Novak Djokovic

[Darren]

Horsed Nadal in the Australian Open final and now on 15 grand slam titles. Good chance he could surpass Federer. The greatest of all-time?

[hmfc_liam06]

It can certainly be debated that's for sure.

[Darren]

I often think he's weirdly under-rated, his record is incredible. I'd already say he's better than Nadal, even though he's two grand slams short.

[Morgan]

Can't stand him.

 

If he was chocolate he'd eat himself.

[neilnunb]

That was a total demolition of Nadal today. Was great to watch. 

 

I do think Djokovic will overtake Federer eventually. Nadal on the other hand, greatest on clay maybe but very average record in the other Slams compared to the other two.

 

 

[vegas-voss]

Does he not beat Fed and Nadal comfortably in the head to head meetings as well ?

[Morgan]

57 minutes ago, vegas-voss said:

Does he not beat Fed and Nadal comfortably in the head to head meetings as well ?

Got to admit, anyone that beats that smug git Federer, gets my support.

[Chaps]

10 hours ago, Morgan said:

Got to admit, anyone that beats that smug git Federer, gets my support.

 

[Harry Potter]

15 hours ago, Morgan said:

Can't stand him.

 

If he was chocolate he'd eat himself.

Correct bud, i always want him to get pumped and watch his bottom lip quiver.

[I P Knightley]

17 hours ago, Darren said:

Horsed Nadal in the Australian Open final and now on 15 grand slam titles. Good chance he could surpass Federer. The greatest of all-time?

It certainly heats up the argument about who's the greatest of all time but I don't think it will be worth making a comparison until Djoko has hung up his racquet. At present, Federer has won 160 pro matches more than Djoko has played. Djoko shows every sign of lasting a few more years. He'll probably get very close to Federer's total of Grand Slam titles; he's already ahead in terms of Masters1000 titles.

 

Federer had a spell where he was on his own; Djokovic has always had Federer and Nadal there to provide the stiffest of competition.

 

On the other hand, if it hadn't been for Federer raising the level of the game so much, you could argue that players like Wawrinka, Murray, Del Potro, Cilic and so on would not have come along in his slipstream and tried to match a new high standard.

 

Mind you, Djokovic will never become the 'darling' of the crowds, no matter what he achieves. I don't know what it is that makes him unlikable - I know I had my own views on him in his earlier career but I've warmed to him.

[Nookie Bear]

3 minutes ago, I P Knightley said:

It certainly heats up the argument about who's the greatest of all time but I don't think it will be worth making a comparison until Djoko has hung up his racquet. At present, Federer has won 160 pro matches more than Djoko has played. Djoko shows every sign of lasting a few more years. He'll probably get very close to Federer's total of Grand Slam titles; he's already ahead in terms of Masters1000 titles.

 

Federer had a spell where he was on his own; Djokovic has always had Federer and Nadal there to provide the stiffest of competition.

 

On the other hand, if it hadn't been for Federer raising the level of the game so much, you could argue that players like Wawrinka, Murray, Del Potro, Cilic and so on would not have come along in his slipstream and tried to match a new high standard.

 

Mind you, Djokovic will never become the 'darling' of the crowds, no matter what he achieves. I don't know what it is that makes him unlikable - I know I had my own views on him in his earlier career but I've warmed to him.

 

re your last paragraph, i don't think he gets the 'love' because his style is somewhat metronomic and his demeanour usually more composed. He has all the shots but his matches can sometimes become wars of attrition whereas Federer is graceful and Nadal is power and passion (as well as the looks).

[ri Alban]

10 minutes ago, Nookie Bear said:

 

re your last paragraph, i don't think he gets the 'love' because his style is somewhat metronomic and his demeanour usually more composed. He has all the shots but his matches can sometimes become wars of attrition whereas Federer is graceful and Nadal is power and passion (as well as the looks).

He can't lose gracefully. As in, he always fakes injury to put his opponent off. And then there's the magic bottle.

 

 

He's a prick and imo he's a cheat.

Edited January 28, 2019 by ri Alban

[Dawnrazor]

But look on the bright side, his pubs are out the game for a while but at least Paul Kane has his good looks to fall back on?

[JimKongUno]

Like him or not on his game he is close to unbeatable , just ask Andy Murray

 

Nadal had only faced 1 break point all tournament against his new improved serve , Djokovic tore it to shreds within 5 minutes .

