Normally I'm willing to cede that the tennis player with the most titles is the GOAT. For Sampras (who played in an era with arguably the most parity), Federer, and Nadal I could stomach that argument.
As much as I respect Djokovic's game and determination, I just can't do it, though.
In Roger's and Nadal's primes, he largely could not get past them. Most of his winning against them came as Roger aged, and Nadal met an earlier physical decline. To me, he's just collecting (mostly) empty titles at this point. He's unquestionably one of the 5 greatest male tennis players of all time, but you can't convince me that he'd win like this against either of those two in their primes, and that's the difference (for me, at least).
The Coco Gauff match was awesome. Sabalenka looked like she was going to blow her away. Just wish that with the equal pay (50 years!) the women actually put in equal work as the men so it could have been a 4 or 5 setter. I guess they're too delicate.
I loved this years US open so much the 2 weeks seemed to be none stop action I loved all of the long sets and big matches my only regret (and it’s not even that big of one) is that we didn’t see a USA women’s final I love watching Madison play but Sabelanka played any amazing Semi that I couldn’t believe I she actually won. Totally worth staying up until midnight to watch.
One way to think about what extraordinary heights Djokovic has achieved is to remember that for a long while, until Sampras broke it, Roy Emerson's record of 12 majors was the magic number to aim for. Djoker has doubled that. Imagine if Barry Bonds had hit 1,500 home runs in his career.
Well part of that number 12 had to do with tennis before the open era. Until April 1968 once you went pro in tennis you couldn’t play in grand slam events. Laver won all 4 event in 1962. He had 6 total by then. Then in his prime for 5 years he couldn’t play in them. The Open era started in April of 1968 when he won on, then he won all 4 again in 1969. So right at his peak he was effectively shut out. Most likely he would have won more than the eleven he won. Maybe 24? This happened for many many others in the old days of tennis.
A secondary factor is that for many people, Australia was not played by lots of players. Just took too long to get there by boat.
Quite true. In the apples-to-apples comparison, it would be Sampras-14 vs. Djokovic-24. So Djokovic/Sampras would be something like the equivalent of Bonds breaking Aaron's record by 70%, or hitting over 1,200 home runs. Ironically, the awesomeness of this is somewhat diminished by the fact that Dijokovic has close competitors in Federer's 20 and Nadal's 22.
Speaking of Sampras: obviously one of the all-time greats, but I have a. hard time imagining him winning many matches against any of the Big Three. They would hit it to Sampras's backhand all match long, and he'd be running around everything, trying to hit the forehand, and leaving the court wide open if he didn't hit a winner,
I don’t even think Sampras’ 14 as some sort of Ruth-like record is even close to being a reasonable comp. The men’s slam record was SUPER soft. Before the “Big 3” came on the scene, the women’s side already had winners of 24, 22, 19, 18 & 18 slams. The men were going to put their numbers up there sooner rather than later. Having three do it in roughly twenty years though…wow!
Well the game was different then. All serve and volley. And equipment was so much different., you can do things on the court today that the old guys couldn’t do. I remember playing those wooden racquets. Couple of years ago played with one at a club event. Really was so inferior to current racquets.
I think any number of players might have been ahead of Sampras at 14.
But the big three certainly were a jump. Especially considering that there are probably more good players now than ever before.
I just watched bits and pieces of the US Open this year.
But one set I saw in its entirety was Medvedev’s second set 6-1 win against Alcaraz. The tennis that Medvedev played was as good as any I’ve seen. His serving was magnificent-it was rare when Alcaraz could even return a serve. Seemed his service games lasted about 43 seconds. His ground strokes were great too, and he made a few incredible shots that seemed to stun Alcaraz . I don’t think Alcaraz played poorly, just that Medvedev was so magnificent. Playing that way I think he would have beaten anybody in that set. Afterward he acknowledged that he played at an 11 level on a 10 point scale. The second set was way higher in my opinion.
the moment when Novak unveiled the shirt and talked of Kobe made me tear up- wow, what a US Open!!! Big Congrats to Coco for winning at age 19 (Serena first won US Open on 11 Sept, 1999 at age 17, the first of her 23 Slam victories!)
are you serious? either way- team or individual- the notion/ethos that one should singlemindedly devote themselves to conditioning, practice, and always pushing the limits of one's own endeavors and (therefore) excellence- their own AND the team? how could that be anything but uplifting in a team environment, where the truly obsessed greats are ALWAYS to have been held up for examples of making their teammates better by association!
any team members who don't buy in are by definition losers who should find another line of employment!
