Novak Djokovic

[CatsnRoses]

Is he the greatest athlete of all-time? Think it's a genuine discussion at this point.

Guy has had to overcome hostile crowds, public charades, political interference and multiple generations of up and coming tennis stars and conquered them all. He's on par with Jordan for me in terms of winning mentality and achievement.

 

[Ron Mehico]

No

 

[Mdnerd]

If you say no, you’re either politically biased against him or you just don’t respect the sport. Guy is the all time greatest, and keeping that level at his age is beyond incredible.

 

[UK-Chulo]

It’s tennis.

 

[mcnicKY91]

The only reason Djokovic is putting up these insane numbers is because his competition sucks. The current younger generation of players is awful. The fact that a 36 year old is dominating players who are in their tennis primes is laughable.

If Alcaraz can't make a final, Novak literally has no competition the entire tournament. Look at his draws for the 4 grand slams this year. They are an absolute joke.

Credit to Novak for outlasting Nadal and Federer (and Fed is almost 6 yrs older)...but I can't help wonder why half his 24 slams have come after the age of 30...why wasn't he this dominant when he was in his actual prime??

 

[Mdnerd]

The only reason Djokovic is putting up these insane numbers is because his competition sucks. The current younger generation of players is awful. The fact that a 36 year old is dominating players who are in their tennis primes is laughable.

If Alcaraz can't make a final, Novak literally has no competition the entire tournament. Look at his draws for the 4 grand slams this year. They are an absolute joke.

Credit to Novak for outlasting Nadal and Federer (and Fed is almost 6 yrs older)...but I can't help wonder why half his 24 slams have come after the age of 30...why wasn't he this dominant when he was in his actual prime??

If Djokovic had retired and Alcaraz and Medvedev were winning every title, everyone would be labeling them the next great rivalry etc. They aren’t winning at that level because…Djokovic

 

[mcnicKY91]

If Djokovic had retired and Alcaraz and Medvedev were winning every title, everyone would be labeling them the next great rivalry etc. They aren’t winning at that level because…Djokovic

No doubt they would be sold as the next great rivalry...that doesn't make them great players just because they would have a great rivalry.

Why wasn't Novak this dominant in his prime against Nadal and Federer? Why is he now this dominant at 36 against this younger generation who should be in their tennis primes? Why has Novak won half his majors post 30? Where was all this dominance prior to 30?

 

[Mdnerd]

No doubt they would be sold as the next great rivalry...that doesn't make them great players just because they would have a great rivalry.

Why wasn't Novak this dominant in his prime against Nadal and Federer? Why is he now this dominant at 36 against this younger generation who should be in their tennis primes? Why has Novak won half his majors post 30? Where was all this dominance prior to 30?

To say he wasn’t great before his 30s is disingenuous. Also tennis is a game of great athleticism, but also wisdom and mental toughness. I doubt you’ll find anyone who will say Novak was better at 25 vs 30. He continued to get better with that age. He was a mental wreck for a large portion of his 20s. Now he’s unshakable. He’s the GOAT and it’s not debatable using any level of logic.

 

[mcnicKY91]

To say he wasn’t great before his 30s is disingenuous. Also tennis is a game of great athleticism, but also wisdom and mental toughness. I doubt you’ll find anyone who will say Novak was better at 25 vs 30. He continued to get better with that age. He was a mental wreck for a large portion of his 20s. Now he’s unshakable. He’s the GOAT and it’s not debatable using any level of logic.

Of course he was an all time great before his 30s. When did I say otherwise?

Also, someone who, according to you, is a mental wreck for a large portion of his 20s, does not rack up 12 slams in his 20s...that is impossible to do if you are a "mental wreck."

The fact that Novak is inflating his career numbers at age 36 against a bunch of players who suck does nothing to enhance his legacy, nor does it do anything to separate himself from Nadal and Federer. They are the 3 co-GOATS, and nothing that Djokovic does against mediocre players will change that.

 

[cavalier cats]

Of course he was an all time great before his 30s. When did I say otherwise?

Also, someone who, according to you, is a mental wreck for a large portion of his 20s, does not rack up 12 slams in his 20s...that is impossible to do if you are a "mental wreck."

The fact that Novak is inflating his career numbers at age 36 against a bunch of players who suck does nothing to enhance his legacy, nor does it do anything to separate himself from Nadal and Federer. They are the 3 co-GOATS, and nothing that Djokovic does against mediocre players will change that.