 

If he stays fit this year on that form he will win all 4 slams and claim his place as the best of all time

[Craig_]

1 hour ago, Dawnrazor said:

But look on the bright side, his pubs are out the game for a while but at least Paul Kane has his good looks to fall back on?

[Morgan]

4 hours ago, Chaps said:

 

 

Glad I’m not alone!

 

1 hour ago, Harry Potter said:

Correct bud, i always want him to get pumped and watch his bottom lip quiver.

 

Yep, petulant brat.

[Dawnrazor]

25 minutes ago, Craig_ said:

Aye, that's because I posted on the wrong Feckin thread?

[Morgan]

53 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

Aye, that's because I posted on the wrong Feckin thread?

 

[Don Dan]

Are we signing him before the window slams shut?

[Craig_]

4 hours ago, Dawnrazor said:

Aye, that's because I posted on the wrong Feckin thread?

 

[andrewhenry]

Kinda wanted the final to last a lot longer than it did. Had a bet on for over 300 points and wasn't even close ?

[Bauld]

I have to admit I sit in absolute awe of Novak when he is at his absolute peak.

 

When he is at the top of his game he is untouchable.

 

Not even an in his prime Federer could beat a 100% Novak. In my opinion of course.

 

He might not end up with as many honours as Federer. I think he is the best to ever play the game though.

 

What amazes me about Federer is his longevity. You look at younger guys like Murray and Nadal breaking down just trying to stick with a guy in his mid 30s still making it to major finals. No doubt he is a rare creature.

[FWJ]

How would the likes of Borg, Connors or (my pet hate) McEnroe get on today with modern racquets and fitness training?

How would their technique compare to today’s champions?

Edited January 29, 2019 by FWJ

[AlimOzturk]

55 minutes ago, FWJ said:

How would the likes of Borg, Connors or (my pet hate) McEnroe get on today with modern racquets and fitness training?

How would their technique compare to today’s champions?

 

Serve and volley just doesn't cut it these days. Roger Federer started out as a serve a Volley player but had to adapt his game when Nadal, Murray and Djokovic broke through. They would have to adapt their technique in order come close and even then the pace of the game now would totally throw them. 

 

Found it funny that Naomi Osaka, number one seed female tennis player got absolutely hammed by McEnroe a charity match recently. He must be well into his fifties now ?

[hmfc_liam06]

4 hours ago, FWJ said:

How would the likes of Borg, Connors or (my pet hate) McEnroe get on today with modern racquets and fitness training?

How would their technique compare to today’s champions?

 

Far too difficult to say. You really can't compare era's, especially in tennis.

[I P Knightley]

5 hours ago, FWJ said:

How would the likes of Borg, Connors or (my pet hate) McEnroe get on today with modern racquets and fitness training?

How would their technique compare to today’s champions?

Connors had the kind of drive to complement his immense talent that would probably have seen him making a very decent fist of it. The guy played on to a much older age than was the norm for his generation. He's won the most ATP tournaments ever (109 v 99 for Federer), albeit he played around the clock at almost any tournament he could get into - as long as there was a decent cheque waiting for him at the end.

 

I don't reckon that much would have changed for Borg. With hindsight, I believe he was playing for fun and when the fun stopped (McEnroe pushing him close), he dipped out. I don't think he'd have had it in him to keep going against a Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.

 

McEnroe relied on a sublime talent (an acquired taste for me :D) and huge self-belief. He's played through some significant changes in technology successfully. I don't know whether he'd have got stuck into the kind of training regime that Andy Murray did; I suspect he'd have had to in order to keep with Djoko and Co.

[JimKongUno]

6 hours ago, FWJ said:

How would the likes of Borg, Connors or (my pet hate) McEnroe get on today with modern racquets and fitness training?

How would their technique compare to today’s champions?

 

They would have all struggled against Nadal and his angles he creates

They would have all struggled to hold serve against Djokovic with his unbelievable Return

They would have all struggled to break through Murrays defenses

They would have all struggled against Federers precision serve , forehand , squash shots and net game

[JudyJudyJudy]

Similar to others I just dont like Novak.  Dont know why but just never warmed to him. Or Federer for that matter.  Much prefer Nadal and his style of play and personality,  although Nadals grand slam record is relatively poor compared to them, albeit his 11 French Opens.  

[JudyJudyJudy]

Has anyone Ever noticed that the French Open has been quite elusive for many great champions? Mcenro,  Sampras , Becker, Edberg and Novak !!  It must be the clay i assume.

