The real Tennis thread.

[sniper]

Re:

I really wanted Murray to win and am no fan of Djokovic, but no one has ever played better tennis than the best version of him. Not prime Federer, not even prime Nadal. And in terms of results, his completion of the career slam now puts him above Nadal as well, despite not having won as many yet. Here are his GS results since 2011 from Wikipedia:

Absurdly dominant. He has already surpassed Federer in level of play, he doesn't need much more if anything to surpass him in accomplishments imo. It's not just about the major count.

that's debatable.
The most remarkable and unparalleled aspect of his game, for all intents and purposes, is his fitness level.
In terms of sheer tennis geniality, Djoker probably wouldn't even make it in my top 20 all time.
Even some guys who never won any slams like Pioline or Guasquet would rank higher in my book.

If we insist on finding middle ground between results and tennis genius, in my book Federer is gonna rank absolute number one, with head and shoulders above the rest. Then Sampras, maybe Edberg and some guys of that caliber, and probably Djoker, also.
(disclaimer: That's me picking from the last two and half decades or so, the time i've been following the game. I don't feel comfortable judging the likes of McEnroe/Connors/Borg. Have seen them play way too little.)

 

[Red Rick]

Re: Re:

Not near GOAT imo. Would mention weak era, but not really worth discussing here. IMO Fed is still far away the GOAT, and I used to hate Fed for a long time.

Weak era? Lets not rewrite history here. Federer may be past his best now and Nadal injured but Djokovic has been at the top for almost a decade and he went against them and beat them many times. In 2011 he was facing a prime Nadal and Federer and toyed with them. He's taken his game up a level since. Either way, neither Nadal nor Federer, nor anyone else in the modern era has held all 4 at the same time. He's not that far off Fed's Gs record anyway, but the acheivement of having all 4 at the same time puts him over imo.

Holding 4 slams is great, but it the circumstances help him tremendously. I don't really think Djokovic is that much better than in 2011, though his game is more complete. Toying with them is stating it strongly, he was incredibly clutch that year. The only surface where I rate Djokovic the highest is slow HC.

 

[Red Rick]

Djokovic is the best at low risk shots. And due to courts getting slower all over the ATP tour, this gets more important, and variance goes down.

Also interesting to note that at the WTF last year, Djokovic was the 2nd youngest player at 28

 

[SeriousSam]

A closer look at the stats. He is the most dominant player in the open era.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/novak-djokovics-chase-of-tennis-records-is-speeding-up/

sniper, your metric of 'tennis genius' seems to be based on aesthetics more than anything else. Federer, for instance, may have been elegant and all, but the success of his game was based on his very good first serve and his extraordinarily accurate, reliable and top spin heavy (second only to Nadal's) forehand.

Djokovic is better than Federer ever was because, while his serve isn't on Federer's level, his forehand is very close to it, his backhand is vastly superior, his return of serve much better and his court coverage on another level. Plus more composure in key moments.

 

[Red Rick]

Djokovic went I think 5-3 vs Federer last year even though Federer played at his absolute peak almost 10 years ago.

 

[BullsFan22]

Re:

Djokovic went I think 5-3 vs Federer last year even though Federer played at his absolute peak almost 10 years ago.

Great point. I still think that not enough people realize this. The longevity of Federer's career perhaps helps this, but they think just because he is still amongst the top 3-5 and still making it to semis and finals (when playing, of course) he is still in his prime. His prime years were 2003-2007. He had other great tournaments, like Australian Open 2010, or Wimbledon 2012 that make people think he was 'still' in his prime, but hardly. The other GS tournaments that he won in 2008 and 2009 (2008 US, 2009 French and Wimbledon) and the fact that he made it to all slam finals in 2009 and 3 of the 4 in 2008 are also slight outliers. Remember, he had a case of mono right after Shanghai in 2007 (his last Federer dominant tournament, IMO) and through much of 2008, and still competed with Djokovic, Nadal, Murray, Davydenko, Roddick, and the other top 5-10 players in those years.

Bottom line is, if Djokovic is still able to get to latter stages of slams well in his 30's, then all hats off to him. I mean, all hats off to him now, but I think most people consider Federer the greater player, ability and results wise. Djokovic may be closing in, but I think all those precious slam finals he lost 2012-2013 and the Wawrinka match last year, might have prevented him from overtaking Federer's GS record.

