Australian Open
- Thread starter superjohn
- Start date
Jannik Sinner will be his toughest challenge.
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2012
- Messages
- 15,529
- Reaction Score
- 17,462
Gordie Howe says hi.
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2014
- Messages
- 70
- Reaction Score
- 310
The other problem is the Zverev match will likely be long and grueling, and that's just to get to play Sinner.
Zverev can "take the racket out of Djokovic's hand" when he is getting most of his first serves in.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2018
- Messages
- 555
- Reaction Score
- 5,261
Add Lewandowski in there as well. 36 years old while leading La Liga+UCL in scoring.
I don’t think he can beat Zverev. Their match record is 8-4 in favor of Djokovic but that’s going back several years. He’s facing a much younger guy who now has one of the best backhands and serves in the game. All that being said, it could go 5 sets depending on how ready Djokovic is at game time. If it does go 5 sets I’ll bet a months salary that Djoker is granted one or two 10 minute “bathroom breaks”. It’s all a moot point since the winner will almost certainly lose to Sinner. Sinner is as untouchable now as Federer was in his heyday. As to who was the greatest, I will remind you that until Federer began slowing down in his later years. Up to 2010 Federer led in head to head wins 13-6. The vast majority of Djokers wins vs Federer were after Federer began his slow decline and was already in his 30’s. The competition that Federer faced in his prime was also much much tougher than what Djokovic has faced. Nadal, Andy Roddick, Pete Sampras, were all on the tour. Djokovic vs Nadal head to head is 31-29, while Federer vs Nadal is 24-16.
Last edited:
Through the end of the 2010 season, when Roger was 29 and Novak was 23, that's towards the tail end of Roger's peak, and when Novak just started entering his prime. Because of the 6 year age difference, there's always going to be a discrepancy between their prime years not quite matching up.
That's misleading-though the end of the 2010 season, Federer is 13-6, which is a solid lead, but hardly overwhelming considering he was in his prime, and Novak was still establishing himself. In 2011, (aged 23-24) Novak had his breakout year, going 4-1 against Roger, and only 1 win was after Roger turned 30 in August, at the US Open. So Roger can say he was 14-9 against Novak before he hit 30, and 9-18 afterwards; double the amount of losses, but again, it's not comparing apples and oranges since they had different peaks.
Again, you're being incredibly misleading. Pete Sampras was well in his decline before Roger Federer started dominating, playing his last match before Federer even won his first major. Roddick was only 1 year apart from Federer in age, but was only really a hard-court (and grass) challenger, and retired much earlier. In fact, one of the biggest historical criticisms of Roger Federer before he started being challenged by Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic, even Andy Murray, was that he dominated from about 2004-2009 without any real challengers, a "weak era". And Nadal-Federer is 24-16 in Nadal's favor, not in Roger's favor like you seemed to show. I like all the Big Four (or Big Three these days), but the need to deify Roger Federer is annoying, just as annoying as Djokovic's habit of abusing timeout rules.
John McEnroe disagrees with you. The following is a quote from McEnroe during an interview with the BBC……
“I think Roger at his peak would have beaten Djokovic more often than not”
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 215
- Reaction Score
- 403
He is not alone in doing this, but certainly one of the bigger offenders.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2018
- Messages
- 483
- Reaction Score
- 2,747
I have a nice future bet on djokovic to win.
LOL
Once again, you're being incredibly misleading with your quote. McEnroe said "I think Roger at his peak would have beaten Djokovic more often than not on grass." He continues "I think Novak was the best hard court player of all time. I think overall, in terms of his stats, he’s the best of all time. No question about it. But those other two weren’t too shabby either!" At this point, just say you are a Roger Federer stan and that you hate Novak Djokovic, since you basically ignored my argument above, and decided to mis-quote McEnroe to add weight to your opinion.
You will probably be correct that Zverev beats Djokovic ; when his serve is on, it's tough for Djokovic to match up against him-the Tokyo Olympics SF when he just cranked it up after losing the first set was amazing in how high his peak play was; Novak played well, he just couldn't handle Zverev redlining and his serve was booming. But it would be great to see the old man somehow manage to beat Zverev and Sinner to grab #25 in 2025, at his most dominant Grand Slam.
Sleepy, you seem to know your tennis. No point arguing with casual fans who think Federer (or Nadal in fewer cases) is the greatest and consider Novak to be the villain.
In addition to being the winningest pro, he has done tremendous work for the benefit of tennis pros not in the top-100, read this lovely piece from the NYT (before they, sadly, sold their sports coverage to The Athletic):
www.nytimes.com
You'll find out in the article that Federer and Nadal are/were company men who wouldn't support the new players' union.
All three are extraordinary players, and most that reach top-10 and stay there for years are also exceptional (Alcaraz, Sinner, Sacha, etc.), but clearly Novak's the GOAT as of now.
BTW, I first played tennis at UConn in 87 at the courts up the hill past Gampel (Gampel didn't exist then, those courts don't exist now), and I last played last evening at an indoor tennis club in snowy and cold Bergen County, NJ.
In addition to being the winningest pro, he has done tremendous work for the benefit of tennis pros not in the top-100, read this lovely piece from the NYT (before they, sadly, sold their sports coverage to The Athletic):
A Few Tennis Pros Make a Fortune. Most Barely Scrape By. (Published 2021)
The superstars of pro tennis get paid staggeringly more than everyone else. Can a new players’ association help level the court?
You'll find out in the article that Federer and Nadal are/were company men who wouldn't support the new players' union.
All three are extraordinary players, and most that reach top-10 and stay there for years are also exceptional (Alcaraz, Sinner, Sacha, etc.), but clearly Novak's the GOAT as of now.
BTW, I first played tennis at UConn in 87 at the courts up the hill past Gampel (Gampel didn't exist then, those courts don't exist now), and I last played last evening at an indoor tennis club in snowy and cold Bergen County, NJ.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2013
- Messages
- 1,201
- Reaction Score
- 2,571
Sorta OT
But I always wonder how the world can have so much hate for two superb amazing players: (1) Novak Djokovic and (2) Lebron James
It is just an absolute joy to watch these guys in their late 30s and early 40s play at such a high level
While I was a fan of Federer during my HS tennis playing years there is no doubt that Novak is the absolute GOAT. He's proven time and time again that nothing comes close
It just bugs me that Federer played in an era where he had a much tougher time of it competition wise. I mentioned Nadal, Sampras, and Roddick, but there were many more top players 20-25 years ago than there are today. Add to that guys like Andre Agassi, Leyton Hewitt, Marat Safin, James Blake, Patrick Rafter, and a few others. Djokovic during his peak years and especially his later years, never had that kind of competition from so many great players.