Not hard to find examples of Kobe's teammates who would disagree. Including at least one who was arguably a better player. And that's leaving aside the whole "accused rapist" thing (well, it was until now).
you're actually intimating that selfish, lazy, overweight, out-of.shape bully Shaq- who couldn't make a bucket beyond 10 feet and was a liability on the free throw line- was a better player?
wow, maybe you need mental help, you're obviously a Kobe-hater! and the skank in Colorado who accused him already had someone else's semen on her panties! she was just pissed off that the encounter was a one-off and Kobe did what all men do, have random sex then ignore the woman afterwards! (and i say this as an experienced former callgirl)
i will remind myself to never answer one of your asinine comments again!
Medvedev played such a brilliantly attack against Alcarez his defensive approach against Djokovic was surprising. And after losing badly in the 1st set I was extremely puzzled. But the second set was as even and as brutal a contest as you can have in tennis.
Djokovic simply wouldn't lose. I think that is how you become an all-time great. The ability to stay alive and force your opponent to beat you separates the greatest champions from the almost greats. At Wimbledon, Alcarez wore Djokovic down and kept him down. On Sunday, Medvedev pressed Djokovic as hard as he has been all year, but Medveded couldn't strike the set winning shot.
While I still think Federer at his best is the greatest tennis player I’ve ever seen — i.e. if I knew Federer was going to play his absolute best vs. Novak’s best I’d take Federer (except on clay, where I’d still take Nadal over Djokovic on those terms) — I think the greatest of all time is basically settled at this point, for whatever it’s worth.
I think it would be difficult to even put together an argument for anyone but Novak now beyond resorting to nebulous stuff like I said above.
Can it be as simple as Nadal on Clay, Federer on Grass, Djokovic on hard courts? And I would agree that Djokovic over Federer on the hard courts is by the slimmest of margins.
I’m in the same camp as you, but there’s no evidence I can point to other than I watched them play and I think one was better. That’s not an argument I can win.
I feel this way about Brady and Manning as well. Deep down, I really think Peyton was the superior QB, but all of Brady’s accomplishments make him the definitive GOAT.
I actually agree on Brady v. Manning too — if I had to pick one to QB a franchise with all other things equal, I’d take Manning. Hell, Dan Marino may actually be the best QB considering what he did in the era he was in.
What dumbfounds me the most...at the beginning of '21, Novak's sitting on 17 GS. And with history in the balance, rips off 7 GS in 10 starts between ages 34 and 36.
For a guy who has alternated between maximally and minimally charismatic in his career (probably to his on-court benefit) - winning #24 in the States, and then breaking out that Kobe shirt...he does have an ability to capture a moment.
For the first time ever, I was rooting for Medvedev. I don't know why. He seemed to be a more sympathetic character to me, rather than a heel like he had seemed previously.
It seemed to me from watching Medvedev's match (and post match interview) against Alcaraz that he actually enjoys being the heel. Admittedly, in pro wrestling, being the heel is more fun, but most of the time in non-scripted sports, it isn't. But his enjoyment of that role was kind of endearing.
Was never much of a Medvedev fan but he was so impressive in beating Alcaraz in the semi. He came across as so genuine and nice after the finals loss, that I'll be rooting for his future success.
Medvedev has also become an interesting post-match interview. Instead of the usual pablum that the players offer in response to basic questions, he, especially after the Alcaraz match, provided real answers about strategy -- i.e. "I thought that Carlos was expecting a serve wide to his backhand so I tried to surprise him with a serve to his forehand up the middle on the ad side." I think the level of analysis and detail caught the interviewer -- I forget if it was Lindsay Davenport or someone else -- off guard.
As amazing as his 24 majors is the fact that Djokovic has played in 72 majors and reached the finals in 36. Simply incredible.
As for the women's match, this has got to be an incredibly disappointing loss for Sabalenka. The tournament was there for the taking. She had the chance to win a major without playing Swiatek, Rybankana, Vondrousova (who was injured anyhow), Jabeur (who was under the weather) and Pegula, all of whom went out relatively early. This is not to downplay the skills and effort of Gauff and, before her, Madison Keys. But I think Sabalenka will look back on this tournament as a tremendous missed opportunity. As for Gauff, the 19 year old played smarter and more under control tennis. Her terrific court coverage and defense frustrated Sabalenka, who appeared to have no Plan B to fall back on beyond hitting it as hard as she could and hoping to put it past Coco.