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

Djokovic went I think 5-3 vs Federer last year even though Federer played at his absolute peak almost 10 years ago.

Umm, to players not named Nowak Djokovic (on route to the final) Federer lost a grand total of 1 set in 6 matches at Wimbledon last year and 1 set in 6 games in 2014. And that's despite having a harder route to the final.

In the US Open last year, Federer didn't drop a single set before the final. He'd never done that before in the US Open.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

Djokovic went I think 5-3 vs Federer last year even though Federer played at his absolute peak almost 10 years ago.

Great point. I still think that not enough people realize this. The longevity of Federer's career perhaps helps this, but they think just because he is still amongst the top 3-5 and still making it to semis and finals (when playing, of course) he is still in his prime. His prime years were 2003-2007. He had other great tournaments, like Australian Open 2010, or Wimbledon 2012 that make people think he was 'still' in his prime, but hardly. The other GS tournaments that he won in 2008 and 2009 (2008 US, 2009 French and Wimbledon) and the fact that he made it to all slam finals in 2009 and 3 of the 4 in 2008 are also slight outliers. Remember, he had a case of mono right after Shanghai in 2007 (his last Federer dominant tournament, IMO) and through much of 2008, and still competed with Djokovic, Nadal, Murray, Davydenko, Roddick, and the other top 5-10 players in those years.

Bottom line is, if Djokovic is still able to get to latter stages of slams well in his 30's, then all hats off to him. I mean, all hats off to him now, but I think most people consider Federer the greater player, ability and results wise. Djokovic may be closing in, but I think all those precious slam finals he lost 2012-2013 and the Wawrinka match last year, might have prevented him from overtaking Federer's GS record.

Total coincidence that Federer's "prime" were the years before Djokovic and Murray came and while Nadal was still a teenager? Those years Federer was playing different journeymen in every final and his biggest rival- Andy roddick didn't have a backhand.

 

[BullsFan22]

Re: Re:

Djokovic went I think 5-3 vs Federer last year even though Federer played at his absolute peak almost 10 years ago.

Great point. I still think that not enough people realize this. The longevity of Federer's career perhaps helps this, but they think just because he is still amongst the top 3-5 and still making it to semis and finals (when playing, of course) he is still in his prime. His prime years were 2003-2007. He had other great tournaments, like Australian Open 2010, or Wimbledon 2012 that make people think he was 'still' in his prime, but hardly. The other GS tournaments that he won in 2008 and 2009 (2008 US, 2009 French and Wimbledon) and the fact that he made it to all slam finals in 2009 and 3 of the 4 in 2008 are also slight outliers. Remember, he had a case of mono right after Shanghai in 2007 (his last Federer dominant tournament, IMO) and through much of 2008, and still competed with Djokovic, Nadal, Murray, Davydenko, Roddick, and the other top 5-10 players in those years.

Bottom line is, if Djokovic is still able to get to latter stages of slams well in his 30's, then all hats off to him. I mean, all hats off to him now, but I think most people consider Federer the greater player, ability and results wise. Djokovic may be closing in, but I think all those precious slam finals he lost 2012-2013 and the Wawrinka match last year, might have prevented him from overtaking Federer's GS record.

Total coincidence that Federer's "prime" were the years before Djokovic and Murray came and while Nadal was still a teenager? Those years Federer was playing different journeymen in every final and his biggest rival- Andy roddick didn't have a backhand.

Perhaps. Names like Baghdatis, Gonzalez, Philippousis, aren't household, but they were still great players. Phillippousis was greatly touted and he did make it to a GS final at the 1998 US Open but injuries played a huge role in his career. Baghdatis broke through in 2006 and had another good year in 2007, but more or less disappeared not long after that. Gonzalez was top 10 the year Federer beat him in the finals in Australia. He beat Roddick a number of times in slams, Agassi in the 2005 US Open...Since Federer started winning slams in 2003, only Safin, Del Potro, Gaudio and Wawrinka are the non top 4 guys that have managed to win a slam. So perhaps this just a weak era in general? Sure, you are always gonna have talents, but how come no talented youngster is breaking through? Is it simply a change in eras? Strong top 5, but inconsistency after that? Is 30 the new 20 or 25? Slower courts? Mentally weaker opposition from Djokovic to deal with, at least on a regular basis?

