What I saw in the second set reinforced my current issue with men's tennis...where's the grit with the current "generation" - where's the commitment to improve?
Federer dominated the men's game in a way no man had since Laver. Nadal came along and wasn't content to be a great clay courter and worked on his game and used his grit to meet and even surpass Roger at the top of the sport. Djokovic committed to being more than the third best player in the world and had one of the greatest years ever in 2011 and we then officially had the Big 3. Murray took longer to reach the level and did not recover from his serious injury the way Rafa and Djoker have, so he could never be in GOAT discussions, but he did work on his game and reach that top level to create the Big 4 and win multiple big trophies and even finish year end number 1. Wawrinka kept working and finally broke through and ended up with 3 Grand Slam titles. Del Potro managed to beat Federer at his peak and I have a feeling would have won more if not for his injury problems.
No, Djokovic and Nadal have not been better than ever. It can be seen in their more frequent "off" matches and longer within-match lulls in their game. The players today simply aren't taking advantage of what's there. Tsitsipas had the better game in the second set, which was predictable since any pressure he would feel was gone when he went down a set, but anytime he got a couple points on the return, and especially on break points and in the tiebreaker, he either went for a shot and mishit it or just centered the ball safely until Novak took control of the point and won it. It was a pretty boring serve and baseline match lacking angles, net play, changes of style and pace or real drama. The only tension was created by the crowd cheering on Tsitsipas to make it a match and Novak growing irritable because of his play dropping and the crowd being not to his liking, which of course created a wash, rinse, repeat until the set was over. Back to today's players. Thiem broke through, in the worst GS final of all time, and subsequently is a complete mess. Zverev sounds like he's only playing for the money. Medvedev broke through and looked like he would lead these guys to the next age of men's tennis, only to appear broken by his loss to Nadal at least year's Aussie Open.
Let's not get started with talent of Kyrgios.
It's pretty clear that Novak will amass the most "career WAR" and will have to be placed at the top (or right behind Laver apparently) in future lists since he will finish with a sizable lead in those statistics by outlasting his contemporaries but for me, based on how they battled each other toe-to-toe-to-toe for many years, they are together forever the GOATs as the Big 3.
His emotion at the end stunned me. He is a man on a mission. I'm not sure I've seen an "aging" athlete operate at this level of technical / physical / mental brilliance.
Props to John McEnroe for sticking up for Novak in the post-match, even as Chris Fowler sheepishly tried to push the old talking points, months after the CDC quietly admitted there's basically no difference in vaccinated and unvaccinated people.
I think we naturally tend to view athletes in term of how good they were compared to others at the time, and we also are biased to either people in our generation or mythical gods from previous generations we view through legends. For example, I would have Bjorn Borg on this list because he consistently bet the crap out of Connors and McEnroe when I was growing up and then he retired while he was on top. Just like Jim Brown and Barry Sanders. We also elevate or discount people based on whether we like them or not. Also, we don't like ties so we can't accept that maybe Nadal and Djokavic are both equally awesome.
This is why I like WAR so much in baseball. I wish we had this in other sports so we could finally decide if LeBron is better than Michael, allowing our sportswriters and talk show hosts to find something more interesting to cover.
Except WAR is just an approximation. Lots of estimates in the calculation, lots of arbitrary rules in the formula. (Exemplified by the 2 main WAR calculations which often give similar results, but sometimes are pretty divergent.) It has several shortcomings. That said, i I like the concept of WAR and how it has helped us view the value of players, but it is not a definitive answer.
He reminds me of Barry Bonds. I'm not saying he cheats he just reminds me of Bonds in that he's so much better than anyone else but also...ugh I can't stand the guy.
I’ve watched Djokovic play so many times and he’s long been my favorite. Only within the last two years has Alcaraz threatened him for my fandom. And one thing I think I’ve always realized in the back of my mind but never actually crystallized in my brain is how little risk Djokovic usually takes while playing. He makes his errors, he’s human, but they are almost always a result of an mis-hit or a “forced” unforced error by the opponent making a great shot. He never attempts too much himself. Never tries to paint lines and misses. He still gets plenty of winners though. He just always makes the right shot and gains a little ground, then makes the right shot and gains more, then on the next shot has the open chance for a winner… and instead just takes another safer shot and gains a little more ground…… and then, the winner is so easy and he takes it. It’s uncanny. It’s like Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods knowing exactly what they needed to do on each hole on the back none of a major to win and never going for more.
You never know when someone will age overnight and falter, but Djokovic, due to that Tiger/Nicklaus ability, seems like he will age incredibly well and I think 27-30 grand slams will be in play……… unless Alcaraz has another level up in him, and if he does, it’s because he learned watching the best.
Not a tennis expert by any stretch but Federer won all the majors (except the French Open) at least five times. He won once at Roland Garros and lost to Nadal four times in the finals. Not sure how many times he may have lost to Rafa in the semis. But he seems to have the most well rounded game.
There has been a tremendous concentration of remarkable talent for the last 20 years. You can probably analyze the data in any number of ways, to state a case for any of these great players, but this shorthand review seems to favor Fed.
It's interesting that the knock on Fed has always been "he wasn't a great clay court player." But he was! He just wasn't as good on clay as Rafa. No shame in that, nobody has been as good as Nadal on clay.
I think we all tend to think Federer was a lot better on clay than he really was while at the same time think Rafa was just a clay court player.
Guess how many clay court titles Fed has in his career?
Guess how many hard court titles Rafa has in his career?
Fed has only 11 clay titles in his 20 year career (after winning the French in 09 he only won 2 more the rest of his career). Rafa has 25 hard court tiles.
In fact Rafa is one of two mens players to have 25+ titles on 2 different surfaces.
No one can question Rafa’s standing among tennis greats. He is both an incredible player and competitor. No argument from me if someone would consider him the best as I really have nothing to offer beyond the opinion of a novice.
But not certain how many clay court tournaments there are annually. Suspect there are many fewer than hard courts and that, plus Rafa’s dominance, made it difficult from anyone to rack up significant clay court titles.
I still think Federer at his absolute best is better than Djokovic at his absolute best — there were even a couple of years there at the end of Federer’s career where it felt like he was the only player on tour who had a chance against Novak in big matches on grass and hard courts — but that’s kind of irrelevant. From a historical standpoint Novak is going to go down as the best with the most weeks at #1 and almost certainly the most major championships as well.
Also, I loved that tennis countdown. I think you’re misrepresenting it slightly since it wasn’t just his personal opinion; he mainly used peak ELO rankings. Not across the board since that wasn’t feasible for the early 20th century players, but it was a bit different than someone just ranking whoever they personally thought was the best. That obviously doesn’t make it objectively correct, though.
Djokovic and Federer faced each other 50 times, with Djokovic leading the head-to-head record 27–23, including 13–6 in finals. They played 17 matches at majors with Djokovic leading 11–6, five which were in finals and a record 11 in the semifinals. Djokovic is the only player to defeat Federer at all four majors, and likewise Federer is the only player to defeat Djokovic at each one.
Djokovic and Federer have played five times at the Australian Open, with Djokovic winning four times and Federer winning once.
Djokovic and Federer have had two meetings at Roland Garros thus far, with both occurring at the semifinal stage with a victory for each one.
Djokovic and Federer have met four times in the Wimbledon Championships with Djokovic having 3 victories, all in finals, and Federer 1, in a semifinal.
The two players have played six times at the US Open with the series tied at 3–3. Djokovic played Federer in his first Major final won at the 2007 US Open. The two then played in the 2015 US Open Final. Djokovic exemplified his development into the world's best player with a thrilling 6–4, 5–7, 6–4, 6–4 victory.
Djokovic has won a record 38 Masters titles and Federer has won 28. Both of Djokovic and Federer sit one-two on the list of players who have won the most Masters titles on hard courts in the Open Era with Djokovic at 27 and Federer at 22.
Novak is the mentally toughest player to ever play the game. He dominates and intimidates everyone not named Rafa and Roger. For years I’d picked Fed and Nadal as the top two GOATS, but that was, I see now, simply me choosing whose tennis styles I preferred, not who legitimately is/was the best. I really want to see a final between DJokovic and Alcaraz, the only person under 30 I think can beat Novak at full strength. I don’t put his feelings on vaccines or diet or politics above what he does on the court. If I had to choose who I would want to spend a weekend hangout out with, I’d pick Rafa and Roger in a heartbeat but I had the pleasure of meeting Novak in person at Indian Wells and he was the warmest, most down-to-earth pro-player I’ve ever met. I can see him getting to 30 Grand Slams if he doesn’t get hurt.
He certainly isn’t slowing down. Remarkable that at 35 he still the strongest and fittest player with no weaknesses. Woke up at 3:30 eastern to watch the final and he was terrific.
Tsitsipas played as well as I’ve seen, served tremendously and his backhand which can be weak in my opinion was quite good. But it wasn’t nearly enough to overcome Novak. It seemed like there might be a match when he started scorching some forehands in the 2nd set, but then Novak decided he wasn’t going to lose a point on his serve for pretty much the rest of the match.
Anti-science charalantism! LOL...only because he doesn't go along with the real anti-science WHO and all the other woke-pushing narrative government letters.
What I saw in the second set reinforced my current issue with men's tennis...where's the grit with the current "generation" - where's the commitment to improve?
