the offending incident. In addition, any player who is defaulted as herein provided may be defaulted from all other events, if any, in that tournament, except when the offending incident involves only a violation of the Punctuality or Dress and Equipment provisions set forth in Article III. B and C, or as a result of a medical condition or when his doubles partner commits the Code Violation which causes the default.

Here is a list of disqualifications from tennis, as to your question of similar situations:


Note that not in all cases was a person even injured. It's simply that the behavior was considered egregious. In the case where a person is injured from a ball struck or racquet thrown "in anger," which means outside of the service to play, historically there is always a default. That there was no intent to do harm is completely beside the point. There is generally never is. The point is reckless behavior that results in injury. Novak had been treading the danger of this for some time, and it caught him on this one.
 

Fiero425

The GOAT
Joined
Jul 23, 2013
Messages
11,544
Reactions
2,593
Points
113
Location
Chicago, IL
Website
fiero4251.blogspot.com
Stefan Edberg killed a lines judge with a serve, so players should really know better when it comes to firing balls around in a fit of peak.

Over the last 50+ years of my playing, teaching, watching, & writing about TENNIS, a lot more horrendous things have happened! No one has ever invoked that example here that I can recall! I might have heard it mentioned a couple times over the years during a match telecast! It was just too sad and not worth trying to blame anyone for such a tragedy! :anxious-face-with-sweat: Awards have been named after the guy! Why drag Edberg into it? After Monica & Kvitova, accidents like w/ that poor linesman are the last thing I'd bring up using the verb "killed!" :facepalm::angry-face::pleading-face::fearful-face: