How will Djokovic perform against the young generation in 2023?

[MargaretMcAleer]

I don't dislike Rybarkina, but I'm running out of favorites in this AO. I hope Swaitek rights the ship, tbh.

Well she has a lot to do to turn this match around, on a fast HC to me Swaitek needs time on the ball, to get her shots in place, Jess Pegula went hard, flat into her fhand with results at the United Cup, and beat her., Elena is doing the same thing, plus she has a great serve.

 

[Fiero425]

He has been winning half the sets he has played 6-0 & 6-1, It's hard to believe the injury is serious... If he wins AO while "injured" we have officially entered the Weakest Era Of All Time It's not looking good for next gen or next next gen, they are not up to it in the slams

The weak era was the 15 yrs of Fed run from end of Sampras to the beginning of Nadal's tenure on the tour! Novak's just better than the rest!

 

[tented]

The weak era was the 15 yrs of Fed run from end of Sampras to the beginning of Nadal's tenure on the tour! Novak's just better than the rest!

 

[Ricardo]

The weak era was the 15 yrs of Fed run from end of Sampras to the beginning of Nadal's tenure on the tour! Novak's just better than the rest!

so from 2002 to 2017, that's your 15 years of weak era.....which included your Novak's run in 2011 and 2015, the best two years of his career earned in the weak era. Novak's fan is just dumber than the rest

 

[Fiero425]

View attachment 7627

A video I watched decided Fed had the weak era not Novak for obvious reasons! Roger had no ATG until Nadovic while Nadal, Djokovic, & Sampras had to deal w/ other major winners! It's back up with fact, stats, & general common sense! - -

 

[Ricardo]

A video I watched decided Fed had the weak era not Novak for obvious reasons! Roger had no ATG until Nadovic while Nadal, Djokovic, & Sampras had to deal w/ other major winners! It's back up with fact, stats, & general common sense! - -

you claimed his 15 years of weak era, from 2002 and 2017.....please back it up with 'facts', oh wait you cannot, because it makes Novak's career part of weak era.

one old stupid fart, there is your fact.

 

[TheSicilian]

The weak era was the 15 yrs of Fed run from end of Sampras to the beginning of Nadal's tenure on the tour! Novak's just better than the rest!

We can really only compare in 5 years or so? But it's not looking good for this era Once Nadovic retire it could get interesting as we could get random players from outside the top 100 making slam finals

 

[Nadalfan2013]

I have a really good feeling that one of De Minaur, Rune or Rublev will take out Djokovic.

 

[El Dude]

Calling 2002-17 a "weak era" is absurd, and here's why:

I posted that in another thread, and while Elo has its limitations, it does a fairly good job at showing the level of overall talent.

The "weak era" was early 90s to early 2000s, with 1997-2002 being the weakest (so it is weird that Fiero starts his weak era just as the field started to get a bit stronger). With the arrival of Roger and Rafa, the talent pool got stronger, then much stronger as Novak and Andy came into their own.

And more to the point: the era includes ALL players, not just everyone but the top guys. Not to mention, there were still good players alongside the Big Four, but they looked weak in comparison, because the Big Four were so damn good. 2012 was very strong, with six players at 2300 Elo or better - the Big Four plus Ferrer and del Potro. That's the only time six guys were at 2300 Elo at the end of the year in the Open Era.

 

[Fiero425]

Calling 2002-17 a "weak era" is absurd, and here's why:

View attachment 7644

I posted that in another thread, and while Elo has its limitations, it does a fairly good job at showing the level of overall talent.

The "weak era" was early 90s to early 2000s, with 1997-2002 being the weakest (so it is weird that Fiero starts his weak era just as the field started to get a bit stronger). With the arrival of Roger and Rafa, the talent pool got stronger, then much stronger as Novak and Andy came into their own.

