Novak Djokovic Releases His Early 2017 Schedule, He Has 4,340 Points To Defend The First 3 Months!
by Tom Gainey | December 27th, 2016, 10:33 am
  • 139 Comments

In his bid to return to No. 1, Novak Djokovic has announced his 2017 playing schedule for the first three months.

Djokovic will start the year in Doha, then play the Australian Open followed by Indian Wells and Miami. As of now, Djokovic does not have Davis Cup nor Dubai on his schedule.

Djokovic trails Murray in the rankings and will need the Scot to falter, especially in Australia. That’s because Djokovic is defending champion points at all four events he’s entered (Murray lost second round at Indian Wells and Miami).

Novak Djokovic 2017 Schedule
(first 3 months)
Jan 2 Doha (250 points to defend)
Jan 16 Australian Open (2000)
Mar 9 Indian Wells (1000)
Mar 23 Miami (1000)

Including 90 points from 2016 Dubai, Djokovic has a total of 4,340 points to defend the first three months.


You Might Like:
Roger Federer Increases ATP Points Lead, Murray 10th, Djokovic Now 18th
My 2017 Top 10: Is It Novak Djokovic Or Andy Murray, And Can They Hold Off The Next Wave?
Uncle Toni Says This Will Be The Last Year He Travels With Rafa
Novak Djokovic Releases The First Three Months Of His 2013 Schedule – 7 Events!
Elbow Tear Leaves Andy Murray’s Clay Season In Limbo

Don't miss any tennis action, stay connected with Tennis-X

Get the FREE TX daily newsletter

139 Comments for Novak Djokovic Releases His Early 2017 Schedule, He Has 4,340 Points To Defend The First 3 Months!

Joshua Says:

Getting back the No1 for Nole is practically impossible for the first six months or there about, except Murray falter way too much (which I doubt).


sinha71 Says:

I believe that Djoko will depend on him, whether he wants it or not. Only time can tell.

His coach summed it up nicely in a recent interview. Vajda is a very smart man!

Have you been a worried coach those past few weeks ?

“No, I am not worried. First of all we have to take the year in its all complexity, because he completed the Grand Slam, four Majors in a row, which was amazing and didn’t happen since Rod Laver. All the focus was to win the French Open : it was double focus basically with the four in a row and the French. Obviously after that, the level of focus went down. I think this goal (RG) drained him so much already that he lost the focus during the end of the season. Andy became number 1, which he deserved. As for Novak, you can’t push too much. He’s been competing for so many years, so lapses like this can happen. Suddenly his focus wasn’t enough because to stay at the top level you need to work all the time with high focus. It happened that Andy can handle it now, is at the top, but Novak is still there, is now enjoying again and hopefully now the focus will be there in the matches.”


skeezer Says:

“…he completed the Grand Slam, four Majors in a row, which was amazing and didn’t happen since Rod Laver.”

No, he didn’t do what Laver did, win the Grand Slam. It is within a calendar year, and a reason it is very hard to do.

Nonetheless, a terrific achievement by Novak.
Lots of points to defend, let’s see if he is up to the task.


skeezer Says:

Fed chimes in on the subject;

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2016/12/roger-federer-comeback-novak-djokovic-andy-murray-atp-tennis-rankings/62966/

Thinks Novak will get back to #1 at some point…..


sinha71 Says:

If it looks like a rose and smells like a rose.

I will take Vajda’s knowledge on tennis no disrespect.


Dennis Says:

Arguably what Djokovic achieved, even across two calendar years, was a greater than Laver. In Laver’s day, 3 of the 4 slams were on grass, and the depth and athleticism of the game wasn’t near what it is now.


skeezer Says:

“I will take Vajda’s knowledge on tennis no disrespect.”
No disrespect here either, but FYI that is coming from Novak’s camp. How can that be an objective opinion?
He is claiming Novak did what Laver did. He did not. He did not win all four majors in a calendar year. A true Grand Slam.
Novak won four in a row. Fantastic, but not the same. So, It does not smell like a rose, it only kinda looks like one.


