2021 Tennis

[Buzzo]

GOAT, not the people’s choice, just the best. On all surfaces. 10 Aus, 3 French, 7 Wimbledon, 3 US.

[ame]https://twitter.com/judymurray/status/1667941567598850049[/ame]

[RichC]

Fantastic player but some dubious decisions and ideologies off the court.

Don't think he'll ever be remembered in the same ways of Federer and Nadal.

[Buzzo]

Fantastic player but some dubious decisions and ideologies off the court.

Don't think he'll ever be remembered in the same ways of Federer and Nadal.

Totally agree. You can already tell that he is not being recognised in the same manner as Nadal and Federer were when they achieved similar. At 36, he seems almost superhuman, the performances he is putting in against players so much younger. He has that mental edge on all of them.

But, his legacy is slightly tarnished from both the ****housery he always seemed to bring to the court when the going got tough, and the madness he has been part of over the last few years.

[RichC]

Yup, shouldn't diminish from his achievements but I think it probably will.

I'd almost skipped over his ****housery on court, the number of "injuries" that manifested at key points when he was struggling was top level.

[Buzzo]

Yup, shouldn't diminish from his achievements but I think it probably will.

I'd almost skipped over his ****housery on court, the number of "injuries" that manifested at key points when he was struggling was top level.

Andy Murray must wake up in the middle of the night in cold sweats thinking about the momentum shifting injuries Djokovic always managed to generate when under the hammer. Particularly in Australia.

Tennis is so psychological, these breaks 100% change the rhythm of the match.

[RichC]

Murray is the player that always springs to mind when it comes to that sort of stuff.

I've no idea really how Murray never won an Aus Open, 5 finals and all ended up on the wrong side

[Doc_Piptorious]

Yup, shouldn't diminish from his achievements but I think it probably will.

I'd almost skipped over his ****housery on court, the number of "injuries" that manifested at key points when he was struggling was top level.

It most certainly will. He is like Carlos Monzon in boxing.


All time great at his sport. Imperious and brutal in the ring, had a seven year title reign after having had 80 fights before any champion would even face him, probably the second best middleweight ever in my opinion (after Hagler) but an utter scumbag and thug outside the ring and many people would have had better lives had he died a lot younger.


As a result you rarely hear him mentioned in boxing discussions and many younger followers of the sport are unaware of him despite him being one of the best ever, at any weight, to have stepped into a ring.

[Zapater]

Fantastic player but some dubious decisions and ideologies off the court.

Don't think he'll ever be remembered in the same ways of Federer and Nadal.

He won his slams in a much better era than Federer too. Federer won hardly anything after 2009. Had easy runs when he won the US open and Australian opens afterwards not needing to play Djokovic being handed Cilic in the finals and beating the likes of Berdych to get there. How many times did he beat prime Nadal and Djokovic in semis/finals? Not many, that's for sure. Can't remember who but Federer also played someone **** when he won Roland Garros.

So based on that, I don't think it's even fair to compare Federer to Nadal in terms of winning things.

It most certainly will. He is like Carlos Monzon in boxing.


All time great at his sport. Imperious and brutal in the ring, had a seven year title reign after having had 80 fights before any champion would even face him, probably the second best middleweight ever in my opinion (after Hagler) but an utter scumbag and thug outside the ring and many people would have had better lives had he died a lot younger.


As a result you rarely hear him mentioned in boxing discussions and many younger followers of the sport are unaware of him despite him being one of the best ever, at any weight, to have stepped into a ring.

I don't think Djokovic is anything like Monzon. I think it also hurt Monzon that he didn't fight in America/the UK and speak English. Look to Mike Tyson, who is a convicted rapist and has a host of other controversies (most of which is also domestic violence) is loved by people. They even make flawed arguments for him being the best at all time and at his weight despite him not having done anything to nothing to back it up.

He's a misinformed idiot with too much influence away from sports, sure. He, to my knowledge doesn't attempt to murder his romantic interests. I agree with you but it shouldn't be this way. Tennis is made up basically a bunch of elitists pussies and a soft cock like Federer simply appeals to them.

Let's be honest, if Federer was Djokovic and vice versa, no one would be making the arguments for Novak like they do for Federer.

[Buzzo]

Comparing the greats is never easy, but watching how well Andy Murray could play in a final and still lose to Djokovic tells you how hard Djokovic plays to win. He seems to have next level resolve when up against it and is probably the greatest player of clutch points of all time.

The reason Roger is always so hard to argue against (ignoring his monumental tally of Slams also) is that he has to be one of the most aesthetically pleasing tennis players of the modern era. He hit some beautiful shots and has an elegance to his play that has not been seen really in this era.

But pound for pound across all surfaces and given the quality of opponent he has had to beat across all of the salon finals he has been in it has to be Djokovic. I think history will be kind to him also, he always comes across well in interview and though flawed (which genuine competitor isn’t) he is a monstrous, fearsome competitor.

[Zapater]

Comparing the greats is never easy, but watching how well Andy Murray could play in a final and still lose to Djokovic tells you how hard Djokovic plays to win. He seems to have next level resolve when up against it and is probably the greatest player of clutch points of all time.

The reason Roger is always so hard to argue against (ignoring his monumental tally of Slams also) is that he has to be one of the most aesthetically pleasing tennis players of the modern era. He hit some beautiful shots and has an elegance to his play that has not been seen really in this era.