Agree, Sabalenka came undone again. Only 52% first servces in, 46 unforced errors in the match. Coco obviously deserved the win, but it was there for Sabalenka to take.
I frequent tennis Reddit and a LOT of people on there were calling her washed, overhyped, underachiever etc. There was an Athletic article saying she failed to live up to her potential earlier this year. The reputable and enjoyable Tennis Podcast said she required at least a six month break from the tour to rework her forehand and reach top level. And we can’t ignore that as a young Black woman she has probably been subject to insults and screeds on Twitter and in her DMs. Whether or not she should engage with social media is another discussion, but she definitely did have doubters (at the nice end of the spectrum) and haters (at the nasty end).
I'm surprised to see Joe fall for the BS of calling someone a "hater" because their prediction is "maybe team/player A isn't the best in the world." And I get that athletes will use motivation where they can get it, but the whole "I/we were disrespected" trope is so old and often so wrong that even the Tom Brady Patriots were using it. Come on!
Totally agree. As someone who watches tennis weekly and not simply the majors, one thing you can be sure of is that if Coco is playing, her match will be the one the network -- whether ESPN or The Tennis Channel -- will choose to air. She, even more so than Alcaraz and Djokovic, was the #1 attraction at the Open, in person and on the air. I went the first week and couldn't even get in to see her mixed doubles match with Jack Sock -- the lines were too long (I "settled" for an amazing Dan Evans v. Botic van de Zanschulp match).
Normally I'm willing to cede that the tennis player with the most titles is the GOAT. For Sampras (who played in an era with arguably the most parity), Federer, and Nadal I could stomach that argument.
As much as I respect Djokovic's game and determination, I just can't do it, though.
In Roger's and Nadal's primes, he largely could not get past them. Most of his winning against them came as Roger aged, and Nadal met an earlier physical decline. To me, he's just collecting (mostly) empty titles at this point. He's unquestionably one of the 5 greatest male tennis players of all time, but you can't convince me that he'd win like this against either of those two in their primes, and that's the difference (for me, at least).
The Coco Gauff match was awesome. Sabalenka looked like she was going to blow her away. Just wish that with the equal pay (50 years!) the women actually put in equal work as the men so it could have been a 4 or 5 setter. I guess they're too delicate.
I loved this years US open so much the 2 weeks seemed to be none stop action I loved all of the long sets and big matches my only regret (and it’s not even that big of one) is that we didn’t see a USA women’s final I love watching Madison play but Sabelanka played any amazing Semi that I couldn’t believe I she actually won. Totally worth staying up until midnight to watch.
One way to think about what extraordinary heights Djokovic has achieved is to remember that for a long while, until Sampras broke it, Roy Emerson's record of 12 majors was the magic number to aim for. Djoker has doubled that. Imagine if Barry Bonds had hit 1,500 home runs in his career.
Well part of that number 12 had to do with tennis before the open era. Until April 1968 once you went pro in tennis you couldn’t play in grand slam events. Laver won all 4 event in 1962. He had 6 total by then. Then in his prime for 5 years he couldn’t play in them. The Open era started in April of 1968 when he won on, then he won all 4 again in 1969. So right at his peak he was effectively shut out. Most likely he would have won more than the eleven he won. Maybe 24? This happened for many many others in the old days of tennis.
A secondary factor is that for many people, Australia was not played by lots of players. Just took too long to get there by boat.
So it really isn’t apples to apples.
Quite true. In the apples-to-apples comparison, it would be Sampras-14 vs. Djokovic-24. So Djokovic/Sampras would be something like the equivalent of Bonds breaking Aaron's record by 70%, or hitting over 1,200 home runs. Ironically, the awesomeness of this is somewhat diminished by the fact that Dijokovic has close competitors in Federer's 20 and Nadal's 22.
