Counterpoint: there are 7+ Billion people in the world and he's probably one of the 5 best in the world right now. So maybe chill out a little.
Novak Djokovic
- Thread starter CatsnRoses
- Start date
I mean...I am perfectly calm. I just don't think he is some all time great player. People who do think so, are overrating him in my opinion. It is alright to have differing opinion, right?
And he is definitely not a top 5 player...more like top 20 at best........just kidding, he is definitely top 2, it's him, Novak, then everybody else.
The hype is definitely off the charts right now. Way too early to say he's an all-timer or not, imo. If he never wins another GS, the 'all-time great' crowd is going to look pretty stupid. If he wins 15 more, they'll look really smart. I mean the guy is 20 and off to a great start. At his best, he beats everyone else on just about any surface (sans Joker at his best). So, he could rack up double digit GS titles and, almost by default, he'd have to be considered an all-timer. But, you're right to state that the hype is premature at this point and there is still a lot of tennis and GS tourneys to be played before one can pass judgment on him, imo.
And, bemoaning who someone beats is sort of useless, isn't it? I mean, when Borg was winning a bunch, there was Mac and Connors and who? Sampras beat Roddick and who? Lendl beat an older Mac and Connors and who? You could say that about anyone, couldn't you? Some will say that Joker beat Nadal and Fed well after their primes (I don't think that's 100% accurate, but, nevertheless). Some boxing fans say Mike Tyson was one of the best all-time. Others say - who did he beat? You can only beat the guys you compete against. Not any athlete's fault that public perception says that their competition was lacking.
He was a very good young player but overshadowed by Federer and Nadal. Djokovic won 12 slams in his 20s and has now won 12 more in his 30s. Federer (16) and Nadal (14) won more majors in their 20s.
Count me as one who thinks you need to be a superb athlete to play top level tennis in matches that could last 4-5 hours. Djokovic is a fanatic about fitness and that's largely the reason for his success at his age.
Yeah, no doubt Novak is obsessed with his fitness and health. No problem with that whatsoever. That has led to him being the last of the big three standing. His longevity is something to be admired.
However, I don't credit that with his overwhelming success he has had this late in his career. The competition sucks. Outside of Alcaraz, the tour sucks. It is what it is. At age 37 next year, Novak, in my opinion, is the overwhelming favorite to win all four slams. Quite frankly, that is ridiculously embarrassing. I could make a strong case that if Novak continues to have the motivation to play for the next two years, he could push 30 slams.
At this point, any success he is having, I simply view as inflationary, and not something that separates him from Nadal and Federer.
I get your argument...I just don't really get it. In slam finals,
Federer beat Mark Philippoussis, Marat Safin, Andy Roddick, Lleyton Hewitt, Andy Roddick, end-of-road Andre Agassi, Marcos Baghdatis, Andy Roddick, Fernando González, Robin Soderling, Marin Cilic, and Marin Cilic.
Nadal had title triumphs over Mariano Puerta, Robin Soderling, Tomas Berdych, David Ferrer, Kevin Anderson, Dominic Thiem, Dominic Thiem, Daniil Medvedev, Daniil Medvedev, and Casper Ruud.
It seems like cherry picking to me.
But I will let it go after this post. I think we can definitely say that we don't see it the same way.
(and as noted in the tennis thread, I admit to being a big Novak fan, so I am definitely biased)Yeah, I understand where you are coming from, but I would caution against only looking at slam finals, because in Nadal's case, he had to go through Fed or Djokovic in some of your examples to get to the final...I get your argument...I just don't really get it. In slam finals,
Federer beat Mark Philippoussis, Marat Safin, Andy Roddick, Lleyton Hewitt, Andy Roddick, end-of-road Andre Agassi, Marcos Baghdatis, Andy Roddick, Fernando González, Robin Soderling, Marin Cilic, and Marin Cilic.