Greatest athlete? I believe track and field, basketball, and some other sports require more athleticism. But greatest athlete is interesting. All alone out there to win or lose. I have a hard time putting him up against Jordan or Usain Bolt, for examples. But it's a reasonable question.

This co-GOAT argument...well at least you're honest to say nothing will change your mind. Some athletes peak later than others. Also, Federer was still highly competitive at this age until his knee gave out. Nadal just won two slams last year. I don't think the younger generation is a lesser generation. I just think the Big 3 are that much better. To discount Novak winning now...I mean do we discount Federer and to a lesser degree Nadal winning before Novak emerged? Do we discredit Federer and Nadal for the year plus that Novak was out with injury? No.

Or how about this? How about Novak has a winning H2H record against Nadal and Federer. How about Novak has beaten more top 10 opponents than anyone in history? How about Novak has been ranked #1 more weeks than anyone else?

Or how about my favorite...only one person has won every Masters 1000 competition at least once. Who? Novak. How many times? Twice. And he is one Monte Carlo title away from doing it three times.

Like the only anti-Novak argument in tennis really at this point is, "I don't like him as much as I like the other guy(s)."

 

[mrhotdice]

The only reason Djokovic is putting up these insane numbers is because his competition sucks. The current younger generation of players is awful. The fact that a 36 year old is dominating players who are in their tennis primes is laughable.

If Alcaraz can't make a final, Novak literally has no competition the entire tournament. Look at his draws for the 4 grand slams this year. They are an absolute joke.

Credit to Novak for outlasting Nadal and Federer (and Fed is almost 6 yrs older)...but I can't help wonder why half his 24 slams have come after the age of 30...why wasn't he this dominant when he was in his actual prime??

The video game generation know two things, if I sit on my *** long enough I can become a victim, and that their opinion that they are smart is just imaginary.

 

[gamecockcat]

I was going to post about the US Open but you beat me to it.

I watched a lot of Medvedev v. Alcaraz and I thought that may have been the best tennis I've ever seen Medvedev play. He used a lot of variety, he came to the net, he aimed for the lines and kept pressuring CA all match. I thought he played brilliantly, both physically and mentally.

I also watched a ton of Joker v. DM and could not believe the change in Medvedev's game plan. Sit back behind the baseline and get into 10+ shot rallies against Joker? Who came up with that plan? Outgrind Joker who is almost assuredly the GOAT at this point? Point after point, they would exchange numerous groundstrokes and, eventually on more points than not, DM would make an error. Late in the 2nd set, which was absolutely essential for Medvedev to win if he was going to have any chance of winning the match, they showed a graphic that, in that set, DM had something like 9 unforced errors and Joker had ZERO. And his plan was to hit as many groundstrokes back and forth waiting for Joker to make a mistake? Madness.

I was talking with one of my tennis team teammates prior to the semi match with Alcaraz and said that I found DM's game to be tentative and boring. He runs like a greyhound and gets almost everything back but seems to be very comfortable just hitting shot after shot without putting a ton of pressure on his opponent. That works great against #10-#300 on the ATP tour but not, I don't think, against the top 10. Against CA, he was aggressive and beat the guy who I think can dominate for the next several years in Alcaraz. Then, in the finals, goes completely passive again and expects to win by being steadier than Joker. Couldn't believe it.

 

[CatsnRoses]

Don't think you can use the "weak era" argument against him considering he played much of his career competing against (and beating) 2 of the 3 greatest tennis players of all-time.

Nadal is a year older than him. Federer is 6 years older but was still well in his prime for a good portion of their rivalry.

And now with Alcaraz coming up he's contending with one of the great young talents of the last 30-40 years. At age 36, nonetheless.

 

[vhcat70]

Greatest athlete to me means a high degree of natural talent. It's not the best in a highly trained sport/activity such as tennis, golf, bowling, maybe baseball pitching. That means I look to T&F, soccer, football, hoops, & the hand/eye coordination of hitting a baseball. Being able to compete across sports rates highly with me.

So, Bo Jackson is #1 for me between power & baseball. Others are Jordan, Dion, Messi, Bolt, Simone Biles, Jesse Owens, Carl Lewis. These crazy QB's that can run & throw also impress. Ohanti pitching & hitting is unreal.

 

[catlanta33]

I tried to return serves from a guy that played some college tennis. Serve speed was around 105-109. Could hit a baseball over 90 mph and couldn't get a giant racquet on his serve for the life of me. We didn't even get to the running back and forth part.