Speaking of Sampras: obviously one of the all-time greats, but I have a. hard time imagining him winning many matches against any of the Big Three. They would hit it to Sampras's backhand all match long, and he'd be running around everything, trying to hit the forehand, and leaving the court wide open if he didn't hit a winner,
I don’t even think Sampras’ 14 as some sort of Ruth-like record is even close to being a reasonable comp. The men’s slam record was SUPER soft. Before the “Big 3” came on the scene, the women’s side already had winners of 24, 22, 19, 18 & 18 slams. The men were going to put their numbers up there sooner rather than later. Having three do it in roughly twenty years though…wow!
Well the game was different then. All serve and volley. And equipment was so much different., you can do things on the court today that the old guys couldn’t do. I remember playing those wooden racquets. Couple of years ago played with one at a club event. Really was so inferior to current racquets.
I think any number of players might have been ahead of Sampras at 14.
But the big three certainly were a jump. Especially considering that there are probably more good players now than ever before.
I figure that in an alternate universe where the big three never played tennis, Andy Murray would have broken Sampras's record.
I just watched bits and pieces of the US Open this year.
But one set I saw in its entirety was Medvedev’s second set 6-1 win against Alcaraz. The tennis that Medvedev played was as good as any I’ve seen. His serving was magnificent-it was rare when Alcaraz could even return a serve. Seemed his service games lasted about 43 seconds. His ground strokes were great too, and he made a few incredible shots that seemed to stun Alcaraz . I don’t think Alcaraz played poorly, just that Medvedev was so magnificent. Playing that way I think he would have beaten anybody in that set. Afterward he acknowledged that he played at an 11 level on a 10 point scale. The second set was way higher in my opinion.
the moment when Novak unveiled the shirt and talked of Kobe made me tear up- wow, what a US Open!!! Big Congrats to Coco for winning at age 19 (Serena first won US Open on 11 Sept, 1999 at age 17, the first of her 23 Slam victories!)
That Kobe attitude plays much better in an individual sport than a team sport.
are you serious? either way- team or individual- the notion/ethos that one should singlemindedly devote themselves to conditioning, practice, and always pushing the limits of one's own endeavors and (therefore) excellence- their own AND the team? how could that be anything but uplifting in a team environment, where the truly obsessed greats are ALWAYS to have been held up for examples of making their teammates better by association!
any team members who don't buy in are by definition losers who should find another line of employment!
Not hard to find examples of Kobe's teammates who would disagree. Including at least one who was arguably a better player. And that's leaving aside the whole "accused rapist" thing (well, it was until now).
you're actually intimating that selfish, lazy, overweight, out-of.shape bully Shaq- who couldn't make a bucket beyond 10 feet and was a liability on the free throw line- was a better player?
wow, maybe you need mental help, you're obviously a Kobe-hater! and the skank in Colorado who accused him already had someone else's semen on her panties! she was just pissed off that the encounter was a one-off and Kobe did what all men do, have random sex then ignore the woman afterwards! (and i say this as an experienced former callgirl)
i will remind myself to never answer one of your asinine comments again!
Medvedev played such a brilliantly attack against Alcarez his defensive approach against Djokovic was surprising. And after losing badly in the 1st set I was extremely puzzled. But the second set was as even and as brutal a contest as you can have in tennis.
Djokovic simply wouldn't lose. I think that is how you become an all-time great. The ability to stay alive and force your opponent to beat you separates the greatest champions from the almost greats. At Wimbledon, Alcarez wore Djokovic down and kept him down. On Sunday, Medvedev pressed Djokovic as hard as he has been all year, but Medveded couldn't strike the set winning shot.
While I still think Federer at his best is the greatest tennis player I’ve ever seen — i.e. if I knew Federer was going to play his absolute best vs. Novak’s best I’d take Federer (except on clay, where I’d still take Nadal over Djokovic on those terms) — I think the greatest of all time is basically settled at this point, for whatever it’s worth.
I think it would be difficult to even put together an argument for anyone but Novak now beyond resorting to nebulous stuff like I said above.
Can it be as simple as Nadal on Clay, Federer on Grass, Djokovic on hard courts? And I would agree that Djokovic over Federer on the hard courts is by the slimmest of margins.
I’m in the same camp as you, but there’s no evidence I can point to other than I watched them play and I think one was better. That’s not an argument I can win.
I feel this way about Brady and Manning as well. Deep down, I really think Peyton was the superior QB, but all of Brady’s accomplishments make him the definitive GOAT.
This is the kind or rational, reflective, back-and-forth that is not common in comment sections. Kudos!