Nadal had title triumphs over Mariano Puerta, Robin Soderling, Tomas Berdych, David Ferrer, Kevin Anderson, Dominic Thiem, Dominic Thiem, Daniil Medvedev, Daniil Medvedev, and Casper Ruud.
It seems like cherry picking to me.
But I will let it go after this post. I think we can definitely say that we don't see it the same way.
Not to mention prime Theim (before all his injuries) was a beast, a darn good player, who only got to Nadal in some cases because he had beaten Novak the round prior.
Yes, Novak will statistically be the greatest...but I don't think he is any better than Nadal/Fed.
I'd guess because the other 2 guys that many consider the GOAT were playing at the same time?
Not to mention, if the match went long enough, he would breakdown mentally, especially against the top players (Federer and Nadal).
That is my point. Novak had to contend with Rafa and Fed when Novak was in his prime....who does he have to contend with now at the ripe, young tennis age of 36?!
Djoker sure wasn't breaking down against Nadal in 2011/2012/ 2013...I definitely remember some classic 5 setters at AO and FO, some won by Novak. Some by Rafa. And some other really good 4 setters as well. He didn't seem mentally fragile then.
I remember Novak winning classic 5 setters at the US Open in 2010 and 2011 against Roger...didn't seem to be mentally fragile there.
Novak, as well as the media, can say he is more mentally secure now, but that is just completely false.
In fact, not like anyone in the tennis media would ever dare ask the question "how is a 36 yr old dominating all these players in their primes? Could it be because this younger generation sucks?" They would never ask that, because they would be ridiculed by all the current players.
The proof is in his results back when he was in his actual prime.
I get the caution. I just don't have all day to dig everything up. The point really was this: If those guys were getting to the finals and perhaps beating some greats along the way, they couldn't have been that bad. Right? So why should we assume players of this generation suck? Should we really assume Alcaraz at this stage is overrated? Why? Because he lost to Medvedev? Or because he lost the French. I mean, at the age of 20, he has won two slams. It's more about the issue of making an argument (which is fine) as fact when it isn't. It's your opinion. I'm just pointing out that even when there are two or three (or maybe even four) all time greats, they still lose regularly to guys that are great, just not all time great.
I also contend that longevity is really important in most arguments about GOAT. That Novak is still winning big at his age speaks more to me about how great he is, not how bad the competition is. Perhaps if Nadal didn't play the style he does, he would still be winning big and not injured. Or, perhaps he had to play that way to be able to win big. Either way, Novak's clean technical game allows him to reduce some of the wear and tear. That's part of it.
Whether or not Novak's absolute best is as good as the absolute best of other players, that's about opinion, preference, and speculation. But his ongoing dominance distances him and will continue to distance him from others.
One more post and then I will take a break. Truly.
Since so much of the point is about when the players are in the their primes, I am not sure how to capture what their primes are. But I think Federer drops from the debate for GOAT pretty quickly. He is older by a few years. By my crack research, he won his first slam in 2003. He won 4 slams before Nadal won one. At the end of 2007, Federer had 12 slams. Nadal had 3 (all French). and Novak had 0 (1 finals appearance). So if we are going to say that Novak is winning slams due to weak competition, I think the same argument can be made--and a more significant one--about Federer.
The better comparison for GOAT is Nadal and Novak. They are only 1 year apart in age. They both entered the fray when Federer was at the top of his game. Because Nadal is undisputedly the best clay player of all time, he was winning French titles (3) before Novak won his first title. But Novak's title came in 2008 and he didn't win another until 2011. So at that point, Nadal had 9. At the end of 2010, the count was Nadal 9, Novak 1. So are we to believe Novak was at his prime at that point just because they were of similar age? The trajectory of Nadal himself says "no." Nadal won the French open in 2005, 06, 07, and 08 before winning a different slam. And then he Wimbledon in 2008, Australian in 2009, and the French, Wimbledon, and US Opens in 2010. He won 3 of 4! So at that point he is in his prime, right? When did his prime end?