Not sure I understand the knocks on the athleticism in tennis. You are most definitely an athlete if you compete at the top level of a sport.

But, I don't think Novak is the GOAT of all athletes.

 

[vhcat70]

^ ND doesn't have to put the ball in the 17" wide strike zone either.

 

[rick64]

In individual sports like golf and tennis, we typically give the GOAT title to whoever has the most majors. Djokovic has the most, and doubtful Rafa will get any more. Certainly Fed won't as he's retired. Will Alacaraz surpass Novak, only time will tell. I remember when Sampras passed Emerson and many thought it would be a while before someone would surpass Sampras. Fed took care of that pretty quickly, then Rafa and now Novak.

 

[lex cath]

Well in the tennis match yesterday he did get the Moderna shot of the day, which by itself is funny as hell

 

[BlueCephus]

The only reason Djokovic is putting up these insane numbers is because his competition sucks. The current younger generation of players is awful. The fact that a 36 year old is dominating players who are in their tennis primes is laughable.

If Alcaraz can't make a final, Novak literally has no competition the entire tournament. Look at his draws for the 4 grand slams this year. They are an absolute joke.

Credit to Novak for outlasting Nadal and Federer (and Fed is almost 6 yrs older)...but I can't help wonder why half his 24 slams have come after the age of 30...why wasn't he this dominant when he was in his actual prime??

That's laughable. The ground Alcaraz and Medvedez, etc. cover is as good as its ever been. The rally's are crazy. They hammer the ball. Andy Roddick couldn't beat either of them. Sampras would struggle. And as good as they are, Novak still beats them more often than not. His lower body is as athletic as anyone you'll ever see. He dwarfs Tom Brady as far as athleticism.

 

[Catman100]

Lots of folks in this thread have never played tennis.

 

[mcnicKY91]

Greatest athlete? I believe track and field, basketball, and some other sports require more athleticism. But greatest athlete is interesting. All alone out there to win or lose. I have a hard time putting him up against Jordan or Usain Bolt, for examples. But it's a reasonable question.

This co-GOAT argument...well at least you're honest to say nothing will change your mind. Some athletes peak later than others. Also, Federer was still highly competitive at this age until his knee gave out. Nadal just won two slams last year. I don't think the younger generation is a lesser generation. I just think the Big 3 are that much better. To discount Novak winning now...I mean do we discount Federer and to a lesser degree Nadal winning before Novak emerged? Do we discredit Federer and Nadal for the year plus that Novak was out with injury? No.

Or how about this? How about Novak has a winning H2H record against Nadal and Federer. How about Novak has beaten more top 10 opponents than anyone in history? How about Novak has been ranked #1 more weeks than anyone else?

Or how about my favorite...only one person has won every Masters 1000 competition at least once. Who? Novak. How many times? Twice. And he is one Monte Carlo title away from doing it three times.

Like the only anti-Novak argument in tennis really at this point is, "I don't like him as much as I like the other guy(s)."

I don't have any problems with Novak at all. His longevity is incredible.

But the fact that at the age of 36 is he straight setting these younger players off the court is, quite frankly, embarrassing to watch.

Novak from 2013 would straight set 2023 Novak, and pretty easily to be fair.

He is reaping the benefits from being the last player standing...simple as that. It is downright embarrassing that next year, at the age of 37, could easily win the calendar year grand slam. His draws have been a joke. Outside of Alcaraz, there is no one to challenge him at a major. No one.

 

[mcnicKY91]

Don't think you can use the "weak era" argument against him considering he played much of his career competing against (and beating) 2 of the 3 greatest tennis players of all-time.

Nadal is a year older than him. Federer is 6 years older but was still well in his prime for a good portion of their rivalry.

And now with Alcaraz coming up he's contending with one of the great young talents of the last 30-40 years. At age 36, nonetheless.

Why wasn't Djokovic winning slams at this rate in his prime? Why now?!

 

[gamecockcat]

I don't have any problems with Novak at all. His longevity is incredible.

But the fact that at the age of 36 is he straight setting these younger players off the court is, quite frankly, embarrassing to watch.

Novak from 2013 would straight set 2023 Novak, and pretty easily to be fair.

He is reaping the benefits from being the last player standing...simple as that. It is downright embarrassing that next year, at the age of 37, could easily win the calendar year grand slam. His draws have been a joke. Outside of Alcaraz, there is no one to challenge him at a major. No one.

