OT: Djokovic one match away from Calendar Grand Slam

[Impuniti]

Djoker has been absolutely dominating in the weakest era of tennis ever. Probably deserves props for longevity as the best ever in that regard though, because he's kept a high level at mid 30s.

[Nate505]

USO, with billions of dollars involved, manages to completely fail with net sensor technology, not fixing it more than 2 weeks into the tournament. The turning point of the 2nd set was when that technology damaged Novak’s break point chance, because he completely lost his mind there.

That kind of mental weakness is kind of a strike against him in the GOAT agrument.

You obviously don’t know much about tennis.

The sport is irrelevant. If he let something like that lose his cool and thus lose the match, it hurts him on the GOAT argument. That said, I have no idea if that's what really happened or not.

[dhsilv2]

1) Finals ELO - > strongest opponent makes the final - > the opponent with the higher ELO is the better player
2) Just because Nadal and Djokovic played a ton of matches against each just goes to show they were that much better than everybody else. It is the same as saying the Lakers ain't **** because they faced mostly the Celtics in the finals.

The same arguments being used against Djokovic were being used against Fed 15 years ago. Back then people criticized him because Sampras was retired and he played against Roddick and old man Agassi, i.e. a weaker era than the era of the previous GOAT player with more GSs.

All this really does it points out that tennis has gotten crazy top heavy and would indicate that the quality has dropped. The fact a 40 year old Fed is still even able to play at a pro level, let alone be a top 20 player is even more damning.

That said I don't watch tennis enough anymore to feel confident, but anytime you see 3 "GOAT" level guys all playing at one time, the most logical first thought is that the relative talent has fallen off a cliff.

[Woodsanity]

Legendary choke job with no competition

[DCasey91]

Djoker has been absolutely dominating in the weakest era of tennis ever. Probably deserves props for longevity as the best ever in that regard though, because he's kept a high level at mid 30s.

Federer dominated the weakest era of tennis

Djokovic came out on top in the hardest era of tennis

Nadal was the catalyst and literal warlord on clay and was smacking Federer around for fun as a kid lol.

[HeartBreakKid]

1) Finals ELO - > strongest opponent makes the final - > the opponent with the higher ELO is the better player
2) Just because Nadal and Djokovic played a ton of matches against each just goes to show they were that much better than everybody else. It is the same as saying the Lakers ain't **** because they faced mostly the Celtics in the finals.

The same arguments being used against Djokovic were being used against Fed 15 years ago. Back then people criticized him because Sampras was retired and he played against Roddick and old man Agassi, i.e. a weaker era than the era of the previous GOAT player with more GSs.

All this really does it points out that tennis has gotten crazy top heavy and would indicate that the quality has dropped. The fact a 40 year old Fed is still even able to play at a pro level, let alone be a top 20 player is even more damning.

That said I don't watch tennis enough anymore to feel confident, but anytime you see 3 "GOAT" level guys all playing at one time, the most logical first thought is that the relative talent has fallen off a cliff.

Federer is pretty good...would certainly be a highly ranked player in any era. Him being middle aged just means he's not #1 anymore.

[Impuniti]

Djoker has been absolutely dominating in the weakest era of tennis ever. Probably deserves props for longevity as the best ever in that regard though, because he's kept a high level at mid 30s.

Federer dominated the weakest era of tennis

Djokovic came out on top in the hardest era of tennis

Nadal was the catalyst and literal warlord on clay and was smacking Federer around for fun as a kid lol.

Absolute nonsense. Djoker started dominating around the same time both Fed and Nadal's prime started to go down. Still better than the rest, but there's been two generations now and there's not a single top 30 all time tennis player since the 3 OGs and Murray showed up. That's pathetic.

[maxpower8888]

Where are all these "weakest era of tennis" know-nothings coming from all of a sudden??? This is arguably the hardest era ever. Medvedev would destroy Andy Roddick.

[gp2015]

That kind of mental weakness is kind of a strike against him in the GOAT agrument.

You obviously don’t know much about tennis.

The sport is irrelevant. If he let something like that lose his cool and thus lose the match, it hurts him on the GOAT argument. That said, I have no idea if that's what really happened or not.

No, he had no chance of winning the match yesterday. He was dominated at every level from start to finish, thus the frustration.

[DCasey91]

Djoker has been absolutely dominating in the weakest era of tennis ever. Probably deserves props for longevity as the best ever in that regard though, because he's kept a high level at mid 30s.

Federer dominated the weakest era of tennis

Djokovic came out on top in the hardest era of tennis

Nadal was the catalyst and literal warlord on clay and was smacking Federer around for fun as a kid lol.