Truth Says:

It’s not just terrific that he achieved 4 slams.
First, he struggled mentally for 10 years, despite the domination over Fedalray since 2011.
Plus, he had severe stamina trouble several times that cost him Slam wins.

Between winning several Slams between 2011-2016, he won the majority of Masters events, as well as the smaller events.
Laver was probably top 5 of all time, but wasn’t challenged by anyone like Novak.
Laver didn’t play fierce matches vs. the top 2 players of the modern era, that could play plenty of court surfaces. Nadal is weaker on faster low bounce courts but he still is great on other surfaces.
Fed depended on weak draws and injured players to win Slams and reach Slam finals the last 6 years.
Novak only had an easy slam draw once in the last 5 years.

Laver played amateurs many times and didn’t fight on high bouncing hardcourt and Clay all the time.
Winning a calendar Slam vs. much inferior players to djokefedalray.
That’s not the same as 41 straight matches won for 4 straight slams in every surface, except cement.


BBB Says:

This is hairsplitting, but it seems that what Vajda said is that four in a row hasn’t happened since Rod Laver. That part is true. Whether it’s a Grand Slam or not is a separate issue – I think it’s cleaner just to refer to calendar Grand Slams and non-calendar Grand Slams. I thought Vajda’s reference to Grand Slam was the career Grand Slam, and then he went on to say Djokovic had won four in a row. And then repeated himself by saying Djokovic got four in a row and the French, which would be redundant unless he were referring to the career slam.

In the end, we’re parsing spoken words of someone for whom English isn’t a first language….


jalep Says:

hahaha……BBB nails it again.

In the end, we’re parsing spoken words of someone for whom English isn’t a first language….


jalep Says:

Tennis 2016 only remotely resembles tennis in Laver’s day.

But that’s why I can’t take Goat seriously or…a lot of sport comparisons and hype.


jalep Says:

Defending his points is a steep hill to climb but I’ll guess in favor of Novak getting there by the end of 2017. He’s not done.


Ronn Says:

The spread between Djoko and Murray i only 1000 points or so, so any slip up by Murray and Djoko can get back to #1 pretty quickly. Yes, Djoko has a lot of point to defend well into the clay court season, but don’t forget that Andy has a lot to defend too. He has to make it to the AO finals to not lose points and has to make it to the FO finals not to lose points. But whatever happens, after the FO (Which I really do think Djoko will defend as well as win the AO, it will be smooth sailing for Djoko.


Okiegal Says:

@jalep………You nailed it with this statement: “Tennis 2016 only remotely resembles tennis in Laver’s day”. I have wanted to say this so many times, but didn’t want to deal with the repercussions of such a statement against the “Rocket”…….I agree with you totally!!


AndyMira Says:

@M…Where are you?’OURS’ is on fire again!Sound a little bit bitter to me…


Raj Says:

Fed 2013, nadal 2015, joker 2017


Colin Says:

This isn’t strictly relevant to this thread, but still-
that other tennis website that was mentioned occasionally, has been wound up. I refer to Tennis4You, which sometimes featured good discussions, but was badly designed and visually irritating. Xtreme Tennis News is, I think, the only surviving discussion site that keeps up to date and, importantly, doesn’t force social media on those of us who don’t use them. Keep up the good work!


Travis Bickle Says:

Nothing against The Rocket, but comparing his 4 majors in a row in 1969 with Djoker’s 4 in a row in 2015/16 is a bit ludicrous. Djoker’s feat was so much harder to achieve that it is on completely another level compared to the Laver’s Slam.

First fact – Djoker did it on 3 different surfaces, Laver on only 2. This is 50% more surfaces, which is significant difference.

Second fact – strength of competition. Laver competition was so much weaker. Take for example AO 1969 and AO 2016:
Laver had to play only 6 matches to win, Djoker had to win 7 matches.
Djoker played Nishikori (#7) from Japan in QF, Federer (#3) from Switzerland in SF, and Murray (#2) from Scotland in the final.
Laver played Stolle (#7) from Australia in QF, Roche (#4) from Australia in SF, and Gimeno (#9) from Spain in the final. Furthermore at the AO 1969, there were only 48 players in the main draw, more than half of which (28) were Australian.
In AO 2016, there were 128 players in the main draw, and only 9 Australians.