On the one hand, I agree that the younger players can't seem to beat him. I'm convinced it's as much mental as it is physical with many of them. Yesterday, Medvedev played a braindead brand of tennis that, imo, had no shot of beating Joker. In contrast, he played a different type of tennis to beat Alcaraz. Somebody convinced him that he could win by exchanging groundstrokes with NJ until he made an error. Well, straight sets later, that strategy proved to be foolish. A few years ago, I think it was Tsisipas had a 2-set lead in the French Open final and decided that he was going to stay at the baseline and play 20 shot rallies to win the match (which he hadn't done to win the first 2 sets). Joker won in 5. Believing that any/many players are capable of beating Joker by outgrinding him from the baseline is demostrably false and, yet, time after time players attempt to do so.

I think you may also be underestimating how much Joker has improved over his career. His serve is better and more reliable. He sets up points much, much better than when he was younger to give himself the best percentage chance of winning each point. Not sure 10 years ago that he was hitting the ball harder or as well as he does now (some of that due to better equipment). Mentally, he's much tougher than he was when younger. By his own admission, he's also in better shape physically - didn't dedicate himself to being an elite athlete with nearly unlimited stamina in his earlier years as he has the past 10 years. Is he a half step slower - almost assuredly. Does he anticipate better and know/read his opponent better and, thus, makes up (and perhaps improves) his ability to cover the court - I would say yes to that, also. There's more to winning tennis than who hits harder or runs faster. The mental grind of 3+ hours is nothing to ignore and 36-YO Joker >> 25-YO Joker mentally.

 

[cavalier cats]

Why wasn't Djokovic winning slams at this rate in his prime? Why now?!

I've seen you make this argument before. I'm no expert. But Novak himself believes he is a better player now, at least that is what he has said. John McEnroe has said the same for the last year. Andy Roddick hasn't gone that far, but he isn't saying that younger Novak was definitely better. Actually, Roddick has specifically talked about when Novak was younger the strategy was to keep him on the court as long as you could because he had various stamina issues related to diet, youthful exuberance, etc. That clearly has not been the case the last five years. You are answering a question definitively when you don't actually know the answer.

 

[rudd1]

^ ND doesn't have to put the ball in the 17" wide strike zone either.

-conversely...whomever is returning the serve doesn't have to concentrate on just a 17" x 25" wide zone...162" x 72ish"

 

[mcnicKY91]

On the one hand, I agree that the younger players can't seem to beat him. I'm convinced it's as much mental as it is physical with many of them. Yesterday, Medvedev played a braindead brand of tennis that, imo, had no shot of beating Joker. In contrast, he played a different type of tennis to beat Alcaraz. Somebody convinced him that he could win by exchanging groundstrokes with NJ until he made an error. Well, straight sets later, that strategy proved to be foolish. A few years ago, I think it was Tsisipas had a 2-set lead in the French Open final and decided that he was going to stay at the baseline and play 20 shot rallies to win the match (which he hadn't done to win the first 2 sets). Joker won in 5. Believing that any/many players are capable of beating Joker by outgrinding him from the baseline is demostrably false and, yet, time after time players attempt to do so.

I think you may also be underestimating how much Joker has improved over his career. His serve is better and more reliable. He sets up points much, much better than when he was younger to give himself the best percentage chance of winning each point. Not sure 10 years ago that he was hitting the ball harder or as well as he does now (some of that due to better equipment). Mentally, he's much tougher than he was when younger. By his own admission, he's also in better shape physically - didn't dedicate himself to being an elite athlete with nearly unlimited stamina in his earlier years as he has the past 10 years. Is he a half step slower - almost assuredly. Does he anticipate better and know/read his opponent better and, thus, makes up (and perhaps improves) his ability to cover the court - I would say yes to that, also. There's more to winning tennis than who hits harder or runs faster. The mental grind of 3+ hours is nothing to ignore and 36-YO Joker >> 25-YO Joker mentally.

I've seen you make this argument before. I'm no expert. But Novak himself believes he is a better player now, at least that is what he has said. John McEnroe has said the same for the last year. Andy Roddick hasn't gone that far, but he isn't saying that younger Novak was definitely better. Actually, Roddick has specifically talked about when Novak was younger the strategy was to keep him on the court as long as you could because he had various stamina issues related to diet, youthful exuberance, etc. That clearly has not been the case the last five years. You are answering a question definitively when you don't actually know the answer.

