OT: Djokovic one match away from Calendar Grand Slam

[Bum Adebayo]

None of them have dominated the whole year multiple times like Laver did, you just cannot be GOAT if you don't have CYGS, and in the open era it is also necessary to win Olympics gold, otherwise you may be better than your peers but GOAT is out of question. Moreover, it is a really bad look for Djokovic to not win Olympics gold when it was played on Hard court (his favourite surface) 3 out of 4 times! this is not what a GOAT looks like, this is just a "he may be just slightly better than his peers and that's it" type of thing.

Fed (04-07)
Nadal (10, 13)
Djokovic (11-13, 15, 16)

Joker occupies 5 of the top 20 statistical seasons ever.

Murray’s 2016 was absurd. (13th)

The in between years are ATG/GOAT level anyway. Multi Slam titles, Multi Masters etc. 3x Lebron’s at all times for 14+ seasons.

2011... Madrid then Rome (Clay) Djokovic beats Nadal twice in the Finals. Joker and Nadal has always had the hardest road and there’s no question about it

You have no credibility here.

Again, this has nothing to do with dominating like Laver did, you are just comparing Open Era years, but the fact is, Big3 fall way short of what Laver did, we've seen how Djokovic choked in the final and couldn't manage the pressure of achieving CYGS even in a really weak year with washed up Fedal and next gen being next gen, while Laver did it multiple times, amazing!
It's ok if you consider Djokovic the best of the Big3, I think he is too, but Laver is in a class of his own, he is still the benchmark to beat.

[Richard Miller]

None of them have dominated the whole year multiple times like Laver did, you just cannot be GOAT if you don't have CYGS, and in the open era it is also necessary to win Olympics gold, otherwise you may be better than your peers but GOAT is out of question. Moreover, it is a really bad look for Djokovic to not win Olympics gold when it was played on Hard court (his favourite surface) 3 out of 4 times! this is not what a GOAT looks like, this is just a "he may be just slightly better than his peers and that's it" type of thing.

Fed (04-07)
Nadal (10, 13)
Djokovic (11-13, 15, 16)

Joker occupies 5 of the top 20 statistical seasons ever.

Murray’s 2016 was absurd. (13th)

The in between years are ATG/GOAT level anyway. Multi Slam titles, Multi Masters etc. 3x Lebron’s at all times for 14+ seasons.

2011... Madrid then Rome (Clay) Djokovic beats Nadal twice in the Finals. Joker and Nadal has always had the hardest road and there’s no question about it

You have no credibility here.

Again, this has nothing to do with dominating like Laver did, you are just comparing Open Era years, but the fact is, Big3 fall way short of what Laver did, we've seen how Djokovic choked in the final and couldn't manage the pressure of achieving CYGS even in a really weak year with washed up Fedal and next gen being next gen, while Laver did it multiple times, amazing!
It's ok if you consider Djokovic the best of the Big3, I think he is too, but Laver is in a class of his own, he is still the benchmark to beat.

Dude when Laver played nobody gave a f*** about Australian Open, it was a local tournament and he got his CYGS on two surfaces. Not to mention that tennis was still far from global sport it is today, like two or three countries were dominating all slams.

[Collymore]

Laver is not in the top 10, Lendl is the only old timer who is in the race.

[WarriorGM]

Djokovic has the benefit of being behind. That's an advantageous position as in cycling. When Federer started winning he might not have even been aware enough that he was in the middle of an important race. Trying to pick one from those three is a fun parlor conversation but you won't honestly get a definitive answer.

[dickfox]

Keep your grand slams and baseball news out of this basketball forum you whippersnapper!

[DCasey91]

Djokovic has the benefit of being behind. That's an advantageous position as in cycling. When Federer started winning he might not have even been aware enough that he was in the middle of an important race. Trying to pick one from those three is a fun parlor conversation but you won't honestly get a definitive answer.

You do if you go over the 14+ seasons of play.

To get an idea Fed’s best season and Djokovic’s best season the ranking total points difference (not the actual difficulty of the runs, just the points gained from winning) at +1000 would put you in the top 45 in the world.

I’ll make sure I repeat that the difference in points between their statistical best seasons would make you top 45 in the world lol.

As I alluding to earlier the 2015 top ten thoroughly outperformed the 2006 top ten (More slam wins, more masters wins, titles etc). Joker got more important titles, record top ten wins, top 5/3 wins etc.

Winning aside Nadal’s 2010, and Djokovic’s 2011 is just as if not impressive to me than Fed’s 06.

It’s the comp you’re going up against. He’s also the only one since Laver to hold all the slams in a calendar year. Beaten Nadal in clay in finals more than Fed even when he was at his peak and Nadal wasn’t (Back to back on clay in 11’ is dude wtf). Should see how many heavy hitters Djokovic had to beat just to make the semis of an event. Sampras, Agassi commented on it being one of the greatest seasons and the difficulty was astronomical. Even Nadal said he didn’t think he seen anyone perform better in 11’.

For 3 seasons it was a teenage Nadal or Prime Fed then a drop off. For the Joker it was Nadal, Fed, Murray, Wawrinka along with a stacked top ten that straight up smacks the 2006 squad like it’s nothing.
Once again It’s three Lebron’s and one higher ATG in Murray, Fed had one other Lebron (Nadal) to contend with and lesser strength of comp.

People talk about old Fed like he wasn’t that good lol and use it as an excuse. Post 30 Fed is a monster (2017 the huge comeback) and would be top2 ish in 2006 lol.

Post 30 Nadal and Post 30 Joker is a monster. They’ve been monsters since they were teenagers (though Nadal and Joker holds the edge over Fed there up to 21).

[DCasey91]

None of them have dominated the whole year multiple times like Laver did, you just cannot be GOAT if you don't have CYGS, and in the open era it is also necessary to win Olympics gold, otherwise you may be better than your peers but GOAT is out of question. Moreover, it is a really bad look for Djokovic to not win Olympics gold when it was played on Hard court (his favourite surface) 3 out of 4 times! this is not what a GOAT looks like, this is just a "he may be just slightly better than his peers and that's it" type of thing.

Fed (04-07)
Nadal (10, 13)
Djokovic (11-13, 15, 16)

Joker occupies 5 of the top 20 statistical seasons ever.

Murray’s 2016 was absurd. (13th)

The in between years are ATG/GOAT level anyway. Multi Slam titles, Multi Masters etc. 3x Lebron’s at all times for 14+ seasons.

2011... Madrid then Rome (Clay) Djokovic beats Nadal twice in the Finals. Joker and Nadal has always had the hardest road and there’s no question about it

You have no credibility here.

Again, this has nothing to do with dominating like Laver did, you are just comparing Open Era years, but the fact is, Big3 fall way short of what Laver did, we've seen how Djokovic choked in the final and couldn't manage the pressure of achieving CYGS even in a really weak year with washed up Fedal and next gen being next gen, while Laver did it multiple times, amazing!
It's ok if you consider Djokovic the best of the Big3, I think he is too, but Laver is in a class of his own, he is still the benchmark to beat.

Djokovic has the best statistical seasons ever (harder comp too btw)

He’s also the first since Rod to hold all slams in a calendar year.

Anyone in the top 20 has an off day they get beaten it’s as simple as that. He’s 34 with the most workload this year.

It’d be funny if Med becomes a Multi slam, Multi atp finals, 10x Masters winner. That would throw egg in peoples faces lol.

I don’t get this weak thing, 2006 top ten minus Fed/Nadal has less slam wins then the 2021 top ten minus Fed/Nadal/Joker.

Pedigree on the last 4 ATP Finals winners Males tennis should show other non followers and casuals the capability.

6 or 7 that are legit as can be imo.

Med
Tsisti
Zver
Dim
Rub
Thiem

Top three on that list is peaking something fierce right now. Zver right now was running a nice win steak (15) and put up an epic 5 setter against Joker and should be the value smokey at the next slam.

Shap and Bere showing good signs. And Alcaraz/Sinner might leap over everybody.

It’s more than fine to me lol

[WarriorGM]

Djokovic has the benefit of being behind. That's an advantageous position as in cycling. When Federer started winning he might not have even been aware enough that he was in the middle of an important race. Trying to pick one from those three is a fun parlor conversation but you won't honestly get a definitive answer.

You do if you go over the 14+ seasons of play.

To get an idea Fed’s best season and Djokovic’s best season the ranking total points difference (not the actual difficulty of the runs, just the points gained from winning) at +1000 would put you in the top 45 in the world.

I’ll make sure I repeat that the difference in points between their statistical best seasons would make you top 45 in the world lol.

As I alluding to earlier the 2015 top ten thoroughly outperformed the 2006 top ten (More slam wins, more masters wins, titles etc). Joker got more important titles, record top ten wins, top 5/3 wins etc.

Winning aside Nadal’s 2010, and Djokovic’s 2011 is just as if not impressive to me than Fed’s 06.

It’s the comp you’re going up against. He’s also the only one since Laver to hold all the slams in a calendar year. Beaten Nadal in clay in finals more than Fed even when he was at his peak and Nadal wasn’t (Back to back on clay in 11’ is dude wtf). Should see how many heavy hitters Djokovic had to beat just to make the semis of an event. Sampras, Agassi commented on it being one of the greatest seasons and the difficulty was astronomical. Even Nadal said he didn’t think he seen anyone perform better in 11’.

For 3 seasons it was a teenage Nadal or Prime Fed then a drop off. For the Joker it was Nadal, Fed, Murray, Wawrinka along with a stacked top ten that straight up smacks the 2006 squad like it’s nothing.
Once again It’s three Lebron’s and one higher ATG in Murray, Fed had one other Lebron (Nadal) to contend with and lesser strength of comp.

People talk about old Fed like he wasn’t that good lol and use it as an excuse. Post 30 Fed is a monster (2017 the huge comeback) and would be top2 ish in 2006 lol.

Post 30 Nadal and Post 30 Joker is a monster. They’ve been monsters since they were teenagers (though Nadal and Joker holds the edge over Fed there up to 21).

There is a reason Federer was considered the greatest in the early part of the triumvirate's ascent aside from entering his prime sooner. He had a complete game from a stylistic standpoint. Nadal's and Djokovic's victories over him at Wimbledon kind of marked the end of serve and volley at the top but outside forces contributed to that. Federer was a holdout in the use of the most modern racquets and it probably affected his tournament results.

Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic have a reputation for being the best now, but frankly I wonder how they'd have done under the conditions when Sampras and Ivanisevic were exchanging aces against each other on the lawn.

Nadal may have been a monster as a teenager but he was a deceptive one. Early on one could have been hard pressed to differentiate him from Michael Chang.

[DCasey91]

Djokovic has the benefit of being behind. That's an advantageous position as in cycling. When Federer started winning he might not have even been aware enough that he was in the middle of an important race. Trying to pick one from those three is a fun parlor conversation but you won't honestly get a definitive answer.

You do if you go over the 14+ seasons of play.

To get an idea Fed’s best season and Djokovic’s best season the ranking total points difference (not the actual difficulty of the runs, just the points gained from winning) at +1000 would put you in the top 45 in the world.

I’ll make sure I repeat that the difference in points between their statistical best seasons would make you top 45 in the world lol.

As I alluding to earlier the 2015 top ten thoroughly outperformed the 2006 top ten (More slam wins, more masters wins, titles etc). Joker got more important titles, record top ten wins, top 5/3 wins etc.

Winning aside Nadal’s 2010, and Djokovic’s 2011 is just as if not impressive to me than Fed’s 06.

It’s the comp you’re going up against. He’s also the only one since Laver to hold all the slams in a calendar year. Beaten Nadal in clay in finals more than Fed even when he was at his peak and Nadal wasn’t (Back to back on clay in 11’ is dude wtf). Should see how many heavy hitters Djokovic had to beat just to make the semis of an event. Sampras, Agassi commented on it being one of the greatest seasons and the difficulty was astronomical. Even Nadal said he didn’t think he seen anyone perform better in 11’.

