Joined: 25 Apr 2015 Posts: 31924 Location: Anaheim, CA
Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2019 1:59 am Post subject:
Djokovic is completely locked in. Even on that last service game where Nadal pushed it to deuce a couple of times, he had to hit amazing shots just to do that. Novak is striking the ball remarkably cleanly. This has been a wonderful performance from the Serb so far.
Joined: 26 Apr 2004 Posts: 17249 Location: In a no-ship
Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2019 2:08 am Post subject:
ChickenStu wrote:
Djokovic is completely locked in. Even on that last service game where Nadal pushed it to deuce a couple of times, he had to hit amazing shots just to do that. Novak is striking the ball remarkably cleanly. This has been a wonderful performance from the Serb so far.
You can say that again — wow! Only a few UE so far.
Joined: 25 Apr 2015 Posts: 31924 Location: Anaheim, CA
Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2019 2:26 am Post subject:
This is just silly from Djokovic, at this point. This is reminding me of prime Andre Agassi in terms of ballstriking...except with considerably better movement and defense from Djokovic. Oh and a better serve, too.
Joined: 27 Jul 2004 Posts: 18222 Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2019 8:37 am Post subject:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
Man, can you believe Sampras was just passed over by 3 guys from this era. That's crazy!
And it's crazy how Andy Murray was considered one of the big 4. He's nowhere near these 3.
Yeah and all three of those guys did what Sampras couldn't: Win all four majors.
When I woke up to watch the match I thought I messed up by only setting the DVR to record 4 hours. Turns out it was 90 minutes longer than needed. I wasn't disappointed though if we get to see someone play tennis at that level against one of the best players ever. Just an astounding performance by Novak. _________________ "Suck it up. Don't be a baby. Do your job." - Kobe Bryant
I saw in the argument for Djokovic as the greatest is his record vs. Federer 25-22.
Now, this is a point I don't see alot of people bring up, but I think is quite relevant - Federer's age.
--------------------------------------
Federer is 37 and Djokovic is 31, 6 years younger. I think the younger player always has the advantage.
When Djokovic won his 2nd grand slam title in 2011 - Federer already had 16. Federer started slowing down in 2010. Now, 2010, he was still only 28, and in 2011, he was only 29, so I get that. But that's when he really started slowing down.
Federer's peak was from (21-29) (2003-2010) when he won 16 majors.
From (29-35) (2010-2016) - he won 1 major
And recently, from (35-36) (2017-2018) - he won 3 majors.
---------------------------------------------
Djokovic's career:
From (17-23) (2005-2010) - he only won 1 title. Notice, this is when Federer was at his peak.
Then, from (23-29) (2010-2016) - he won 11 titles. This is his peak
He slowed down for 2 years (29-31) (2016-2018) - 0 titles
Now, a resurgance at age 31 (2018-2019) - 3 titles.
-------------------------------------------------
What's my point? Djokovic never competed against Federer during his peak. Federer had to compete against Djokovic during his peak. So, the numbers are going to be skewed for Djokovic.
But, you can see how the timelines match up that maybe Federer didn't decline but maybe he stopped winning majors because of Djokovic's rise. That's another way of looking at it. Maybe Federer was as good as he was from ages 22-29 but Djokovic was just better. My counter argument to that would be, Federer wasn't just losing to Djokovic during this period. He was also losing to Tsonga, Andy Murray, Stan Wawrinka, etc. I think he definitely lost something after age 29. The only player that could beat Federer from ages 22-29 was Nadal and that was predominantly on clay. Take out the clay surface and Federer had an edge on Nadal on the hard and grass courts.
So, could Djokovic beat peak Federer? We'll never know. But, one thing we know, Djokovic never competed vs. peak Federer (22-29). They might have played some matches, but Djokovic wasn't the player he is today.
So what do you guys think. Did Federer decline after age 29 or did Djokovic get better and Federer couldn't keep up with him?
Could peak Djokovic beat peak Federer?
It does look like Djokovic is going to be a stronger player past age 29 than Federer was. Although, Federer faced tougher competition that Djokovic. By age 29, Federer had to face (peak Djokovic, peak Nadal, peak Murray, peak Wawrinka). Djokovic on the other hand has to face (old Federer, breaking down Nadal, and injured/retiring Murray, declining Wawrinka).
It would be interesting if Djokovic and Federer were the same age and their peaks lined up (22-29). I wonder who would have won more.
I will also admit that peak Federer (22-29) faced far weaker opponents than peak Djokovic.
Joined: 26 Apr 2004 Posts: 17249 Location: In a no-ship
Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2019 12:56 pm Post subject:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
Man, can you believe Sampras was just passed over by 3 guys from this era. That's crazy!
And it's crazy how Andy Murray was considered one of the big 4. He's nowhere near these 3.
Don’t underestimate Murray. They call it the big 4 because those guys were in every masters 1000 and slam semi/final for more than a decade. Murray had a lot of success and was clearly better than everyone else but the top 3, and was competitive with them at least, winning sometimes.
Nadal looked like a completely different player, I have never seen him spray his forehand so much. He missed a lot of volleys too, which I always thought was an underrated part of his game.
Djokovic looked scary good, and his serve was beautiful.
Clay court season is going to be interesting, especially with Federer saying he will play it. I can't see anyone other than DJokovic or Nadal winning the French.
Here is a great, classic match. This is 2011 at the French Open. Djokovic Vs Federer. Very high level tennis.
Man, can you believe Sampras was just passed over by 3 guys from this era. That's crazy!