If I am to believe what you two are saying...and please correct me if I am wrong...is that Novak is the only player in the history of professional sports who is a better player at the age of 36 than he was at the age of 26? That's what I am to believe?

Would 36 year old Novak be beating prime Rafa and Fed the way he is beating these next gen players? On the contrary, Novak would get blown off the court. Heck, he would get destroyed by prime Stan and Delpo...

 

[Catman100]

If I am to believe what you two are saying...and please correct me if I am wrong...is that Novak is the only player in the history of professional sports who is a better player at the age of 36 than he was at the age of 26? That's what I am to believe?

Would 36 year old Novak be beating prime Rafa and Fed the way he is beating these next gen players? On the contrary, Novak would get blown off the court. Heck, he would get destroyed by prime Stan and Delpo...

I will listen to the rest of your argument, but let's not get carried away.

 

[mcnicKY91]

I will listen to the rest of your argument, but let's not get carried away.

Stan had no problem beating Novak at the Australian in 2014, the French in 2015, and 2016 US Open...why wouldn't a prime Stan be able to beat a 36 year old Novak when he could beat an in prime Novak?

 

[BlueCephus]

I've seen you make this argument before. I'm no expert. But Novak himself believes he is a better player now, at least that is what he has said. John McEnroe has said the same for the last year. Andy Roddick hasn't gone that far, but he isn't saying that younger Novak was definitely better. Actually, Roddick has specifically talked about when Novak was younger the strategy was to keep him on the court as long as you could because he had various stamina issues related to diet, youthful exuberance, etc. That clearly has not been the case the last five years. You are answering a question definitively when you don't actually know the answer.

Why do many golfers play better in their 40's than in their 20's? Experience.

 

[cavalier cats]

Stan had no problem beating Novak at the Australian in 2014, the French in 2015, and 2016 US Open...why wouldn't a prime Stan be able to beat a 36 year old Novak when he could beat an in prime Novak?

You're going in a loop. You have already decided that Novak a decade ago was his prime, so it's a foregone conclusion he would get destroyed by prime Stan. The counter is just as simple. Perhaps that was not his actual prime and this version would smash prime Stan. It's a hypothetical. I gave you experts, including Novak himself, saying he is now better than he was. You only dig further into the position you already claimed. That's fine. You can believe that, and I can believe this.

I would also add, I mentioned earlier that not everyone reaches peak at the same time. Similarly, I do not believe everyone declines the same. Peyton Manning declined quite rapidly while Tom Brady was still out there slinging the ball around like someone 10 years younger than his age. Why that is...we can speculate. But not everyone's opening and closing windows are the same.

And since I'm going now, how can we knowingly assess if 20 year old Nadal is better than 20 year old Alcaraz? 20 year old Alcaraz just had one of the better seasons in history. And if there were no Novak, he might have had the French to go with it. So if old man Novak is beating amazing Alcaraz...I guess it's because Alcaraz is no longer amazing?

 

[catlanta33]

You're going in a loop. You have already decided that Novak a decade ago was his prime, so it's a foregone conclusion he would get destroyed by prime Stan. The counter is just as simple. Perhaps that was not his actual prime and this version would smash prime Stan. It's a hypothetical. I gave you experts, including Novak himself, saying he is now better than he was. You only dig further into the position you already claimed. That's fine. You can believe that, and I can believe this.

I would also add, I mentioned earlier that not everyone reaches peak at the same time. Similarly, I do not believe everyone declines the same. Peyton Manning declined quite rapidly while Tom Brady was still out there slinging the ball around like someone 10 years younger than his age. Why that is...we can speculate. But not everyone's opening and closing windows are the same.

And since I'm going now, how can we knowingly assess if 20 year old Nadal is better than 20 year old Alcaraz? 20 year old Alcaraz just had one of the better seasons in history. And if there were no Novak, he might have had the French to go with it. So if old man Novak is beating amazing Alcaraz...I guess it's because Alcaraz is no longer amazing?

In addition to this, literally everything we know about the body, conditioning, rehabbing, load management, supplements, knowledge, training, etc is better. Not all of them take advantage of it but those who do seem to defy odds like Brady and like Novak.

 

[mcnicKY91]

Why do many golfers play better in their 40's than in their 20's? Experience.