For 3 seasons it was a teenage Nadal or Prime Fed then a drop off. For the Joker it was Nadal, Fed, Murray, Wawrinka along with a stacked top ten that straight up smacks the 2006 squad like it’s nothing.
Once again It’s three Lebron’s and one higher ATG in Murray, Fed had one other Lebron (Nadal) to contend with and lesser strength of comp.

People talk about old Fed like he wasn’t that good lol and use it as an excuse. Post 30 Fed is a monster (2017 the huge comeback) and would be top2 ish in 2006 lol.

Post 30 Nadal and Post 30 Joker is a monster. They’ve been monsters since they were teenagers (though Nadal and Joker holds the edge over Fed there up to 21).

There is a reason Federer was considered the greatest in the early part of the triumvirate's ascent aside from entering his prime sooner. He had a complete game from a stylistic standpoint. Nadal's and Djokovic's victories over him at Wimbledon kind of marked the end of serve and volley at the top but outside forces contributed to that. Federer was a holdout in the use of the most modern racquets and it probably affected his tournament results.

Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic have a reputation for being the best now, but frankly I wonder how they'd have done under the conditions when Sampras and Ivanisevic were exchanging aces against each other on the lawn.

Nadal may have been a monster as a teenager but he was a deceptive one. Early on one could have been hard pressed to differentiate him from Michael Chang.

Nadal has 3 inches on Chang and about 25 pounds on Chang

Nadal is 1.85m and 87kgs or more when older. Very poor comparison

Kid Nadal was dynamite he’s as tall and as big as Sampras 1.85m (has ten pounds on him btw).

Face it Joker and Nadal have the size and power adv over Federer. You gotta be skillful to beat Peak Federer as a teenager or a 20 year old which they both did. lol

They are called the “Big Three” for a reason. Also Fed prefers faster courts.

[WarriorGM]

You do if you go over the 14+ seasons of play.

To get an idea Fed’s best season and Djokovic’s best season the ranking total points difference (not the actual difficulty of the runs, just the points gained from winning) at +1000 would put you in the top 45 in the world.

I’ll make sure I repeat that the difference in points between their statistical best seasons would make you top 45 in the world lol.

As I alluding to earlier the 2015 top ten thoroughly outperformed the 2006 top ten (More slam wins, more masters wins, titles etc). Joker got more important titles, record top ten wins, top 5/3 wins etc.

Winning aside Nadal’s 2010, and Djokovic’s 2011 is just as if not impressive to me than Fed’s 06.

It’s the comp you’re going up against. He’s also the only one since Laver to hold all the slams in a calendar year. Beaten Nadal in clay in finals more than Fed even when he was at his peak and Nadal wasn’t (Back to back on clay in 11’ is dude wtf). Should see how many heavy hitters Djokovic had to beat just to make the semis of an event. Sampras, Agassi commented on it being one of the greatest seasons and the difficulty was astronomical. Even Nadal said he didn’t think he seen anyone perform better in 11’.

For 3 seasons it was a teenage Nadal or Prime Fed then a drop off. For the Joker it was Nadal, Fed, Murray, Wawrinka along with a stacked top ten that straight up smacks the 2006 squad like it’s nothing.
Once again It’s three Lebron’s and one higher ATG in Murray, Fed had one other Lebron (Nadal) to contend with and lesser strength of comp.

People talk about old Fed like he wasn’t that good lol and use it as an excuse. Post 30 Fed is a monster (2017 the huge comeback) and would be top2 ish in 2006 lol.

Post 30 Nadal and Post 30 Joker is a monster. They’ve been monsters since they were teenagers (though Nadal and Joker holds the edge over Fed there up to 21).

There is a reason Federer was considered the greatest in the early part of the triumvirate's ascent aside from entering his prime sooner. He had a complete game from a stylistic standpoint. Nadal's and Djokovic's victories over him at Wimbledon kind of marked the end of serve and volley at the top but outside forces contributed to that. Federer was a holdout in the use of the most modern racquets and it probably affected his tournament results.

Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic have a reputation for being the best now, but frankly I wonder how they'd have done under the conditions when Sampras and Ivanisevic were exchanging aces against each other on the lawn.

Nadal may have been a monster as a teenager but he was a deceptive one. Early on one could have been hard pressed to differentiate him from Michael Chang.