Federer dominated the men's game in a way no man had since Laver. Nadal came along and wasn't content to be a great clay courter and worked on his game and used his grit to meet and even surpass Roger at the top of the sport. Djokovic committed to being more than the third best player in the world and had one of the greatest years ever in 2011 and we then officially had the Big 3. Murray took longer to reach the level and did not recover from his serious injury the way Rafa and Djoker have, so he could never be in GOAT discussions, but he did work on his game and reach that top level to create the Big 4 and win multiple big trophies and even finish year end number 1. Wawrinka kept working and finally broke through and ended up with 3 Grand Slam titles. Del Potro managed to beat Federer at his peak and I have a feeling would have won more if not for his injury problems.
No, Djokovic and Nadal have not been better than ever. It can be seen in their more frequent "off" matches and longer within-match lulls in their game. The players today simply aren't taking advantage of what's there. Tsitsipas had the better game in the second set, which was predictable since any pressure he would feel was gone when he went down a set, but anytime he got a couple points on the return, and especially on break points and in the tiebreaker, he either went for a shot and mishit it or just centered the ball safely until Novak took control of the point and won it. It was a pretty boring serve and baseline match lacking angles, net play, changes of style and pace or real drama. The only tension was created by the crowd cheering on Tsitsipas to make it a match and Novak growing irritable because of his play dropping and the crowd being not to his liking, which of course created a wash, rinse, repeat until the set was over. Back to today's players. Thiem broke through, in the worst GS final of all time, and subsequently is a complete mess. Zverev sounds like he's only playing for the money. Medvedev broke through and looked like he would lead these guys to the next age of men's tennis, only to appear broken by his loss to Nadal at least year's Aussie Open.
Let's not get started with talent of Kyrgios.
It's pretty clear that Novak will amass the most "career WAR" and will have to be placed at the top (or right behind Laver apparently) in future lists since he will finish with a sizable lead in those statistics by outlasting his contemporaries but for me, based on how they battled each other toe-to-toe-to-toe for many years, they are together forever the GOATs as the Big 3.
His emotion at the end stunned me. He is a man on a mission. I'm not sure I've seen an "aging" athlete operate at this level of technical / physical / mental brilliance.
Props to John McEnroe for sticking up for Novak in the post-match, even as Chris Fowler sheepishly tried to push the old talking points, months after the CDC quietly admitted there's basically no difference in vaccinated and unvaccinated people.
I think we naturally tend to view athletes in term of how good they were compared to others at the time, and we also are biased to either people in our generation or mythical gods from previous generations we view through legends. For example, I would have Bjorn Borg on this list because he consistently bet the crap out of Connors and McEnroe when I was growing up and then he retired while he was on top. Just like Jim Brown and Barry Sanders. We also elevate or discount people based on whether we like them or not. Also, we don't like ties so we can't accept that maybe Nadal and Djokavic are both equally awesome.
This is why I like WAR so much in baseball. I wish we had this in other sports so we could finally decide if LeBron is better than Michael, allowing our sportswriters and talk show hosts to find something more interesting to cover.
Except WAR is just an approximation. Lots of estimates in the calculation, lots of arbitrary rules in the formula. (Exemplified by the 2 main WAR calculations which often give similar results, but sometimes are pretty divergent.) It has several shortcomings. That said, i I like the concept of WAR and how it has helped us view the value of players, but it is not a definitive answer.
He reminds me of Barry Bonds. I'm not saying he cheats he just reminds me of Bonds in that he's so much better than anyone else but also...ugh I can't stand the guy.
Being from Melbourne, all the shenanigans and distractions have soured me to him.
Great tennis player, sure, but I can’t be bothered with all the other nonsense.
I’ve watched Djokovic play so many times and he’s long been my favorite. Only within the last two years has Alcaraz threatened him for my fandom. And one thing I think I’ve always realized in the back of my mind but never actually crystallized in my brain is how little risk Djokovic usually takes while playing. He makes his errors, he’s human, but they are almost always a result of an mis-hit or a “forced” unforced error by the opponent making a great shot. He never attempts too much himself. Never tries to paint lines and misses. He still gets plenty of winners though. He just always makes the right shot and gains a little ground, then makes the right shot and gains more, then on the next shot has the open chance for a winner… and instead just takes another safer shot and gains a little more ground…… and then, the winner is so easy and he takes it. It’s uncanny. It’s like Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods knowing exactly what they needed to do on each hole on the back none of a major to win and never going for more.
You never know when someone will age overnight and falter, but Djokovic, due to that Tiger/Nicklaus ability, seems like he will age incredibly well and I think 27-30 grand slams will be in play……… unless Alcaraz has another level up in him, and if he does, it’s because he learned watching the best.
Well said. Hadn't really considered that.