Absolute nonsense. Djoker started dominating around the same time both Fed and Nadal's prime started to go down. Still better than the rest, but there's been two generations now and there's not a single top 30 all time tennis player since the 3 OGs and Murray showed up. That's pathetic.

Those that question Djokovics case, comp or era compared to the two

Has this:

1. NFI it’s a basketball forum so many posters don’t know squat when it comes to tennis.
2. Fed’s era was weaker up until a kid came along by the name of Nadal and made Clay his play toy among other courts (won everything at 24).
3. Djokovic 2015 blows Fed’s 2006 out the water. I don’t even want to get into the top 10 vs top 10

Djokovic was dominant early on, Nadal was dominant early on, Fed is the oldest to win his first slam.

It’s revisionist now but you can’t dispute tennis metrics. It’s an inarguable sport

[marco102]

Only done twice before, by Rod Laver, but more than 50 years ago. Incredible feat.

And Laver did it when the slams were grass on 3 of the 4 surfaces. What Novak is trying to accomplish is a first - grass, clay, and hardcourt. It would be the greatest accomplishment ever in tennis. Modern equivalents would be Warriors finishing the job in 16 or the Pats in 07.

I think Medvedev has a chance. I'd give it like 25%. If there is one Slam that Novak falters in for some reason, it's the US Open.

Steffi Graff does exist. Golden Slam - She won all four majors and Olympics at the age of 19.

[DCasey91]

Brady is older than Fed... NFL weak era.

MJ 96-98 .... weak era

It’s either American jealous and envious posters, posters that have NFI idea about the sport or can’t fathom being wrong about something.

There is so many stupid statements in this whole thread lol

Someone literally said well Fed wouldn’t choke...... um really?

[DCasey91]

Where are all these "weakest era of tennis" know-nothings coming from all of a sudden??? This is arguably the hardest era ever. Medvedev would destroy Andy Roddick.

American ignorance and jealousy

People that don’t follow the sport and have NFI

or both.

[Impuniti]

Federer dominated the weakest era of tennis

Djokovic came out on top in the hardest era of tennis

Nadal was the catalyst and literal warlord on clay and was smacking Federer around for fun as a kid lol.

Absolute nonsense. Djoker started dominating around the same time both Fed and Nadal's prime started to go down. Still better than the rest, but there's been two generations now and there's not a single top 30 all time tennis player since the 3 OGs and Murray showed up. That's pathetic.

Those that question Djokovics case, comp or era compared to the two

Has this:

1. NFI it’s a basketball forum so many posters don’t know squat when it comes to tennis.
2. Fed’s era was weaker up until a kid came along by the name of Nadal and made Clay his play toy among other courts (won everything at 24).
3. Djokovic 2015 blows Fed’s 2006 out the water. I don’t even want to get into the top 10 vs top 10

Djokovic was dominant early on, Nadal was dominant early on, Fed is the oldest to win his first slam.

It’s revisionist now but you can’t dispute tennis metrics. It’s an inarguable sport

What are you on about? Djoker started dominating when when both those guys form started to wane and there were no next gen stars to overthrow any of these guys. None of the main 3 should have as many slams as they did, but there were 2 straight generations where there isn't a single all time great tennis player. This is when Djoker finally started winning slams at will. When Fed was in his prime, Djokovic was still quitting games because he was sick.

Are you one of the crazy as Serbian fans, because I know they have zero reasoning whenever his name is brought up.

[DCasey91]

Absolute nonsense. Djoker started dominating around the same time both Fed and Nadal's prime started to go down. Still better than the rest, but there's been two generations now and there's not a single top 30 all time tennis player since the 3 OGs and Murray showed up. That's pathetic.

Those that question Djokovics case, comp or era compared to the two

Has this:

1. NFI it’s a basketball forum so many posters don’t know squat when it comes to tennis.
2. Fed’s era was weaker up until a kid came along by the name of Nadal and made Clay his play toy among other courts (won everything at 24).
3. Djokovic 2015 blows Fed’s 2006 out the water. I don’t even want to get into the top 10 vs top 10

Djokovic was dominant early on, Nadal was dominant early on, Fed is the oldest to win his first slam.

It’s revisionist now but you can’t dispute tennis metrics. It’s an inarguable sport

What are you on about? Djoker started dominating when when both those guys form started to wane and there were no next gen stars to overthrow any of these guys. None of the main 3 should have as many slams as they did, but there were 2 straight generations where there isn't a single all time great tennis player. This is when Djoker finally started winning slams at will. When Fed was in his prime, Djokovic was still quitting games because he was sick.

Are you one of the crazy as Serbian fans, because I know they have zero reasoning whenever his name is brought up.