Nadal has 3 inches on Chang and about 25 pounds on Chang

Nadal is 1.85m and 87kgs or more when older. Very poor comparison

Kid Nadal was dynamite he’s as tall and as big as Sampras 1.85m (has ten pounds on him btw).

Face it Joker and Nadal have the size and power adv over Federer. You gotta be skillful to beat Peak Federer as a teenager or a 20 year old which they both did. lol

They are called the “Big Three” for a reason. Also Fed prefers faster courts.

Poor comparison? Really? Who would Nadal have been compared to with that earlier generation of players that his generation was replacing then? Muster? Agassi? Nadal's style of play of simply outlasting opponents on each point was Chang-like.

[DCasey91]

There is a reason Federer was considered the greatest in the early part of the triumvirate's ascent aside from entering his prime sooner. He had a complete game from a stylistic standpoint. Nadal's and Djokovic's victories over him at Wimbledon kind of marked the end of serve and volley at the top but outside forces contributed to that. Federer was a holdout in the use of the most modern racquets and it probably affected his tournament results.

Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic have a reputation for being the best now, but frankly I wonder how they'd have done under the conditions when Sampras and Ivanisevic were exchanging aces against each other on the lawn.

Nadal may have been a monster as a teenager but he was a deceptive one. Early on one could have been hard pressed to differentiate him from Michael Chang.

Nadal has 3 inches on Chang and about 25 pounds on Chang

Nadal is 1.85m and 87kgs or more when older. Very poor comparison

Kid Nadal was dynamite he’s as tall and as big as Sampras 1.85m (has ten pounds on him btw).

Face it Joker and Nadal have the size and power adv over Federer. You gotta be skillful to beat Peak Federer as a teenager or a 20 year old which they both did. lol

They are called the “Big Three” for a reason. Also Fed prefers faster courts.

Poor comparison? Really? Who would Nadal have been compared to with that earlier generation of players that his generation was replacing then? Muster? Agassi? Nadal's style of play of simply outlasting opponents on each point was Chang-like.

Ohhhhh I get you now. Yeah if Chang was Sampras size and heavier and a leftie sure I’ll buy that.

[K3nny Pow3rs]

[rzzzzz]

Besides the effects of equipment and court surface changes, there is a lot more context that gets lost with the passage of time, so that fans are left with nothing but dry statistics. I’m not old enough to have watched peak Laver, but I truly remember coming home from working night shift to join friends on the couch to watch Borg and McEnroe play the 1980 Wimbledon final. Tiny little tube TV, and I don’t remember anybody moving for those hours, missing a second of the match. Throw in Connors, and you have a tennis rivalry that absolutely dominated the world of sports for a couple of years. Tennis was king. Not that many titles compared to now. Heck, I think Borg retired before he was 25. And it was the nature of the game that no one was still competitive by 30, which has now turned into something of a starting time for the big stars. I remember the young Sampras coming in and just dominating. I get the feeling that he could have won more titles, if it was that important. And before writing off Federer, be sure to read the brilliant article that David Foster Wallace wrote about him for the New York Times, during an early US Open. It relays the awe and aesthetics of genius during what is now clearly an earlier era. A time when young champions were breaking through regularly. Lendl, Agassi, Boom Boom, Edberg, Willander and on and on. The competition was ferocious and tremendous. And so many different styles. So much varying strategy. So while in no way do I deny the greatness of the long lasting trio, there’s a good reason why majors have moved from top rated Network coverage to ESPN to ESPN2.

[FinnTheHuman]