Any way you look at it, it was much easier for Laver to win in 1969 than for anyone these days…

Again, no disrespect to Laver but facts are facts. After all, Laver is the guy who said in May this year that Djoker had equalled Federer as far as greatness goes. Note that he said it before Djoker won Roland Garros and achieved his Grand Slam – you don’t have to be genius to conclude what Laver was thinking one month later after Roland Garros.

Here is the link to Laver’s interview from this May to refresh everyone’s memory. The guy knows what he is talking about when it comes to tennis…

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2016/05/laver-far-greatness-goes-djokovic-now-federers-equal/58371/


J-Kath Says:

AndyMira:

In place of the missing Margot, here is a Zen enlightenment:

“When left with nothing to say, rest content in the knowledge that there is really nothing to say.”


Willow Says:

Should re-name this forum Deja-Vu-X, same old discussion from weeks ago ….


Willow Says:

Would love to see Andy hanging onto the number 1 ranking for a while, and i dont think it necassarily follows that having no points to defend means its automatic to reclaiming the number 1 ranking anyway ….


AndyMira Says:

@JK…Nice zen!Btw…Here’s the zen that i found..

“A competent and self-confident person is

incapable of jealousy in anything.Jealousy

is invariably a symptom of neurotic insecurity”

Robert A.Heinlein.


J-Kath Says:

AM:

Does envy = jealousy?
Can envy simply be “wishfulness”? e.g. Wish I had xyz’s stamina. Wish I was born clever, healthy, etc. What do you think?

To Willow:
“Should re-name this forum Deja-Vu-X, same old discussion from weeks ago ….” Thanks for the chuckle.

Here’s a Zen contemplation for some of those people -

“When moved to complain about others, remember that karma is endless and it’s loving that leads to love.”

Ah well, back to my New Year Resolutions which I’m preparing to send to my Plumber, my Joiner, my Electrician, my Computer Genius and everybody else who have made me promises and so far failed. I expect to be placed at the top of their “must-do” lists – Ahem, cough, splutter – who am I kidding!


AndyMira Says:

@JK…

Envy==Is when you want what someone else has..

Jealousy==Is when you’re worried someone’s trying to take what you have..

Wishfulness==An unrealistic yearning..

“Don’t settle for wishful thinking,

make peace in your heart a reality”..


BBB Says:

I think the year will be fascinating on the men’s side given the number of points Djokovic has to defend in the first half, and the comparatively few he has to defend in the second half. Meanwhile, Andy showed mental fortitude in beating Djokovic when the #1 ranking was on the line. All of that, without even taking into account healthy Federer and Nadal.


skeezer Says:

I found this year to be the most fascinating in a awhile. Novak fans looked to their man to be a GOAT contender after AO and was a sure lock in for #1 player in 2016( Novak ). Then what happened? He got majorly upset in a outlandish performance in the second half of the year by none other than Mr. Andy Murray whilst guru ing about. Who woulda thunk that? Amazing year end run. Congrats to the new #1 player in the world.


Willow Says:

And long may it run Mr Andrew Murray ;-)) ….


J-Kath Says:

AM: Just so you know my question was not personal – it was academic.

Seeyah.

Whoopie – there will be tennis tomorrow.


skeezer Says:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/27/sports/olympics/russia-doping.html?_r=0
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2016/12/27/mclaren-russian-doping-sanctions/95874000/

It will be very interesting if this bleeds over to Tennis as the Anti Doping Programme is suppose to pick up next year…


sinha71 Says:

Djoko just missed No. 1 by a single match.

As far a contender goes, Laver is on record as saying Fed is no more GOAT than Djoko so he’s already there after his grand slam according to Vajda.