Not a tennis expert by any stretch but Federer won all the majors (except the French Open) at least five times. He won once at Roland Garros and lost to Nadal four times in the finals. Not sure how many times he may have lost to Rafa in the semis. But he seems to have the most well rounded game.
There has been a tremendous concentration of remarkable talent for the last 20 years. You can probably analyze the data in any number of ways, to state a case for any of these great players, but this shorthand review seems to favor Fed.
It's interesting that the knock on Fed has always been "he wasn't a great clay court player." But he was! He just wasn't as good on clay as Rafa. No shame in that, nobody has been as good as Nadal on clay.
I think we all tend to think Federer was a lot better on clay than he really was while at the same time think Rafa was just a clay court player.
Guess how many clay court titles Fed has in his career?
Guess how many hard court titles Rafa has in his career?
Fed has only 11 clay titles in his 20 year career (after winning the French in 09 he only won 2 more the rest of his career). Rafa has 25 hard court tiles.
In fact Rafa is one of two mens players to have 25+ titles on 2 different surfaces.
No one can question Rafa’s standing among tennis greats. He is both an incredible player and competitor. No argument from me if someone would consider him the best as I really have nothing to offer beyond the opinion of a novice.
But not certain how many clay court tournaments there are annually. Suspect there are many fewer than hard courts and that, plus Rafa’s dominance, made it difficult from anyone to rack up significant clay court titles.
I don’t see anyone beating him anytime soon. He could have 30 when he retires.
I still think Federer at his absolute best is better than Djokovic at his absolute best — there were even a couple of years there at the end of Federer’s career where it felt like he was the only player on tour who had a chance against Novak in big matches on grass and hard courts — but that’s kind of irrelevant. From a historical standpoint Novak is going to go down as the best with the most weeks at #1 and almost certainly the most major championships as well.
Also, I loved that tennis countdown. I think you’re misrepresenting it slightly since it wasn’t just his personal opinion; he mainly used peak ELO rankings. Not across the board since that wasn’t feasible for the early 20th century players, but it was a bit different than someone just ranking whoever they personally thought was the best. That obviously doesn’t make it objectively correct, though.
Djokovic and Federer faced each other 50 times, with Djokovic leading the head-to-head record 27–23, including 13–6 in finals. They played 17 matches at majors with Djokovic leading 11–6, five which were in finals and a record 11 in the semifinals. Djokovic is the only player to defeat Federer at all four majors, and likewise Federer is the only player to defeat Djokovic at each one.
Djokovic and Federer have played five times at the Australian Open, with Djokovic winning four times and Federer winning once.
Djokovic and Federer have had two meetings at Roland Garros thus far, with both occurring at the semifinal stage with a victory for each one.
Djokovic and Federer have met four times in the Wimbledon Championships with Djokovic having 3 victories, all in finals, and Federer 1, in a semifinal.
The two players have played six times at the US Open with the series tied at 3–3. Djokovic played Federer in his first Major final won at the 2007 US Open. The two then played in the 2015 US Open Final. Djokovic exemplified his development into the world's best player with a thrilling 6–4, 5–7, 6–4, 6–4 victory.
Djokovic has won a record 38 Masters titles and Federer has won 28. Both of Djokovic and Federer sit one-two on the list of players who have won the most Masters titles on hard courts in the Open Era with Djokovic at 27 and Federer at 22.
Novak is the mentally toughest player to ever play the game. He dominates and intimidates everyone not named Rafa and Roger. For years I’d picked Fed and Nadal as the top two GOATS, but that was, I see now, simply me choosing whose tennis styles I preferred, not who legitimately is/was the best. I really want to see a final between DJokovic and Alcaraz, the only person under 30 I think can beat Novak at full strength. I don’t put his feelings on vaccines or diet or politics above what he does on the court. If I had to choose who I would want to spend a weekend hangout out with, I’d pick Rafa and Roger in a heartbeat but I had the pleasure of meeting Novak in person at Indian Wells and he was the warmest, most down-to-earth pro-player I’ve ever met. I can see him getting to 30 Grand Slams if he doesn’t get hurt.
He certainly isn’t slowing down. Remarkable that at 35 he still the strongest and fittest player with no weaknesses. Woke up at 3:30 eastern to watch the final and he was terrific.
Tsitsipas played as well as I’ve seen, served tremendously and his backhand which can be weak in my opinion was quite good. But it wasn’t nearly enough to overcome Novak. It seemed like there might be a match when he started scorching some forehands in the 2nd set, but then Novak decided he wasn’t going to lose a point on his serve for pretty much the rest of the match.
Still a great player, but not one I can ever root for (though that is the case for a painful number of players now).
Anti-science charalantism! LOL...only because he doesn't go along with the real anti-science WHO and all the other woke-pushing narrative government letters.
Oh terrific.
Ali was also "anti-science" and he ended up the greatest athlete in the world.