Nah people here just have NFI like you.

Fwiw they all won slams at will basically from 20 onwards. A bad year for all three is like one Slam or multiple finals appearances lol.

The overlap between the three is exhaustible and not disputable at all.

Have a look at Fed 2004-2007 weaker compared to what was to come.

Look at Djokovic 2011 or 2015 2016

Nadal 010

Dude Fed had one of his best seasons at 2017!

There is a difference between beloved and being the greatest ever.

3 GOAT level players stops a crap ton of players winning more duh. Murray/Wawrinka/Del Potro/Tsonga etc.

Way more parity in slam wins, title wins, master wins, etc in the Nadal/Djokovic/Fed to Reinvented Fed Era. That is a zero argument. Isn’t that what you want in comp?

Basically it was a 24 yr old Fed, a 19 year old Nadal and that was it just raffling titles. Clay? Nadal. Other surfaces depending on which surface and how healthy Nadal was, Nadal was favored not Fed. Nadal gave Fed trouble, Fed gave Nadal trouble. But it was two and that’s it.

Now who had easier time of it?

[stoo]

the fact that people call this a weak era just shows how dominant Djokovic is, as he is the almost sole reason those great youngish players haven't won almost anything yet. That's what happens when you play in the era of the GOAT, just like with Jordan's Bulls

[Bergmaniac]

It’s revisionist now but you can’t dispute tennis metrics. It’s an inarguable sport

Tell that to the posters who have spent countless hours discussing who's GOAT on every tennis board, LOL.

The "weaker era" talk will always be extremely subjective no matter how much stats you come up with.

[DCasey91]

It’s like people don’t know tennis lol.

Safin/Hewitt then Federer

Safin was the more fancy youngster early on but was a headcase. Still put together a magical 2000. Federer had tantrums when he was younger.

Nadal as a 18 was world renowned in tennis as the most talented kid ever. Still arguably if not the most accomplished teenager ever.

Nadal
Federer/Safin
Hewitt
Roddick

Those were the younger players based on talent alone.

Fed had a meh record early on to Hewitt and Nalbandian.

Cmon guys. He won a lot during a weaker period then Djokovic that is a fact. Nadal has more of an argument then Djokovic (still can’t go past the sub records on Grass/Hard courts 2/3). But at his best he was GOAT standard no question all three are.... Djokovic did it in the hardest possible timeframe.

[DCasey91]

It’s revisionist now but you can’t dispute tennis metrics. It’s an inarguable sport

Tell that to the posters who have spent countless hours discussing who's GOAT on every tennis board, LOL.

The "weaker era" talk will always be extremely subjective no matter how much stats you come up with.

Fed’s best season and Djokovic’s season isn’t comparable.

Top ten vs top ten it isn’t even close.

Fed’s top ten average age was 24! He was 100% WR not vsing Nadal. He beat on younger less talented and accomplished players. That is a fact.

Djokovic has a historic WL vs the deepest and stacked top ten record in his best season. War path Wawrinka was the only thing that stopped the greatest modern season ever.

People here don’t want to actually look at it because of how far apart the comp peers are.

Biggest fact is this. The Djokovic/Nadal/Murray/Wawrinka and Comeback Fed period (2010-2017) has the most parity in wins and the deepest ten and it isn’t even close at all.

That top ten destroys the comp of early Fed when he won the majority of his slams. He had 4 debut in the top ten in his best winning season lol. 2.4 all up

Djokovic?..... The whole top ten had multiple years of being there at an huge average of 6.9!

[dhsilv2]

1) Finals ELO - > strongest opponent makes the final - > the opponent with the higher ELO is the better player
2) Just because Nadal and Djokovic played a ton of matches against each just goes to show they were that much better than everybody else. It is the same as saying the Lakers ain't **** because they faced mostly the Celtics in the finals.

The same arguments being used against Djokovic were being used against Fed 15 years ago. Back then people criticized him because Sampras was retired and he played against Roddick and old man Agassi, i.e. a weaker era than the era of the previous GOAT player with more GSs.

All this really does it points out that tennis has gotten crazy top heavy and would indicate that the quality has dropped. The fact a 40 year old Fed is still even able to play at a pro level, let alone be a top 20 player is even more damning.

That said I don't watch tennis enough anymore to feel confident, but anytime you see 3 "GOAT" level guys all playing at one time, the most logical first thought is that the relative talent has fallen off a cliff.

Federer is pretty good...would certainly be a highly ranked player in any era. Him being middle aged just means he's not #1 anymore.

He is good vs his peers, but I don't think we've discovered a cure for aging. Him still being a top 10 player certainly gives me pause with the overall level of talent today 30-10.