AndyMira Says:

@JK…I know!When i gave a ‘zen’ up there,i hope ‘OUR CC’ will understand that now is Andy’s moment at the top,accept that and he’ll find peace in his heart about this reality..and not envy or jealous anymore…

PS…Yes!Whoopie!Vamos Rafa and Andy!!!


skeezer Says:

“Djoko just missed No. 1 by a single match.”

Oh gee, and Fed just missed another Slam by one slap shot return @ USO by you know who. Sorry, heard these kinda of excuses before.

“… according to Vajda.”

If you think Vajda is THE authoritative knowledge in Tennis history then………well……there ya go.
By the way, isn’t he employed by Novak Djokovic? Just sayin…


sinha71 Says:

Not an excuse. A simple fact. No need to be upset.

Vajda is right I think.


skeezer Says:

A simple fact. To bad for you it is not.


lakie Says:

4 consecutive slam wins can happen in 4 ways. Only one of them takes place in one season and is the grand slam. Another two have 3 in one season and 4 th in the immediately succeeeding or preceding. Inferior to grand slam but still quite tough as they involve winning on 3 different surfaces in the same season which also means achieving the “channel slam” one of the most difficult achievements in tennis as you have to win back to back on clay and grass. The most inferior consecutive 4 slams is 2 each in 2 seasons which is what Djok achieved. He did not do 3 different surfaces in one season or the channel slam. It is way inferior to a grand slam.


Travis Bickle Says:

I might have posted this before, but what the heck here it is again. It is a good way to close this year in tennis:

Rod “the Rocket” Laver stated in an interview this May that Djoker had equalled Federer as far as greatness goes. Please note the timing of his statement – he said it before Djoker won Roland Garros and achieved his Grand Slam – you don’t have to be genius to figure out what Laver was thinking one month later after Djoker won at Roland Garros… here is the hint:
Djokovic > Federer

Below is the link to the Laver’s May interview (and for all Djoker haters out there that are bitter for reading this – you are disagreeing with Laver on tennis;-)

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2016/05/laver-far-greatness-goes-djokovic-now-federers-equal/58371/


chrisford1 Says:

1. I do not like Skeezer and Lakie taking their partisanship into flat out lies in stating what a Grand Slam is – “only 4 in a row all in the same year”.
The ITF definition, which carries more weight than two liars on some forum, is a Grand Slam is 4 in a row.
If people comment, they should be careful about deliberately lying about facts. Next step is flagging them to Sean.
Djokovic – Grand Slam achiever. Accept it.

2. That Laver was in a different era and it is difficult to compare him to modern players in no way diminishes my love and respect for the man. I think we can only apply “GOAT” to ten year eras or when 2 or more greats overlapped in the primes. Hands down, Laver was the best of his time. He lost 6 years as a pro between two Grand Slams.
And Rod had an influence on the game on a par with Lendl’s fitness revolution, Federer’s attacking strokes, Nadal’s warrior mindset, the brilliant all round play mental strength and athleticism of Novak Djokovic playing at his highest lever. And how Pete was so good at serve and volley with the new racket tech that he forced tennis to slow down the surfaces. Laver was the first to really perfect the topspin stroke. With gut strings, it meant he had to have perfect timing. He was also adept at a ferocious backhand on both wings and strong enough wrists that he could power a ball hit at full outstretch on a full back in play.
Moreover, the love and respect players and fans have for him, is also based on Laver sacrificing all those “precious Slams” for a greater cause. Back in 1963, he said he was going pro not just for more pay, but forcing the wealthy event owners to pay all players, that eventually the big event organizers would welcome him and all the pros back. They did and the Open Era was created, Laver a key part of that. Modern players all know that – they owe him, he helped the top players from Connors on – get rich.


lakie Says:

chrisford, which ITF definitrion are you talking about? After 2012 it is 4 in one season. Anyway there is little doubt that Djok’s achievement is inferior to 4 in a season for he failed to achieve the channel slam.
It doesn’t matter what Djok fanatics think…facts are facts. As for Laver, he is just giving his opinion. It doesn’t carry any more weight than mine. Claiming that if Laver says Djok is GOAT, it proves Djok is GOAT is fake logic and is called a fallacy.
Djok is still playing so he may end up surpassing Sampras, Nadal or Fed but right now he is behind them. He is great but definitely inferior to Fedal as he couldn’t win slams when they were at their peak and he managed to brighten his resume considerably in 2015 which was the weakest and most boring period in tennis history.


sinha71 Says:

It is splitting peas regardless and just an attempt to minimize the accomplishment.