[Jambothump]

Can't bring myself to dislike any of these guys mentioned above, I'm in awe of them. On their own in a very physically demanding sport, where you can at times, have to be at your best for 5 hours.

Without the help, the likes of Vitas Gerulaitas (sp) had.?

[ri Alban]

9 hours ago, FWJ said:

How would the likes of Borg, Connors or (my pet hate) McEnroe get on today with modern racquets and fitness training?

How would their technique compare to today’s champions?

Borg was a special talent, retired at 27. Pity.

[milky_26]

1 minute ago, JamesM48 said:

Has anyone Ever noticed that the French Open has been quite elusive for many great champions? Mcenro,  Sampras , Becker, Edberg and Novak !!  It must be the clay i assume.

djokovic has won the french open. 

 

i'm not a fan of novak he is the purveyor of the medical timeout for his advantage. Federer if he was made of chocolate he would eat himself. Nadal seems less up himself maybe why i prefer him out of the three.

 

On the best tennis player ever rod laver should be in the mix due to him winning all 4 slams in the same year twice.

[Jambothump]

2 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Borg was a special talent, retired at 27. Pity.

Never realised he was that young when he retired, he did win Wimbledon at 17, that's not likely to happen again ?

[ri Alban]

3 minutes ago, Jambothump said:

Never realised he was that young when he retired, he did win Wimbledon at 17, that's not likely to happen again ?

Just had a wee look at his Wikipedia page. He was 26 when he retired. 6 French and 5 Wimbledon, with 4 US open finals.

[ri Alban]

On 28/01/2019 at 10:13, I P Knightley said:

It certainly heats up the argument about who's the greatest of all time but I don't think it will be worth making a comparison until Djoko has hung up his racquet. At present, Federer has won 160 pro matches more than Djoko has played. Djoko shows every sign of lasting a few more years. He'll probably get very close to Federer's total of Grand Slam titles; he's already ahead in terms of Masters1000 titles.

 

Federer had a spell where he was on his own; Djokovic has always had Federer and Nadal there to provide the stiffest of competition.

 

On the other hand, if it hadn't been for Federer raising the level of the game so much, you could argue that players like Wawrinka, Murray, Del Potro, Cilic and so on would not have come along in his slipstream and tried to match a new high standard.

 

Mind you, Djokovic will never become the 'darling' of the crowds, no matter what he achieves. I don't know what it is that makes him unlikable - I know I had my own views on him in his earlier career but I've warmed to him.

IP, have you any idea of the number of Grand slams the big 3 has won at the age Borg retired? 11 GSs at 26 seems an immense number, just looking for a comparison and you're the man of knowledge.

[JimKongUno]

27 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

IP, have you any idea of the number of Grand slams the big 3 has won at the age Borg retired? 11 GSs at 26 seems an immense number, just looking for a comparison and you're the man of knowledge.

 

Federer at 27 had 13

Nadal had 14

Djokovic had 10

[JudyJudyJudy]

1 hour ago, milky_26 said:

djokovic has won the french open. 

 

i'm not a fan of novak he is the purveyor of the medical timeout for his advantage. Federer if he was made of chocolate he would eat himself. Nadal seems less up himself maybe why i prefer him out of the three.

 

On the best tennis player ever rod laver should be in the mix due to him winning all 4 slams in the same year twice.

Yes sorry your right . Only the once , similar to many other multiple grand slam winners

[ri Alban]

1 hour ago, JimKongUno said:

 

Federer at 27 had 13

Nadal had 14

Djokovic had 10

 

Some numbers. A shame Rafa picked up that serious injury or he'd have gone passed Roger years ago.

[hmfc_liam06]

1 hour ago, ri Alban said:

 

Some numbers. A shame Rafa picked up that serious injury or he'd have gone passed Roger years ago.

 

2013 and 2016 were both a write off for Federer. He hasn't been without his troubles.

[jamie1874]

2 hours ago, ri Alban said:

 

Some numbers. A shame Rafa picked up that serious injury or he'd have gone passed Roger years ago.

 

Not sure if he would have as you can only win the French one a year !

 

The top 3 players though have an unbelievable record and one we will never see again.

 

To have three players playing at the same time that now have one who is the most scuesful player ever in French open history, then another who is most successful in Wimbledon history and now Novak the most successful in Aus Open history is pretty remarkable. 