And it's crazy how Andy Murray was considered one of the big 4. He's nowhere near these 3.
Don’t underestimate Murray. They call it the big 4 because those guys were in every masters 1000 and slam semi/final for more than a decade. Murray had a lot of success and was clearly better than everyone else but the top 3, and was competitive with them at least, winning sometimes.
Yeah, at the time, I'm sure people felt he belonged. But right now looking back, it's just silly to call it the era of the big 4.
Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 40345 Location: Dirty South
Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2019 1:40 pm Post subject:
feels like Naomi Osaka deserves a little more media attention that she has received post AO victory....young lady has climbed to the top of the sport rather quickly, and appears to plan on staying around for a while.
feels like Naomi Osaka deserves a little more media attention that she has received post AO victory....young lady has climbed to the top of the sport rather quickly, and appears to plan on staying around for a while.
Probably because she's from Japan and not a model.
If her name was Naomi Capriati or she looked like Naomi Kournikova or Naomi Sharipova, she'd probably be betting tons of love.
Just looked up her bio, she's been in the US since 3 yrs old. Wonder why she doesn't represent the US.
feels like Naomi Osaka deserves a little more media attention that she has received post AO victory....young lady has climbed to the top of the sport rather quickly, and appears to plan on staying around for a while.
Joined: 26 Apr 2004 Posts: 17249 Location: In a no-ship
Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2019 3:44 pm Post subject:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
DuncanIdaho wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
Man, can you believe Sampras was just passed over by 3 guys from this era. That's crazy!
And it's crazy how Andy Murray was considered one of the big 4. He's nowhere near these 3.
Don’t underestimate Murray. They call it the big 4 because those guys were in every masters 1000 and slam semi/final for more than a decade. Murray had a lot of success and was clearly better than everyone else but the top 3, and was competitive with them at least, winning sometimes.
Yeah, at the time, I'm sure people felt he belonged. But right now looking back, it's just silly to call it the era of the big 4.
You're underestimating Murray. Look at this and tell me with a straight face it wasn't the era of the big 4
Man, can you believe Sampras was just passed over by 3 guys from this era. That's crazy!
And it's crazy how Andy Murray was considered one of the big 4. He's nowhere near these 3.
Don’t underestimate Murray. They call it the big 4 because those guys were in every masters 1000 and slam semi/final for more than a decade. Murray had a lot of success and was clearly better than everyone else but the top 3, and was competitive with them at least, winning sometimes.
Yeah, at the time, I'm sure people felt he belonged. But right now looking back, it's just silly to call it the era of the big 4.
You're underestimating Murray. Look at this and tell me with a straight face it wasn't the era of the big 4
No reason to chop Murray down. Look at how many Masters 1000 he won and also how many GS finals he played in.
That's fine. I'm not trying to convince anyone here. This is my opinion.
When you look at the legacy of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic all having surpassed Sampras and being in the conversation as GOAT, it seems kind of silly, TO ME, that there was a big 4.
I mean, when they make a documentary about it - it'll probably be boiled down to the big 3.
Legacy wise, Murray doesn't belong in that conversation. But again, that's how I see it. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else. That's just how I see it. I'm not saying it wasn't deserved at that moment in time as it was happening. I'm saying, it's not holding up over time and the further away we get, it's going to look sillier and sillier. Especially now that they've all got 15 Grand Slams and Murray's stuck on 3 and about to retire. It's just not holding up well.
Joined: 26 Apr 2004 Posts: 17249 Location: In a no-ship
Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2019 4:03 pm Post subject:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
DuncanIdaho wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
DuncanIdaho wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
Man, can you believe Sampras was just passed over by 3 guys from this era. That's crazy!
And it's crazy how Andy Murray was considered one of the big 4. He's nowhere near these 3.
Don’t underestimate Murray. They call it the big 4 because those guys were in every masters 1000 and slam semi/final for more than a decade. Murray had a lot of success and was clearly better than everyone else but the top 3, and was competitive with them at least, winning sometimes.
Yeah, at the time, I'm sure people felt he belonged. But right now looking back, it's just silly to call it the era of the big 4.
You're underestimating Murray. Look at this and tell me with a straight face it wasn't the era of the big 4
No reason to chop Murray down. Look at how many Masters 1000 he won and also how many GS finals he played in.
That's fine. I'm not trying to convince anyone here. This is my opinion.
When you look at the legacy of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic all having surpassed Sampras and being in the conversation as GOAT, it seems kind of silly, TO ME, that there was a big 4.
I mean, when they make a documentary about it - it'll probably be boiled down to the big 3.
Legacy wise, Murray doesn't belong in that conversation. But again, that's how I see it. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else. That's just how I see it. I'm not saying it wasn't deserved at that moment in time as it was happening. I'm saying, it's not holding up over time and the further away we get, it's going to look sillier and sillier. Especially now that they've all got 15 Grand Slams and Murray's stuck on 3 and about to retire. It's just not holding up well.
Big 4 does not mean what you think it means. Big 4 does not mean they were equal. It means they blocked the semifinals of basically every single major tournament. Not going to belabor this point, but you're absolutely wrong on this. If none of the other 3 existed, you'd favor Murray for every single tournament, right? Murray has one of the best return games of all times, has won 14 Masters 1000, 2 gold medals and reached #1 in the world in the same era as the other 3.
Last edited by DuncanIdaho on Sun Jan 27, 2019 4:10 pm; edited 1 time in total
All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3Next
Page 2 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
