Time to crown Novak the GOAT?

[MargaretMcAleer]

After all this time you still need the rules again, and similar situations? See below:

https://www.itftennis.com/media/2495/grand-slam-rulebook-2020-f.pdf

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:

Disqualification (tennis) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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.

Thanks Moxie, for giving the links and hopefully the full explanation is accepted as it should be

After all this time you still need the rules again, and similar situations? See below:

https://www.itftennis.com/media/2495/grand-slam-rulebook-2020-f.pdf

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:

Disqualification (tennis) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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.

Thanks Moxie for posting.

 

[Moxie]

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.

You sort of were talking about Rafa and Novak, though it was rather a Roger-centric post. I don't begrudge you that, as a fan. And I understand your saying that the main point was the post-30 years and competition there, but you do start from the beginning, and I think @Jelenafan is within his rights to remind that Rafa has been the one most stuck in the middle between 2 ATGs. (Something you have copped to, once, anyway.) But you do kinda lump Rafa and Novak, which I don't think is wholly accurate, in terms of their primes. I also like his later point, about while commitment and ambition (and talent) are huge, there is a financial advantage, as well, that contributes to longevity.

As to your other post above, about Pete...do you think he could have done more if he hadn't walked away when he did? I'm sure @Kieran has an opinion about that.

 

[BratSrbin]

After all this time you still need the rules again, and similar situations? See below:

https://www.itftennis.com/media/2495/grand-slam-rulebook-2020-f.pdf

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:

Disqualification (tennis) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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.

"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."

This just tells me that the punishment given to No1е is completely inappropriate.

I also think that referring to something that is not in the rulebook is just pure fog and running away from reality.

 

[Moxie]

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.

This is a stark example of the difference between someone getting injured when the ball is in play, and when it is petulantly tossed around after play is ended. And, yes, they should know better. It doesn't matter how hard you hit it, or what the intent was. I have read any number of comments here and on the internet, trying to excuse Novak (and Henman, for example,) in that there was no "intention" to hurt anyone. Of course there wasn't. Not the point. If you launch balls and racquets around, out of petulance, and not in service to play, someone can get hurt. If they do, you're out. The players know this.

 

[Moxie]

"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."

This just tells me that the punishment given to No1е is completely inappropriate.

I also think that referring to something that is not in the rulebook is just pure fog and running away from reality.

Novak hit that ball in anger. There is no other explanation for him hitting it towards the backboard. He'd just lost his serve. There was no ball kid in sight that he was tapping it towards. He hit the ball, as in the passage you site above: "recklessly within the court...with negligent disregard to the consequences." Had he hit the backboard, and not the lineswoman, he may or may not have been given a warning. He'd actually already hit a ball in anger in that match, which he didn't get sanctioned for, but could have. What is in the rule book is the word "egregious," and harming someone is considered egregious. The umpire and tournament director are allowed to jump straight to disqualification, in that event, and there is precedent for it. I provided you what you asked for, which is previous examples. You just choose to ignore them.

 

[BratSrbin]

Novak hit that ball in anger. There is no other explanation for him hitting it towards the backboard. He'd just lost his serve. There was no ball kid in sight that he was tapping it towards. He hit the ball, as in the passage you site above: "recklessly within the court...with negligent disregard to the consequences." Had he hit the backboard, and not the lineswoman, he may or may not have been given a warning. He'd actually already hit a ball in anger in that match, which he didn't get sanctioned for, but could have. What is in the rule book is the word "egregious," and harming someone is considered egregious. The umpire and tournament director are allowed to jump straight to disqualification, in that event, and there is precedent for it. I provided you what you asked for, which is previous examples. You just choose to ignore them.

Now the word "egregious" is more important than all the rules even though it cannot possibly be applied in No1e case.

I know, I know everything. It's more important to you that No1e gets punished than anything else. Hitting the ball in anger is fined $20000 as far as I can see and everyone can see for themselves now. When there are no rules then something that is discretionary is invoked. Both in this and in the other case. There is absolutely no possibility of overpowering someone's will, even though it is excessive, to put it mildly.

 

[Moxie]

Now the word "egregious" is more important than all the rules even though it cannot possibly be applied in No1e case.

You don't like that word? How about "recklessly" "dangerously," or with "negligent disregard?" Those words also apply, and they are in the code.

I know, I know everything. It's more important to you that No1e gets punished than anything else.

No, what you know is what you believe, which is that Novak was being singled-out, which he wasn't. I'm showing you chapter and verse on how this is consistent with ATP/Grand Slam policy, including precedent, which you keep ignoring.

Hitting the ball in anger is fined $20000 as far as I can see and everyone can see for themselves now. When there are no rules then something that is discretionary is invoked. Both in this and in the other case. There is absolutely no possibility of overpowering someone's will, even though it is excessive, to put it mildly.