I actually agree on Brady v. Manning too — if I had to pick one to QB a franchise with all other things equal, I’d take Manning. Hell, Dan Marino may actually be the best QB considering what he did in the era he was in.
But Brady is still the GOAT.
What dumbfounds me the most...at the beginning of '21, Novak's sitting on 17 GS. And with history in the balance, rips off 7 GS in 10 starts between ages 34 and 36.
For a guy who has alternated between maximally and minimally charismatic in his career (probably to his on-court benefit) - winning #24 in the States, and then breaking out that Kobe shirt...he does have an ability to capture a moment.
For the first time ever, I was rooting for Medvedev. I don't know why. He seemed to be a more sympathetic character to me, rather than a heel like he had seemed previously.
It seemed to me from watching Medvedev's match (and post match interview) against Alcaraz that he actually enjoys being the heel. Admittedly, in pro wrestling, being the heel is more fun, but most of the time in non-scripted sports, it isn't. But his enjoyment of that role was kind of endearing.
Was never much of a Medvedev fan but he was so impressive in beating Alcaraz in the semi. He came across as so genuine and nice after the finals loss, that I'll be rooting for his future success.
Medvedev has also become an interesting post-match interview. Instead of the usual pablum that the players offer in response to basic questions, he, especially after the Alcaraz match, provided real answers about strategy -- i.e. "I thought that Carlos was expecting a serve wide to his backhand so I tried to surprise him with a serve to his forehand up the middle on the ad side." I think the level of analysis and detail caught the interviewer -- I forget if it was Lindsay Davenport or someone else -- off guard.
Mary Joe Fernandez?
You are correct.
As amazing as his 24 majors is the fact that Djokovic has played in 72 majors and reached the finals in 36. Simply incredible.
As for the women's match, this has got to be an incredibly disappointing loss for Sabalenka. The tournament was there for the taking. She had the chance to win a major without playing Swiatek, Rybankana, Vondrousova (who was injured anyhow), Jabeur (who was under the weather) and Pegula, all of whom went out relatively early. This is not to downplay the skills and effort of Gauff and, before her, Madison Keys. But I think Sabalenka will look back on this tournament as a tremendous missed opportunity. As for Gauff, the 19 year old played smarter and more under control tennis. Her terrific court coverage and defense frustrated Sabalenka, who appeared to have no Plan B to fall back on beyond hitting it as hard as she could and hoping to put it past Coco.
Agree, Sabalenka came undone again. Only 52% first servces in, 46 unforced errors in the match. Coco obviously deserved the win, but it was there for Sabalenka to take.
Totally agree. But, as Jeff Sackmann of Heavy Topsin/The Tennis Abstract points out here, Coco did play remarkable defense: https://www.tennisabstract.com/blog/2023/09/11/how-coco-gauffs-defense-won-the-us-open-final/
I frequent tennis Reddit and a LOT of people on there were calling her washed, overhyped, underachiever etc. There was an Athletic article saying she failed to live up to her potential earlier this year. The reputable and enjoyable Tennis Podcast said she required at least a six month break from the tour to rework her forehand and reach top level. And we can’t ignore that as a young Black woman she has probably been subject to insults and screeds on Twitter and in her DMs. Whether or not she should engage with social media is another discussion, but she definitely did have doubters (at the nice end of the spectrum) and haters (at the nasty end).
I'm surprised to see Joe fall for the BS of calling someone a "hater" because their prediction is "maybe team/player A isn't the best in the world." And I get that athletes will use motivation where they can get it, but the whole "I/we were disrespected" trope is so old and often so wrong that even the Tom Brady Patriots were using it. Come on!
Yeah. When the Globetrotters won a game and claimed they “shocked the world!”, I knew it had gone too far…
Yes, she's talking about twitter. She even said so. And this resulted in...twitter lashing out.
And so it goes.
Totally agree. As someone who watches tennis weekly and not simply the majors, one thing you can be sure of is that if Coco is playing, her match will be the one the network -- whether ESPN or The Tennis Channel -- will choose to air. She, even more so than Alcaraz and Djokovic, was the #1 attraction at the Open, in person and on the air. I went the first week and couldn't even get in to see her mixed doubles match with Jack Sock -- the lines were too long (I "settled" for an amazing Dan Evans v. Botic van de Zanschulp match).