In 2011, Novak won 3 of the 4 slams (Nadal the French). Novak won another in 2012 and 2013. By the end 2016, Novak had nearly caught Nadal. Nadal didn't win any in 2015 or 2016. Does that mean his prime ended? Like this is all arbitrary.
But in the end, Nadal has not retired. He is still active. It's not like Novak is racking up titles after Nadal quit. In 2017, when Novak was out injured all year, Roger and Rafa each won 2 titles. Rafa won the Australian in 2022 with Novak out. So what's the balance?
I don't really see how Novak is the lone competitor taking advantage of weak competition.
Since so much of the point is about when the players are in the their primes, I am not sure how to capture what their primes are. But I think Federer drops from the debate for GOAT pretty quickly. He is older by a few years. By my crack research, he won his first slam in 2003. He won 4 slams before Nadal won one. At the end of 2007, Federer had 12 slams. Nadal had 3 (all French). and Novak had 0 (1 finals appearance). So if we are going to say that Novak is winning slams due to weak competition, I think the same argument can be made--and a more significant one--about Federer.
The better comparison for GOAT is Nadal and Novak. They are only 1 year apart in age. They both entered the fray when Federer was at the top of his game. Because Nadal is undisputedly the best clay player of all time, he was winning French titles (3) before Novak won his first title. But Novak's title came in 2008 and he didn't win another until 2011. So at that point, Nadal had 9. At the end of 2010, the count was Nadal 9, Novak 1. So are we to believe Novak was at his prime at that point just because they were of similar age? The trajectory of Nadal himself says "no." Nadal won the French open in 2005, 06, 07, and 08 before winning a different slam. And then he Wimbledon in 2008, Australian in 2009, and the French, Wimbledon, and US Opens in 2010. He won 3 of 4! So at that point he is in his prime, right? When did his prime end?
In 2011, Novak won 3 of the 4 slams (Nadal the French). Novak won another in 2012 and 2013. By the end 2016, Novak had nearly caught Nadal. Nadal didn't win any in 2015 or 2016. Does that mean his prime ended? Like this is all arbitrary.
But in the end, Nadal has not retired. He is still active. It's not like Novak is racking up titles after Nadal quit. In 2017, when Novak was out injured all year, Roger and Rafa each won 2 titles. Rafa won the Australian in 2022 with Novak out. So what's the balance?
I don't really see how Novak is the lone competitor taking advantage of weak competition.
As an aside, I would be curious to see what the big 3s slam conversion rate is (slams won/slams entered). Before this year, I would have favored Nadal, but with him being out and Novak winning 3/4, I would guess the percentage would be in his favor...
This info is on their Wiki pages. You are correct; Djok took the percentage lead this year.
Federer: 20/81 24.69%
Nadal: 22/67 32.84%
Djokovic: 24/72 33.33%
Each player had their best Slam results on different surfaces.
Federer: 8/22 Wimbledon
Nadal: 14/18 French
Djokovic: 10/18 Australian
Thanks for the info...and yes, just as I suspected.
Interesting to me that Novak has won 4 of past 5 grandslams he has entered. All of which Nadal were hurt. Prior to those, he would have been 20/67, which would be below Nadals 22/67 at the same point of grand slams entered.
This is why I say everything Novak is doing is inflationary. Again, credit to his longevity, but he has no competition, outside a 20 yr old who is still very inconsistent (which is typical at that age). I personally put no stock in what he is accomplishing at this point.
But you’re giving Nadal credit for when Novak didn’t play. Right? And you’re still not actually saying when someone’s prime begins and ends.
Bigger picture, 64% of nadals slams are French titles. That makes him the best clay player, not best ever.
And you never address anything but slams. Nothing about #1 ranking, player of year, masters 1000s. Or how Nadal has never won an end of year nitto final, which is a tournament for the top 8 players from that year.
I love your position, however. Even if Novak wins 30 slams (which he's not) and Nadal doesn't win another, Nadal's 22 will be more impressive just because Novak's last 10 slams don't really count.