But pound for pound across all surfaces and given the quality of opponent he has had to beat across all of the salon finals he has been in it has to be Djokovic. I think history will be kind to him also, he always comes across well in interview and though flawed (which genuine competitor isn’t) he is a monstrous, fearsome competitor.

Djokovic has come back from so many match points to win knockout matches, it's unbelievable. Not sure I've seen many other athletes with that kind of mental fortitude.

And yes, as a technician Federer is undoubtedly the best of the three. No disputing that he plays with class. I love the single handed backhand. I'm just of the opinion (and the stats back this up too) that Nadal and Novak are better at winning tennis matches than he is.

[Doc_Piptorious]

He won his slams in a much better era than Federer too. Federer won hardly anything after 2009. Had easy runs when he won the US open and Australian opens afterwards not needing to play Djokovic being handed Cilic in the finals and beating the likes of Berdych to get there. How many times did he beat prime Nadal and Djokovic in semis/finals? Not many, that's for sure. Can't remember who but Federer also played someone **** when he won Roland Garros.

So based on that, I don't think it's even fair to compare Federer to Nadal in terms of winning things.



I don't think Djokovic is anything like Monzon. I think it also hurt Monzon that he didn't fight in America/the UK and speak English. Look to Mike Tyson, who is a convicted rapist and has a host of other controversies (most of which is also domestic violence) is loved by people. They even make flawed arguments for him being the best at all time and at his weight despite him not having done anything to nothing to back it up.

He's a misinformed idiot with too much influence away from sports, sure. He, to my knowledge doesn't attempt to murder his romantic interests. I agree with you but it shouldn't be this way. Tennis is made up basically a bunch of elitists pussies and a soft cock like Federer simply appeals to them.

Let's be honest, if Federer was Djokovic and vice versa, no one would be making the arguments for Novak like they do for Federer.

All I was saying is that imo Djokovic is like Monzon in that his away from the sport personality and acts will imo overshadow his very obvious sporting qualities and his away from the sport stuff will taint his sporting achievements and be used as a way to lessen how great he was on court.


I was hardly trying to compare their away from sport actions in a way that suggested some sort of parity on that front


No idea what you mean by not having done anything to back it up if you meant Monzon. Beating men like Briscoe, Valdez, Griffith and Benvenuti (all beaten in Europe save for Briscoe) was hardly doing nothing. But I digress and do not wish to drag the thread away from tennis.

[Buzzo]

The main reason I dislike Djokovic is a barely hidden one. If it had not been for him I reckon Andy Murray is on at least 4 or 5 more Slam titles.

The fact he is still effortlessly racking up Slams against these younger guys showing he will go deeper and be tougher across points, games, sets, matches and championships just illustrates the strength of the era we have just witnessed. At that level, during the latter stages it is not about talent, these guys are all incredible. It is about will you win. About playing your absolute best Tennis when you have to.

Djokovic is the best at that.

And for me it’s why Murray’s first Wimbledon title was so impressive, with the weight of history, the expectation and Djokovic stood on the other side of the net he found what it took to deliver. He showed in his second final that he could easily blow away the fodder much as Federer did at the start of his Slam winning career.

Djokovic still looks insanely fit. Which must be a worry for the young fellas, he has incredible genetics.

[Zapater]

All I was saying is that imo Djokovic is like Monzon in that his away from the sport personality and acts will imo overshadow his very obvious sporting qualities and his away from the sport stuff will taint his sporting achievements and be used as a way to lessen how great he was on court.


I was hardly trying to compare their away from sport actions in a way that suggested some sort of parity on that front


No idea what you mean by not having done anything to back it up if you meant Monzon. Beating men like Briscoe, Valdez, Griffith and Benvenuti (all beaten in Europe save for Briscoe) was hardly doing nothing. But I digress and do not wish to drag the thread away from tennis.

Was speaking about Tyson think I agreed with you on Monzon on your greatest middleweight discussion a couple of years ago

[Doc_Piptorious]

The main reason I dislike Djokovic is a barely hidden one. If it had not been for him I reckon Andy Murray is on at least 4 or 5 more Slam titles.

The fact he is still effortlessly racking up Slams against these younger guys showing he will go deeper and be tougher across points, games, sets, matches and championships just illustrates the strength of the era we have just witnessed. At that level, during the latter stages it is not about talent, these guys are all incredible. It is about will you win. About playing your absolute best Tennis when you have to.

Djokovic is the best at that.

And for me it’s why Murray’s first Wimbledon title was so impressive, with the weight of history, the expectation and Djokovic stood on the other side of the net he found what it took to deliver. He showed in his second final that he could easily blow away the fodder much as Federer did at the start of his Slam winning career.

Djokovic still looks insanely fit. Which must be a worry for the young fellas, he has incredible genetics.

Actually Murray and Djokovic is an interesting comparison (tennis ability and on court mentality only of course)

I always saw Murray as sort of a Poundland Djokovic in many ways.

Which sounds like a total diss when I read it

But more for some of the reasons you said above.

Murray has fanastic deep wells of resolve at times but they seem to come and go whereas with Djokovic they seem to be almost constant. Murray can muster moments of supreme will to win, Djokovic has that built in.


Murray when fit has great physical qualities but again that comes and goes as picks up a lot of knocks/injuries whereas Djokovic seems like a machine on that front usually.


Djokovic, as a tennis player, is for me Andy Murray with all his setting edited to 99 a la in the Fifa23 player edit.

[Buzzo]

Murray takes the second set in a TB for 1-1 against Tsitsipas. This is going to be a late one.