And more to the point: the era includes ALL players, not just everyone but the top guys. Not to mention, there were still good players alongside the Big Four, but they looked weak in comparison, because the Big Four were so damn good. 2012 was very strong, with six players at 2300 Elo or better - the Big Four plus Ferrer and del Potro. That's the only time six guys were at 2300 Elo at the end of the year in the Open Era.

Probably misquoted video! The 15 years was the birth of Sampras until Nadal came along giving Roger free reign w/ little to no competition for at least 4-5 years! His pigeon was obviously A-Rod who he owned waiting for Nadal to come of age & Novak surfaced!

 

[El Dude]

Probably misquoted video! The 15 years was the birth of Sampras until Nadal came along giving Roger free reign w/ little to no competition for at least 4-5 years! His pigeon was obviously A-Rod who he owned waiting for Nadal to come of age & Novak surfaced!

OK, then that is supported by the Elo chart, though I think you're overstating Roger's "free reign." I do think his dominance was helped by having a weaker cohort around him, but he was playing at such a high level from 2004-07 that he probably would have dominated nearly any era, if at a slightly reduced level.

 

[Jelenafan]

OK, then that is supported by the Elo chart, though I think you're overstating Roger's "free reign." I do think his dominance was helped by having a weaker cohort around him, but he was playing at such a high level from 2004-07 that he probably would have dominated nearly any era, if at a slightly reduced level.

I hear you, but this shows the limitations of ELO or any chart, because the fact remains that Rafa was competitive with Roger on
ALL surfaces even in 04/05 and that by 2008/09 as he matured at age 22 he had bested Federer on 3 different surfaces on 3 different Major finals. So taking that into account, to say Roger would have dominated any era only slightly reduced? I beg to differ. Rafa at 2008 transported to say, 2004/05, again more speculation, but whose to say it would not be Rafa who would have dominated those 2003-2006 contemporaries, such as Roddick, Hewitt, etc.

There is no two ways around it , Roger's domination in part (not all I concede) was when both Rafa and NOvak, were not matured as players. It's the nature of competitive tennis, but I can't personally see Roger having his type of domination any time AFTER 2004-07. Going backward, dominating in the Aussie era of the late 60 early 70's, or the Borg/MacEnroe era, I just don't see that either.

 

[El Dude]

I hear you, but this shows the limitations of ELO or any chart, because the fact remains that Rafa was competitive with Roger on
ALL surfaces even in 04/05 and that by 2008/09 as he matured at age 22 he had bested Federer on 3 different surfaces on 3 different Major finals. So taking that into account, to say Roger would have dominated any era only slightly reduced? I beg to differ. Rafa at 2008 transported to say, 2004/05, again more speculation, but whose to say it would not be Rafa who would have dominated those 2003-2006 contemporaries, such as Roddick, Hewitt, etc.

There is no two ways around it , Roger's domination in part (not all I concede) was when both Rafa and NOvak, were not matured as players. It's the nature of competitive tennis, but I can't personally see Roger having his type of domination any time AFTER 2004-07. Going backward, dominating in the Aussie era of the late 60 early 70's, or the Borg/MacEnroe era, I just don't see that either.

Which is why I said "nearly any era" and "at a slightly reduced level." So I'm not sure what you're disagreeing on, or how Elo is wrong. I don't think he would have been as dominant after 2008, even playing like he did in 2004-07, or in the late 70s/early 80s. But just about any other part of the Open Era?

We've gone over the Fedal thing endlessly, but I've pointed out before that Roger started slipping against the field, starting in 2007. He still won when it counted most, but was losing in more upsets to non-elite players, and then dropped off substantially in 2008 - and it wasn't just Rafa. He slipped a half step, and never returned to his absolute peak level of 2004-07.

 

[Jelenafan]

Which is why I said "nearly any era" and "at a slightly reduced level." So I'm not sure what you're disagreeing on, or how Elo is wrong. I don't think he would have been as dominant after 2008, even playing like he did in 2004-07, or in the late 70s/early 80s. But just about any other part of the Open Era?