Last edited:
Maybe you misunderstand my position. First, to your last point, I have never anywhere said that Nadals 22 GS are more impressive. In fact, I think I have said multiple times that I consider the big 3 to be co-goats.
All I care about are slams. And quite frankly, if I had to pick the next two categories, would pick head to head/grand slam head to head, and then Olympic gold. I think if you were to ask any tennis player, they would value grand slams and Olympic gold over anything else. Heck, Novak has broken down crying after losses numerous times at the Olympics, don't remember him doing that at a Masters event loss or year end championship loss. But that is just my preference. I understand if you place different weights upon each category.
I don't think you are understanding the distinction. This era of tennis players is awful. Absolutely awful. If you want to buy into what Novak and the media are saying about him being mentally stronger and being in his prime right now...not sure what to tell you. As I stated earlier, he was mentally strong enough from 2010-2016 (his actual prime) to win numerous five setters against Nadal and Fed. He is just as mentally strong now as he was then. However, if you can't notice his physical decline, again, I don't know what to tell you. 2010-16 Novak would bludgeon 2021-2023 Novak, and it wouldn't be close.
Novak is absolutely destroying these players who should be in their primes. These draws and performances are a joke. Novak played like garbage for most of the French and Wimbledon, and waltzed to a title/runner up. Don't get me started on his US Open draw.
I prefer the Grace and beauty of Fed’s game, but I don’t see any argument against Novak being the goat. He will probably finish with 25-30% more majors than Fed who in my opinion is his closest competition. Nadal I place third due to his dominance of a single event.
No doubt Novak will finish with many more slams. To be honest, and I said this earlier, wouldn't surprise me to see him get near 30 slams in the current competitive landscape. Outside, Alcaraz, no one presents a challenge to Novak. He should be considered the favorite in all 4 slams in 2024.
I wonder how you would place Nadal below Fed, when Nadal has more slams, more masters, has Olympic gold, leads 24-16 head to head (including 10-4 at grand slams), and has won each grand slam twice, something Fed has never done...
I don't think any of the big 3 are better than the others. Put them all in their prime, and you get some epic matches.
Fair take sir. We are all lucky to have witnessed their primes.
What is so strange about that post? That I refuse to anoint a 20 year old as some all time great because he beat Tiafoe and Ruud to win a US Open and a 36 year old at Wimbledon?
I have clearly stated in this thread that Alcaraz is one of the top two players on tour. But the tour sucks, it's a joke. Congrats to Alcaraz on his accomplishments. As long as he stays healthy, he will feast on tour, even moreso once Djokovic retires.
No question he's the GOAT. He's also the most mentally tough player I've ever seen in any sport. He won the French this year dealing with multiple injuries. Only Tiger accomplished something similar, winning the US Open on a broken stick.
Just a few of Nole's accomplishments:
Most years ending #1 in the world
Most grand slam titles
Most ATP titles
Most weeks at #1
Most ATP Masters titles
Has won all 9 ATP Masters titles, all grand slams on all surfaces (at least three times), and the year end masters title at least twice, something no other player has accomplished
He's also won 7 grand slams in the last 3 years, and might have been more had he not been excluded from the Aussie and US Opens in 2021 and 2022, respectively, for not taking the government's poison shot
Greatest hardcourt player in history with 14 grand slams
Only Nadal has more clay court titles
He's accomplished this while the other 3 of the Big Four, Nadal, Federer, and Murray, were also dominating and winning grand slam titles
Alcaraz has a complete game. He's definitely poised to be the next GOAT, he's just a little undisciplined right now, goes for the crowd pleaser shots too often and misses. If he ever adopts a grinder mentality like Nole or Rafa, and stays relatively injury free, he will probably win 20+ GS titles.
Your data is way off.
Djokovic has 24 and Nadal has 22 and Fed has 20.
And Djokovic has 14 on hard courts, not 10.