I suppose ITF and Laver are Djoko employees?

ITF can’t seem to make up its own mind but most of the time they agree it is a true Grand Slam quite obviously.


David Says:

4 in a row is better than anything Federer did, Rod Laver was impressed by this fact.

The most boring and overhyped era was 2004 to 2007 as there was only Federer with Safin (2 slam wonder, mental wreck), Roddick (monotonous and predictable) and Hewitt (no power game) for competition as contemporaries. It got hot from 2008 as Nadal and Djokovic matured, Nadal earlier than Djokovic who would peak later (2011). Once these 2 got going, Feds aura vanished to such an extent, he himself cried after losing AO, a hard court tournament, to Nadal. But those first 3-4 easy years have bloated the Feds record falsely to look better than it is (most weeks as no.1, GS count, yada, yada).

Usually there is takeover between greats e.g. Borg vs McEnroe and overlap, Fed was lucky, almost very little of a fading Sampras, slower grass courts, an old Agassi for a bit and a big gap before the next gen of greats came to maturity. The only plus is he looks aesthetic and graceful, a nice show piece like the latest iphone to flaunt ones “taste”.


skeezer Says:

“4 in a row is better than anything Federer did”, and “Fed was lucky”.

Oh now we are bringing achievements compared to the GOAT/Fed? It’s always what Fed didn’t accomplish ( he does have a career Slam btw ), not what he has. If you take the totality of his accomplishments this isn’t even a discussion. LMAO. I am sure Fed is happy with his GOAT status of all time records and Slams( I wouldn’t call that “lucky”). Historians will be.

“The most boring and overhyped era was 2004 to 2007 as there was only Federer with Safin”
And you can say “The most boring and overhyped era was 2015 as there was only Novak with Murray”

Pointless.

—-

“..just an attempt to minimize the accomplishment.”
I for one never said THAT. In fact, I praised the feat. It’s just not a Grand Slam. Winning four majors in a row, or winning all four during your career, amazing that they are, are not within the calendar year.


BBB Says:

I root for Djokovic, and I think his winning the career Slam overshadowed winning 4 in a row. But if a non-calendar slam were the same as a calendar slam, then we wouldn’t be talking about Tiger Slams and Serena Slams. They’d just be Grand Slams.

I happen to think it’s arbitrary to focus on the calendar aspect, but it seems clear enough that it’s the traditional definition of a true Grand Slam. I suspect we won’t see a calendar Grand Slam again, so Djokovic’s achievement will probably be remembered as one of the greatest feats in the men’s open era.

I don’t like Federer much, but I also think he’s a spectacular player and his achievements shouldn’t be demeaned anymore than anyone else’s.


jane Says:

dan’s full summary of 2016′s best achievements is here, at tennis abides

https://tennisabides.com/2016/12/22/the-10-best-tennis-stories-of-2016/


jane Says:

last one, promise: andy said is really well too! :)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C0vyh6TVIAMDgV2.jpg:large


Willow Says:

I wouldnt say that the calendar or none calendar GS will never be done again, because in the future we never know what could happen, so never say never IMO ….


jane Says:

dan martin says it might happen again, but it’s also relevant that it was 47 years between laver’s calendar slam and the novak slam, with nole holding all four slams in a row/ at the same time.


Wog Boy Says:

Thanks jane, the punch line that it is truth and nothing but the truth, thanks Dan for saying it and saving your reporter souls:

“Until further notice, Novak holds the single greatest achievement in men’s tennis history (period). ”

Dan couldn’t be more right, but then again, who is Dan Martin and even Rod Laver when we have such knowledgeable fans like lakie and sleezer, and such a philosophical one like Willow who discovered hot water by telling us “never say never”, she clearly holds the title “Captain Obvious” on TX.
They have one thing in common though, it pains them to see that Nole achieved non calendar GS..