You're going in a loop. You have already decided that Novak a decade ago was his prime, so it's a foregone conclusion he would get destroyed by prime Stan. The counter is just as simple. Perhaps that was not his actual prime and this version would smash prime Stan. It's a hypothetical. I gave you experts, including Novak himself, saying he is now better than he was. You only dig further into the position you already claimed. That's fine. You can believe that, and I can believe this.

I would also add, I mentioned earlier that not everyone reaches peak at the same time. Similarly, I do not believe everyone declines the same. Peyton Manning declined quite rapidly while Tom Brady was still out there slinging the ball around like someone 10 years younger than his age. Why that is...we can speculate. But not everyone's opening and closing windows are the same.

And since I'm going now, how can we knowingly assess if 20 year old Nadal is better than 20 year old Alcaraz? 20 year old Alcaraz just had one of the better seasons in history. And if there were no Novak, he might have had the French to go with it. So if old man Novak is beating amazing Alcaraz...I guess it's because Alcaraz is no longer amazing?

Golfing and playing the QB position are not comparable at all to tennis. Golfers do not need ridiculous athleticism, or endurance, to be really good at golf for a long period of time. Tom Brady literally sat in the pocket with a ridiculously good offensive line and threw a football. And if he was pressured, fell down before he was hit.

I enjoy the debate though. Not too many other ppl out there that enjoy tennis enough to discuss it.

I think Alcaraz is incredibly overrated. He is a freak athlete with tremendous speed and power. Couldn't even last more than two sets at French against Djokovic. Needed 5 sets to beat Djokovic at Wimbledon (Novak played terribly at Wimbledon, there was just no one there who could take advantage except Alcaraz). Then he loses to Medvedev...

 

[WayneDougan_rivals170043]

If you say no, you’re either politically biased against him or you just don’t respect the sport. Guy is the all time greatest, and keeping that level at his age is beyond incredible.

I LOVE his politics.

I DON'T respect tennis.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a fine sport. But I compare it to golf, boxing, skiing, mens gymnastics, etc. re: the fact you aren't getting a large swath of the population even trying the sport, so it would be hard for me to say being the best at it makes you the best athlete.

For example, I didn't play golf until I was 15 years old. And then I played like once per year. I'd argue that many boys were like me in this respect (for women it's even worse). I'm not saying I'd be Tiger Woods if I started when I was three, but if as many kids played golf as they play basketball, I think you'd probably see 20 Tiger Woods.

So for Tennis, I mean who plays that sport? Kids who don't play LAX, baseball, etc., that's who.

 

[BlueCephus]

Golfing and playing the QB position are not comparable at all to tennis. Golfers do not need ridiculous athleticism, or endurance, to be really good at golf for a long period of time. Tom Brady literally sat in the pocket with a ridiculously good offensive line and threw a football. And if he was pressured, fell down before he was hit.

I enjoy the debate though. Not too many other ppl out there that enjoy tennis enough to discuss it.

I think Alcaraz is incredibly overrated. He is a freak athlete with tremendous speed and power. Couldn't even last more than two sets at French against Djokovic. Needed 5 sets to beat Djokovic at Wimbledon (Novak played terribly at Wimbledon, there was just no one there who could take advantage except Alcaraz). Then he loses to Medvedev...

Well that wasn’t my point at all. He was asked why he was better at an older age. I said experience and gave golfers get to g better with age as an example of experience. Novak is better because he’s seen it all, made mistakes and gained experience in tough situations.

 

[gamecockcat]

Golfing and playing the QB position are not comparable at all to tennis. Golfers do not need ridiculous athleticism, or endurance, to be really good at golf for a long period of time. Tom Brady literally sat in the pocket with a ridiculously good offensive line and threw a football. And if he was pressured, fell down before he was hit.

I enjoy the debate though. Not too many other ppl out there that enjoy tennis enough to discuss it.

I think Alcaraz is incredibly overrated. He is a freak athlete with tremendous speed and power. Couldn't even last more than two sets at French against Djokovic. Needed 5 sets to beat Djokovic at Wimbledon (Novak played terribly at Wimbledon, there was just no one there who could take advantage except Alcaraz). Then he loses to Medvedev...