We've gone over the Fedal thing endlessly, but I've pointed out before that Roger started slipping against the field, starting in 2007. He still won when it counted most, but was losing in more upsets to non-elite players, and then dropped off substantially in 2008 - and it wasn't just Rafa. He slipped a half step, and never returned to his absolute peak level of 2004-07.

Yet you keep on ignoring that despite the field, another thing was Nadal was inproving, how much slippage & improvement were factors, are again all speculative opinions

 

[Fiero425]

Yet you keep on ignoring that despite the field, another thing was Nadal was inproving, how much slippage & improvement were factors, are again all speculative opinions

I haven't brought this up in a while, but even Federer's last "BIG," successful season was 2009! He won 2 majors and made the final of the other 2! He had cried dropping that '09 AO final to Nadal; getting a commiserate hug! Supposedly a lot went on w/ Rafa after that on & off the court w/ family! He came up injured (?) & was summarily dismissed by Robin Soderling in the FO R16 in 4 sets! That gave Roger his only real chance of taking the lone major not on his resume! His CGS was complete before either Nadovic! The good times rolled for Federer as Nadal skipped Wimbledon & at the USO, Del Po blew Rafa out of the SF in blistering straight sets! Even though I wasn't impressed w/ Roger's play, I didn't think he'd lose that Final vs Del Po up 2-1 in sets! Little did we know it would become a running theme of his tenure in NY after winning 5 in a row; being "close, but no cigar!" In humiliating fashion he dropped 2 more SF's w/ MP's in hand vs Novak in 2010 & '11 SF's! Back to '09, Nadal still stunk and dropped all 3 of his RR matches at the YEC! Federer had a chance to finish strong, but didn't make the final!

 

[El Dude]

Yet you keep on ignoring that despite the field, another thing was Nadal was inproving, how much slippage & improvement were factors, are again all speculative opinions

You keep putting views on me that I'm not actually expressing - how am I ignoring that Rafa improved? He did, but it didn't impact Roger's record as much as you imply. You seem to buy the narrative that Rafa slew the great Roger, and that was that, but in truth, Roger dropped a notch vs everyone.

Roger was 2-4 vs. Rafa in 2006, Roger's best year. 3-2 in 2007, 0-4 in 2008, 1-1 in both 2009 and 2010, 1-3 in 2011, 1-1 in 2012.

If you look only at 2007 to 2008 then yes, it looks like Rafa's rise could be viewed as causative in Roger's slippage in 2008. But consider this: Roger was 65-7 (90.3%) vs everyone but Rafa in 2007, 66-11 in 2008 (85.7%). Meaning, he was playing worse against everyone, not just Rafa. I mean, he lost as many matches in 2008 (15) as he did in all of 2004-06. Sorry, but Rafa can't claim that as his doing.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Paul, Tsitsipas and Khachanov are our only hope to stop the injury faker specialist Fakovic and save tennis?

 

[Fiero425]

Paul, Tsitsipas and Khachanov are our only hope to stop the injury faker specialist Fakovic and save tennis?

Wow, after so many hours, this is the best that can be had by the worst, disparaging, and eccentic fan? So sad!

 

[nehmeth]

Paul, Tsitsipas and Khachanov are our only hope to stop the injury faker specialist Fakovic and save tennis?

Novak Djokovic fake injury accusations 'ridiculous' - Mats Wilander addresses controversy at Australian Open - Eurosport

Eurosport expert Mats Wilander has blasted the "completely ridiculous argument" around Novak Djokovic apparently faking an injury at the Australian Open.

www.eurosport.com

Djokovic is 'one wrong step' away from having Australian Open ruined

Australian tennis legend Pat Cash and a top doctor agree that Novak Djokovic's hamstring injury is very serious - and 'one wrong step' could ruin the tournament for the Serb superstar.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[El Dude]

Paul, Tsitsipas and Khachanov are our only hope to stop the injury faker specialist Fakovic and save tennis?