 

[sniper]

Re:

...
sniper, your metric of 'tennis genius' seems to be based on aesthetics more than anything else.

well yes.

You're right about the serve being key to Roger's game. But note that his serve is not only more powerful, but also a tad bit more natural than Djoker's.
Roger's forehand is (much) more natural than Djoko's, too, i'd argue.
There's something magic about Roger's forehand that I will not be able to put into words. Sampras forehand, same story: Just something special to watch.
Djoker's forehand? Nothing special. Sure, more consistent and more powerful than any forehand the game has previously known. But it doesn't have the magic of a Federer or Sampras forehand.

Federer and Sampras were also very natural vollyers, unlike Djoker, who's not bad at the net (compared to, say, a Nadal), but is nowhere near being a natural either. I think even Murray looks a bit better at the net than Djoker.

Sure, double backhands are always going to be more consistent than singlehanded backhands. But like many observers, I too think there's more genius and beauty in a single handed backhand winner than in a double handed backhand winner. That said, I always wondered why Federer didn't make the switch to a double handed. And I do think Gasquet's and Wawrinka's singlehanded backhand's trump Roger's, albeit by a small margin.

Admittedly, it's difficult to define "natural". But all in all, between the two, Federer just strikes as the (much) more natural player. There is a good reason why there has been quite a bit of unanimity about Roger being the GOAT.
I don't think Djoker being the GOAT will grow as a consensus any time soon, but I could be wrong.

 

[The Hitch]

There was consensus that fed was goat because he dominated in a way no one had before, had 17 gss including the gs.

Djok has doubled his gs total in 24 months. He's playing at a level never seen before and just accomplished a actual grand slam which even Federer never managed. If he falls off a cliff fed may still be #1 but a few more gss and fed is falling to #2. I think if Nadal had won the match against wawrinka in 2014 and had 2 of every animal he would also be above Fed

 

[Red Rick]

There was consensus that fed was goat because he dominated in a way no one had before, had 17 gss including the gs.

Djok has doubled his gs total in 24 months. He's playing at a level never seen before and just accomplished a actual grand slam which even Federer never managed. If he falls off a cliff fed may still be #1 but a few more gss and fed is falling to #2. I think if Nadal had won the match against wawrinka in 2014 and had 2 of every animal he would also be above Fed

It's not like Djokovic is playing the best tennis eva to win the tournaments he's winning this year. Federer has been injured since Aussie Open, though the first 2 sets there were a proper beatdown. Murray has matchup issues vs Djokovic, especially on slow courts. The 2 finals they played this year were not better than matches they've played years ago. The grandslam is something Federer came very close to twice as well, when he had to peak Nadal at RG 3 consecutive times (5,6,7, in 8 he wasn't playing for a FedSlam). I really don't think that winning that one match makes up for 5 Slam difference.

If Djokovic ever played the best tennis ever, Rome and Madrid 2011 is where he did it.

 

[The Hitch]

Lets not forget that Djoker also holds the record for Masters titled. His current ATP score of 16 900 is surely the highest in history. The weak competition arguments seem forced because you beat what's in front of you, especially over a long time. If other people are injured and Djokovic is never injured, well that's as much part of the game as anything else. Federer has the record for consecutive appearances anyway, and that was a major reason why he dominated while all his opponents faced injury.

Federer beat what's in front of him, now Djoker is beating whats in front of him. I do think though even Fed himself said the competition was getting better and better over the years. Guys from 10 years ago had weaknesses. Today's generation are hulks who smash every shot and play 5 setters easy. Djoker is just the Hulk amongst Hulks. Like Usain in sprinting where everyone also got way better over the last decade but he's heads and shoulders above even them.

I think most sports have improved over the last decade, especially the big money ones, and tennis is no different.

 

[del1962]

Djokervic the best ever for me, some of his play against Murray getting shots backhe had no right to where amazing, Federer dominated in the past because of his serve and volley, I think Fed is not as complete a player, Federer is obviously a better player than Murray but not as complete a player though.

 

[Red Rick]

Re:

Djokervic the best ever for me, some of his play against Murray getting shots backhe had no right to where amazing, Federer dominated in the past because of his serve and volley, I think Fed is not as complete a player, Federer is obviously a better player than Murray but not as complete a player though.