See above.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Moxie,
To clarify the actual rule the umpire enforced in this case was, Section T of Article 111.
On-site Players Offenses of the 2020 Grand Slam rule book, which lays out the procedure of default, was applied.
It states 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.
Tournament referee Soeren Friemel decided to declare a default.
"The facts were discussed and explained by the chair umpire and the Grand Slam Supervisor.
"In this situation, it is especially important that we are 100% sure what exactly happened.The facts were established and then I had to speak to Novak Djokovic, give him the chance to state his point of view".
"We all agree that he didnt do it on purpose, but the facts are still that he hit the line umpire and that line umpire was clearly hurt"
Novak later apologized on his Instagram page.
As I previously stated thank goodness there was medical treatment for the line woman, getting hit like that in the neck.throat area, could have blocked her airwaves for starters, and she would have been in dire straits, I am certain she would have gone to hosptial to get a full check up by an Ear,Nose and Throat Specialist which would be the proper ongoing treatment for this kind of trauma to the neck/throat area.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

I, and I deeply believe No1e, have no ambitions to rule the world, nor have а thought about it. I leave it to the fools.

The article you pasted here is garbage, in my humble opinion.

No, it’s believing in energy pyramids and in magical healing water that is garbage in my humble opinion.

 

[El Dude]

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.

Yes, this is a good point - and something that bothers me about tennis in general: the inherit bias towards the wealthy. I mean, tennis is a rich person's sport in general; it is very rare that someone without substantial means makes to name level. I believe Frances Tiafoe has such a story...wasn't his dad a maintenance worker at some court, so Frances could practice there?

Anyhow, this also works with seeding. On the other hand, it also includes an interesting element: it is relatively easy to maintain your level, much harder to go up, so there ends up being a kind of tiered structure to tennis, with different hurdles or benchmarks: First the top 100 and main entry to Slams - that is essentially when a player "makes it" and reaches the equivalent of the major leagues. Then there is the long slog towards Slam seeding and roughly a top 30 ranking. Then I'd say the next tier is the top 10, then the top 5, then #1. So I'd break it down as 100/30/10/5/1.

But again, a good point - one I've considered but de-emphasized. I think it fits into the matrix that I described. "Himalayan" talent is so far above everything else, especially when there has really only been Andy Murray in the "Andean" level, with all of the challengers being "Alpian" at best. My hope is that guys like Rune and Alcaraz will reach the Andean level, though maybe not this year - at least not consistently so. So the window is still there, if Novak and Rafa can stay healthy.

 

[El Dude]

You sort of were talking about Rafa and Novak, though it was rather a Roger-centric post. I don't begrudge you that, as a fan. And I understand your saying that the main point was the post-30 years and competition there, but you do start from the beginning, and I think @Jelenafan is within his rights to remind that Rafa has been the one most stuck in the middle between 2 ATGs. (Something you have copped to, once, anyway.) But you do kinda lump Rafa and Novak, which I don't think is wholly accurate, in terms of their primes. I also like his later point, about while commitment and ambition (and talent) are huge, there is a financial advantage, as well, that contributes to longevity.

As to your other post above, about Pete...do you think he could have done more if he hadn't walked away when he did? I'm sure @Kieran has an opinion about that.

Again, I was only referring to the window in regard to the last five years, so Rafa's early years had nothing to do with it. And of course me pointing out the challenges of Roger's career doesn't mean Rafa or Novak didn't have their own obstacles to overcome. I agree that Rafa had the difficulty of bridging Roger's and Novak's primes; coupled with his injuries, this contributed to his lower-than-talent level weeks at #1, but tons of time in the top 2 - more than anyone.

As for Pete, I think he was pretty worn out. I mean, he started to slip after 1997, and then dropped substantially in 2001, so that last Slam was a moment of grace for him in 2002. Who knows, maybe some time off would have enabled a stronger return and nice run in his early 30s. For instance, let's say he skips 2001 and recuperates his body...maybe 2002 is stronger and he has a solid two or three years. But I still don't think he wins more than one Slam a year, I can't see him hanging with Roger by 2004, and Rafa by 2005. So his chance to pad his record probably would have been done by 2003 anyway, and even so he probably wouldn't have added more than a Slam or two to his record.

But I brought him up because all of the Big Three had what looked like career slippages (like Pete in 1998-2000) and potential rapid declines (Pete in 2001, early 2002)...Roger twice, first in 2013--which was the equivalent of 2003 for Pete, so would have totally made sense if he faded out then; and then in 2016, which was the equivalent of +4 years after Pete's retirement. And we've talked a lot about Rafa's 2015-16, when almost everyone thought he was done. That was age 29-30, so similar to Pete's 2000-01, so it wouldn't have been surprising if Rafa had been done. And then Novak in 2017-18, when he was the exact same age.

But the difference is that all three did what Pete didn't do, although Agassi did do. Andre essentially had two careers, one before 1997 and one after. But Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Lendl, and McEnroe all declined in their late 20s and were done as elite players around or before turning 30 (Lendl lasted longest, his last Slam at age 29, though he was still 10 for a couple more years). Even Jimmy Connors--who most of us remember as the guy who improbably made it to the US Open SF in 1991 at age 38--won his last Slam at age 31, though he was still very good for another half decade or so. Actually, in 2013-16, Roger was looking a bit like Connors after 1983.