Wow. Alcaraz overrated. When literally everyone is singing his praises, already has 2 GS at the ripe old age of 20, multiple wins this year, etc. "Needed 5 sets to beat Djokovic at Wimbledon' - is that supposed to be a negative? The last Wimbledon final Fed was in, Joker beat him in 5 sets. Geez, Fed was way past him prime, ergo, Joker is overrated. C'mon, man, I like the discussion but you've veered off into 'WTF is he talking about' territory. Who else has beaten NJ at Wimbledon? Lately, not many. How many times has Joker lost a 5th set in the last 10 years? Again, not many? Grass isn't even Alcaraz' best surface but still beat the GOAT in a 5th set and you think that's a strike against him? Wow.

I agree with your assessment of many (not Alcaraz) of the younger players who seem to have the game to be top 10 but not really be The Man. It wouldn't surprise me if Alcaraz (or another player or two) dominates for the next 10 years. Or, at least a very small subset of the top 15 ATP tour winning most/all of the GS events. Don't think Kyrigios, Tsisipas, Ruud, Medvedev, et al have the skill, mentality, ability to adapt styles to opponent, etc. to be dominant. I do think CA has the ingredients, just has to prove he's willing to do the work for many years in a row.

 

[catlanta33]

I LOVE his politics.

I DON'T respect tennis.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a fine sport. But I compare it to golf, boxing, skiing, mens gymnastics, etc. re: the fact you aren't getting a large swath of the population even trying the sport, so it would be hard for me to say being the best at it makes you the best athlete.

For example, I didn't play golf until I was 15 years old. And then I played like once per year. I'd argue that many boys were like me in this respect (for women it's even worse). I'm not saying I'd be Tiger Woods if I started when I was three, but if as many kids played golf as they play basketball, I think you'd probably see 20 Tiger Woods.

So for Tennis, I mean who plays that sport? Kids who don't play LAX, baseball, etc., that's who.

How can you have 20 TW's at the same time? Wouldn't you just have a higher level of competition than a generation prior?

 

[WayneDougan_rivals170043]

How can you have 20 TW's at the same time? Wouldn't you just have a higher level of competition than a generation prior?

I meant 20 guys with his talent level

 

[Catman100]

Stan had no problem beating Novak at the Australian in 2014, the French in 2015, and 2016 US Open...why wouldn't a prime Stan be able to beat a 36 year old Novak when he could beat an in prime Novak?

If they played 1000 times beginning when they were in diapers and ending with both of them using canes, Joker beats Stan 90% of the time IMO.

 

[mcnicKY91]

Well that wasn’t my point at all. He was asked why he was better at an older age. I said experience and gave golfers get to g better with age as an example of experience. Novak is better because he’s seen it all, made mistakes and gained experience in tough situations.

If experience is all that it takes, every tennis player would be at their best at age 36.......but none of them are...except Djokovic for some reason.

 

[mcnicKY91]

Wow. Alcaraz overrated. When literally everyone is singing his praises, already has 2 GS at the ripe old age of 20, multiple wins this year, etc. "Needed 5 sets to beat Djokovic at Wimbledon' - is that supposed to be a negative? The last Wimbledon final Fed was in, Joker beat him in 5 sets. Geez, Fed was way past him prime, ergo, Joker is overrated. C'mon, man, I like the discussion but you've veered off into 'WTF is he talking about' territory. Who else has beaten NJ at Wimbledon? Lately, not many. How many times has Joker lost a 5th set in the last 10 years? Again, not many? Grass isn't even Alcaraz' best surface but still beat the GOAT in a 5th set and you think that's a strike against him? Wow.

I agree with your assessment of many (not Alcaraz) of the younger players who seem to have the game to be top 10 but not really be The Man. It wouldn't surprise me if Alcaraz (or another player or two) dominates for the next 10 years. Or, at least a very small subset of the top 15 ATP tour winning most/all of the GS events. Don't think Kyrigios, Tsisipas, Ruud, Medvedev, et al have the skill, mentality, ability to adapt styles to opponent, etc. to be dominant. I do think CA has the ingredients, just has to prove he's willing to do the work for many years in a row.

Sorry man. Color me unimpressed that he won the USOpen by beating Tiafoe and freaking Casper Ruud. .

Color me unimpressed that he needed 5 sets to beat a 36 yr old player at Wimby that was playing awfully the majority of the tournament.

Color me unimpressed that he will probably win a bunch of slams against a crappy generation who can't seem to beat 36 yr olds in Djokovic and Nadal (2022 Nadal before all the injuries)...

That's fine if you think he is great. I think he is taking advantage of a weak field. Nothing wrong with that at all...