Wow

 

[SeriousSam]

Well, having a backhand that is more liability than asset does detract from his completeness.

But yes , Federer never dominated due to his serve and volley. Make that serve and forehand.

 

[Red Rick]

The Federer backhand only used to break down against Nadal. His movement was great and his return game was amazing as well. However, he's missing a step now, and his return has gotten a lot worse. Prior to switching rackets, he'd shank a lot of backhands, but forehand hasn't been the same since.

In terms of completeness, I'd say no player can hit every shot in the book and then make up some of his own shots like Federer. He's a real shotmaker though, meaning he's absolutely great at relatively low percentage shots, whereas Djokovic is the best at high percentage shots.

Djokovic can't quite hit all the shots like Federer, but he doesn't get in to the position where he has to. The other relatively weak shots he's improved. His net game for example revolves around him setting up the volley that is easy enough.

 

[sniper]

Re:

The Federer backhand only used to break down against Nadal. His movement was great and his return game was amazing as well. However, he's missing a step now, and his return has gotten a lot worse. Prior to switching rackets, he'd shank a lot of backhands, but forehand hasn't been the same since.

In terms of completeness, I'd say no player can hit every shot in the book and then make up some of his own shots like Federer. He's a real shotmaker though, meaning he's absolutely great at relatively low percentage shots, whereas Djokovic is the best at high percentage shots.

Djokovic can't quite hit all the shots like Federer, but he doesn't get in to the position where he has to. The other relatively weak shots he's improved. His net game for example revolves around him setting up the volley that is easy enough.

very well put.
basically what i was trying to say above, but in a clumsy way.

 

[Red Rick]

Lendl back to coaching Muzziah. Great news for those who hope Murray will challenge Djoker a bit more in the future

 

[Red Rick]

I'm starting to become a big fan of Dominic Thiem. I thought he'd be forever hopeless on grass and then Monday he proves me wrong and wins his first title there. He should stop playing every week however, he's played like 10 matches more then the 2nd most active player on the Tour.

 

[Sciocco]

Re:

I'm starting to become a big fan of Dominic Thiem. I thought he'd be forever hopeless on grass and then Monday he proves me wrong and wins his first title there. He should stop playing every week however, he's played like 10 matches more then the 2nd most active player on the Tour.

Yea, safe to say he's running towards to a late season collapse. Up to 7th or something in the rankings is nice though.

 

[Red Rick]

Re: Re:

I'm starting to become a big fan of Dominic Thiem. I thought he'd be forever hopeless on grass and then Monday he proves me wrong and wins his first title there. He should stop playing every week however, he's played like 10 matches more then the 2nd most active player on the Tour.

Yea, safe to say he's running towards to a late season collapse. Up to 7th or something in the rankings is nice though.

It's the same thing every week

"Will Thiem finally take a week off? No points to defend in Halle"
"Nah, he's playing singles AND DOUBLES"

 

[Sciocco]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5CZ9Ej5MJA

Thiem just keeps going.

I hope Nishikori wins a slam before Thiem's reign begins. _O_

 

[Red Rick]

Murray does it again in at Queens. Gets 76 and 30 behind vs Raonic, who hadn't been broken all tournament, only to break 4 (!) times in the next 8 return games to wreck Raonic. Raonic doesn't have it mentally vs Murray, let alone Djokovic.

Meanwhile, Zverev fails to finish a great week in Halle. Manages to beat Fed, then fucks it up against Mayer, who had to use his PR to get in the tournament. Big shame, but I think he'll be challenging at the bigger stages very soon. Really happy with the recent development by Thiem, Zverev, Kyrgios and to a lesser degree Fritz.

I'm also following Felix Auger Alliasime, a 15 year old who lost the boys final at RG this year. Last year, at 14 (!!) he was like the youngest player ever to qualify for a challenger and reached the QF of another challenger. He then played a top 150 player quite hard. Will be interesting how that kid will develop. Got a very long way to go, but *** load of time to get there too.

 

[Pricey_sky]

Always a good buzz for the first day of Wimbledon, currently watching Lisicki against Rogers. Lisicki destroyed her in the first set, winning the set in just over 15 minutes.