Besides the effects of equipment and court surface changes, there is a lot more context that gets lost with the passage of time, so that fans are left with nothing but dry statistics. I’m not old enough to have watched peak Laver, but I truly remember coming home from working night shift to join friends on the couch to watch Borg and McEnroe play the 1980 Wimbledon final. Tiny little tube TV, and I don’t remember anybody moving for those hours, missing a second of the match. Throw in Connors, and you have a tennis rivalry that absolutely dominated the world of sports for a couple of years. Tennis was king. Not that many titles compared to now. Heck, I think Borg retired before he was 25. And it was the nature of the game that no one was still competitive by 30, which has now turned into something of a starting time for the big stars. I remember the young Sampras coming in and just dominating. I get the feeling that he could have won more titles, if it was that important. And before writing off Federer, be sure to read the brilliant article that David Foster Wallace wrote about him for the New York Times, during an early US Open. It relays the awe and aesthetics of genius during what is now clearly an earlier era. A time when young champions were breaking through regularly. Lendl, Agassi, Boom Boom, Edberg, Willander and on and on. The competition was ferocious and tremendous. And so many different styles. So much varying strategy. So while in no way do I deny the greatness of the long lasting trio, there’s a good reason why majors have moved from top rated Network coverage to ESPN to ESPN2.

How do you explain more money being in tennis than ever before if it was more popular back then? And what does this argument of players retiring earlier mean in the goat context? How does it help the old timers’ case? Idk man, sounds to me like you’re stuck in the ‘Old man yells at clouds’ situation because of your nostalgia.

[rzzzzz]

How do you explain more money being in tennis than ever before if it was more popular back then? And what does this argument of players retiring earlier mean in the goat context? How does it help the old timers’ case? Idk man, sounds to me like you’re stuck in the ‘Old man yells at clouds’ situation because of your nostalgia.

How do you explain more money in all sports than ever before? Ben Simmons is making $30 million a year. Is he 30 times more popular than Wilt?

Yeah, I’m old enough to have played with little head wood racquets. But I’ve been using a mid-size Ti radical for the past 15 years, cause they’re so much easier to hit the ball with. Like Martina said “I feel like I’m cheating, but I’d be an idiot not to use one.” So now that it’s so much easier to get a clean shot, you don’t have to anticipate the return near as much, run near as fast. You can just lay back and wallop the thing with plenty of top spin from the baseline. More like ping pong. Thing is, I really loved playing tennis. The version that depended on anticipation and movement. I liked watching that version a lot more. Even if it meant that my favorite players aged out quicker, because sheer speed is the first thing to go.

(By the way, the Simpsons used that Old Man Yells at Cloud gag over 30 years ago. “Ain’t if funny, how time slips away?”)

[beeshma]

This thread has made me realize it is very strange how basketball fans use advanced stats in conversation. It is a de-humanizing way to describe achievement, and it completely omits both the personality of a sports star and the weight of the era in which they played.

[rzzzzz]

Of course he gets exempted. Not like there’s any history or nothing.

[dhsilv2]

This thread has made me realize it is very strange how basketball fans use advanced stats in conversation. It is a de-humanizing way to describe achievement, and it completely omits both the personality of a sports star and the weight of the era in which they played.

That's the whole point of doing it. It removes all the subjective aspects and normalizes players.

[Pharmcat]

This thread has made me realize it is very strange how basketball fans use advanced stats in conversation. It is a de-humanizing way to describe achievement, and it completely omits both the personality of a sports star and the weight of the era in which they played.

That's the whole point of doing it. It removes all the subjective aspects and normalizes players.

Except advance stats are not a true representation of what happens on the court. The stats tell us the impact gobert has on court but in playoffs clippers put a small guy at center and Rudy became a total liability . Also see how high per boban had . Advance stats were created by geeks who arent good enough to play the game so this is the way they created a way to impact the game.

[dhsilv2]

This thread has made me realize it is very strange how basketball fans use advanced stats in conversation. It is a de-humanizing way to describe achievement, and it completely omits both the personality of a sports star and the weight of the era in which they played.

That's the whole point of doing it. It removes all the subjective aspects and normalizes players.

Except advance stats are not a true representation of what happens on the court. The stats tell us the impact gobert has on court but in playoffs clippers put a small guy at center and Rudy became a total liability . Also see how high per boban had . Advance stats were created by geeks who arent good enough to play the game so this is the way they created a way to impact the game.

This narrative about the clippers and Gobert is just such a bad take. And no, the growth in money in the NBA, gave owners the funds to higher smarter people to help them make better decisions.

PER tells you a perfectly valid and logical story about Boban. And it's not even an advanced stat. It's an old dated box metric that doesn't reflect defense and isn't used to rank players.