I can only assume that if Borg hadn't retired, he would have followed a similar pattern: not as good in the latter half of his 20s as he was in the first half, and done winning Slams by or before turning 30 in 1986.

But yeah, these late career bounce-backs from the Big Three could be at least partially due to money = resources = better health and recovery. That and, I think, each other as competition, plus a lack of new ATGs to challenge.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Djokovic has the edge in things like ATP finals, Masters 1000, Atp rankings... All ATP tour stuff.

But Nadal has the edge in the 2 biggest events outside the ATP tour: Davis Cup and the Olympics.

These 2 events are huge and very historic in our sport and before some of you dismiss Davis Cup as a teams sport don't forget that Nadal actually has a 29-1 record (97%!) in SINGLES matches in Davis Cup and those Nadal SINGLES wins are what drove Team Spain & Nadal to 5 Davis Cup titles.

Meanwhile Djokovic only has a modest 38-7 singles record (84%) and clearly didn't always deliver, and that's why he only led Serbia to 1 title.

As for the Olympics, again Nadal, Djokovic, Federer and Murray have all compared it to slams and it's Nadal who has the Olympics gold over Djokovic, and even beat him there.

Both Nadal & Djokovic have tons of great accomplishments (including 22 slams each!) but tennis is not only about the ATP tour, and therefore it's fair to say that Djokovic is the GOAT of the ATP but that Nadal is the GOAT of TENNIS.

Thank you for reading, and please no trolling in your replies and to whom it may concern no irrelevant "elo" posts.

 

[Kieran]

Now the word "egregious" is more important than all the rules even though it cannot possibly be applied in No1e case.

I know, I know everything. It's more important to you that No1e gets punished than anything else. Hitting the ball in anger is fined $20000 as far as I can see and everyone can see for themselves now. When there are no rules then something that is discretionary is invoked. Both in this and in the other case. There is absolutely no possibility of overpowering someone's will, even though it is excessive, to put it mildly.

Give it up, son. I’ve seen Djokolytes like you before, claiming Rafa should have been disqualified for hitting a ball kid with a return of serve. No objectivity. Le sigh. Novak was wrong to argue with the tournament referee in New York. It was an open and shut case of GTFOH. But then, as we saw in Australia, honesty isn’t really his thing…

 

[TheSicilian]

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.

That's terrible, I never knew that

 

[BratSrbin]

I introduced a new word to my vocabulary, no1ephobe, no1ephobia. Now it is obvious that this is necessary to fully clarify the separation.

 

[Moxie]

I introduced a new word to my vocabulary, no1ephobe, no1ephobia. Now it is obvious that this is necessary to fully clarify the separation.

That would assume people are afraid of him. Perhaps the coinage you're looking for is "misonolegist," or "misonolegy." Maybe "misonovakist" or "misonovakism." Because, the truth is, most people just don't like him. You, on the other hand, are a "Djokolyte," which is Kieran's coinage. Do you even like tennis, or is it just The Cult of Novak, for you. I went back through some of your posts, wondering if there was any real tennis talk, but not really. Just fannish drivel.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Just like I suspected, you guys have no answer!

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

"But Nadal has the edge in the 2 biggest events outside the ATP tour: Davis Cup and the Olympics."

Very good point. I feel like if Nadal wins the gold in singles at the 2024 Paris Olympics to complete the double career golden slam, the GOAT discussion is essentially wrapped. Nadal will end up with 22-24 slams, so even if Djokovic clears that bar, Nadal's 2 Olympic singles golds should keep him ahead (especially if Djokovic never wins the gold, and he will be 41 at the 2028 Olympics).

In a way, I think winning the 2024 Olympics will do more for Nadal's legacy than winning the 2023 and/or 2024 French Opens.

 

[shawnbm]

Respectfully, I have never thought professionals should be permitted to play in the Olympic Games, regardless of sport. Furthermore, the Olympics did not allow tennis until many years into the Open Era, so I have never held it in as high regard. I would if they were amateurs, but time has passed me by. Still great that Rafa and others have won medals at the Olympics--I just don't think it is anywhere near major level (they are 3 set matches only) or even Davis Cup due to its historicity in the game.

 

[Fiero425]

Respectfully, I have never thought professionals should be permitted to play in the Olympic Games, regardless of sport. Furthermore, the Olympics did not allow tennis until many years into the Open Era, so I have never held it in as high regard. I would if they were amateurs, but time has passed me by. Still great that Rafa and others have won medals at the Olympics--I just don't think it is anywhere near major level (they are 3 set matches only) or even Davis Cup due to its historicity in the game.

It was acceptable to play the Olympics back in 1984 as an Exhibition/Demo. sport w/ 2 "babes in the woods" who won in Edberg & Graf! I didn't mind that! I hate seasoned pros are playing all thru the Games in Baseball, Basketball, & Hockey! It's a joke anyone has any respect for the events; esp. being BO3!