 

Novak once again one slam away from holding all 4 again, something Rafa and Rodger have never achieved again is remarkable. 

 

Would like to see Novak go on and win the calendar slam, as to be alive at a time when these 3 players have played, it would seem fitting to this era that one of them achieved the calendar slam and be able to see it happen. 

[I P Knightley]

38 minutes ago, jonesy said:

I like Djokovic. I think the fact he's eastern European, and for large parts of his career super-focused, made him less likeable. Federer makes it all seem effortless, and Rafa was the gritty alternative. Djokovic was harder to pigeon hole. When he's on his game, as he has been since last summer, he's every bit as good as the other two.

For me, the early years spent bouncing the ball 20-odd times before a serve and dropping out "injured" when struggling mid-match were the off-putting things.

The guy is eloquent, open and polite; loves his tennis; gives a lot of his time & money to charitable causes; plays like no one else and, it's said, likes a wee shag around from time to time. There's nothing to dislike him for.

[I P Knightley]

2 minutes ago, jamie1874 said:

 

Not sure if he would have as you can only win the French one a year !

 

The top 3 players though have an unbelievable record and one we will never see again.

 

To have three players playing at the same time that now have one who is the most scuesful player ever in French open history, then another who is most successful in Wimbledon history and now Novak the most successful in Aus Open history is pretty remarkable. 

 

Novak once again one slam away from holding all 4 again, something Rafa and Rodger have never achieved again is remarkable. 

 

Would like to see Novak go on and win the calendar slam, as to be alive at a time when these 3 players have played, it would seem fitting to this era that one of them achieved the calendar slam and be able to see it happen. 

This will have me paying attention to the French Open more than I usually do. I'll be urging Djoko on for it. One thing for sure - it will be a closer final if it ends up as Rafa v Djoko than we saw in Melbourne. I might even see if I can squeeze in a trip to Roland Garros. I've never been.

[AWM]

50 minutes ago, hmfc_liam06 said:

 

2013 and 2016 were both a write off for Federer. He hasn't been without his troubles.

 

Federer played 17 tournaments in 2013, Same as Nadal and 1 more than Djokovic.  Hardly a write off.  

[jamie1874]

5 minutes ago, I P Knightley said:

This will have me paying attention to the French Open more than I usually do. I'll be urging Djoko on for it. One thing for sure - it will be a closer final if it ends up as Rafa v Djoko than we saw in Melbourne. I might even see if I can squeeze in a trip to Roland Garros. I've never been.

 

No doubt the French will be his biggest challenge in winning the calendar slam, I think he may live to regret that final v Stan in 2015 as that was really his year to do it.

 

Maybe if he had, Murray might have had a few more slams as we seen the drop in Novak as soon as he achieved it and at that point the only person ‘close’ to Novak was Andy, all be it close was still miles behind Novak at that time. 

 

The build up to the French will be interesting, as will see if anyone can get close to Rafa in Rome and Monte Carlo. As if anyone does that might give some confidence he can be stopped in France

[rudi must stay]

I think Federer is the most talented, but Djokovic is the best athlete. That's what is great about the top 3, brilliant in different ways

[Renault]

4 hours ago, ri Alban said:

 

Some numbers. A shame Rafa picked up that serious injury or he'd have gone passed Roger years ago.

Rafas body has certainly gone through some changes.

[ri Alban]

8 hours ago, rudi must stay said:

I think Federer is the most talented, but Djokovic is the best athlete. That's what is great about the top 3, brilliant in different ways

Roger and Novak certainly are top when it comes to languages spoken. Wtf!

[hmfc_liam06]

10 hours ago, AWM said:

 

Federer played 17 tournaments in 2013, Same as Nadal and 1 more than Djokovic.  Hardly a write off.  

 

Anyone who follows the sport would know Federer massively struggled in 2013 with the back injury. He's openly admitted he shouldn't have played.

 

So yes, 2013 was a write off.

[AWM]

5 hours ago, hmfc_liam06 said:

 

Anyone who follows the sport would know Federer massively struggled in 2013 with the back injury. He's openly admitted he shouldn't have played.

 

So yes, 2013 was a write off.

I do follow the sport and know that he claimed to have a back injury every time he got beat in 2013.  The fact he never took time off to rest and treat it and instead added tournaments in Europe between Wimbledon and the US Open series clearly tells you how injured he was.