BBB Says:

Willow, I was careful not to say never :)


Willow Says:

Wogboy you really need to get a grip man ….


Willow Says:

BBB ;-) ….


skeezer Says:

“They have one thing in common though, it pains them to see that Nole achieved non calendar GS..”
Again a bunch of BS. Who is “they”? Gave praises about Novak’s “non calendar Slam”( or also called the Serena Slam ) on multiple posts.
I do believe it will be repeated again sooner unlike….. The Grand Slam, which may never be repeate. Novak’s accomplishment was a great feat nonetheless.
Of course let’s not minimize in the praises, the Career Slam, and the golden of all, The Golden Slam. Who achieved that? ( Hint: the last women who achieved The Grand Slam )


Wog Boy Says:

That’s BS and blantant lie, the person is on record here watching basketball during FO, saying how boring is FO, etc..makings mockery of Nole’s win, not giving any credit to Nole for achieving what nobody else achieved before him, winning Nole Slam on three different surfaces and yet that “tennis” fan now shamelessly lies that he was praising Nole!
The truth is he was going green, like a Grinch because Nole achieved what his idol couldn’t, but Grinch at the end felt his heart and warmth that this poster never will.
I suggest everybody to goe back and read his comments during and after FO.


skeezer Says:

“That’s BS..”
Well, that settles it then. We’re both BS’ers.
“…fan now shamelessly lies that he was praising Nole!”
That’s right, I did on this thread. A remarkable accomplishment. The FO? Yes, in my imo it was one of the least watchable majors in a while. It wasn’t the players per se, but the matches. Not very much excitement compared to AO ( which your highness won ) nor Wimbledon ( which Murray played some very exciting matches.) . Somehow you want to twist my view of the last FO into me not giving Novak enough praises. Here ya go, one more time: Praise Novak!


Wog Boy Says:

There is no twist or taking anything out of context, it was plain and simple for everyone on TX to see how “tennis” fan, “true” tennis fan (no worshipper, no bandwagoner, no bias..) was delighted to see history made in Paris, in the year of 2016, history that might not be repeated anytime soon, truly unique achievement in men’s tennis.

As Humble Rafa said after FO (I think it was him), something like this:
“This site would explode if Roger did it.. “,
but Roger missed on that one, though he had his chances in 2003-2007 period, just wasn’t good enough to capitalize and make it happen ;)


lakie Says:

If Fed had won FO in 2006 and 2007, he would have had double grand slams winning not only all 4 in one season twice but 10 consecutive slams!!! He came very close being in the finals of both RGs but unfortunately he came up against the greatest clay courter of all time then playing at or near his best. Fed is the second best claycourter, his accomplishments on clay not reflecting his talent because of Nadal in his prime. Djok won FO after Nadal was past his best. Djok is not the best or even second best on clay. Too much is made of his victories against sub par Nadal. If only Fed was Djok’s age, he would probably have won at least 25 slams and accomplished the grand slam at least two times. Djok is the king of the weak era.


Wog Boy Says:

Try harder, Roger never won Rome or MC nor he has ever beaten Rafa in Paris, Nole won every CC masters at least twice beating Rafa at least twice in each of them but Madrid (“only” once he has beaten Rafa in Madrid) and he has beaten Rafa in Paris. Keep trolling.

If Nole wins only one more HC GS title Roger won’t be best ever on any given surface (talking about GS surfaces). RL is best on grass (9 GS titles), Rafa is best on clay (9 GS titles) and Nole is one short of Roger 9 HC titles.


kjb Says:

@Wogboy

“If Nole wins only one more HC GS title Roger won’t be best ever on any given surface (talking about GS surfaces). RL is best on grass (9 GS titles), Rafa is best on clay (9 GS titles) and Nole is one short of Roger 9 HC titles.”

Laver played 3 slams year on grass. If they were still playing 3 slams a year on grass Fed would have 25+ slams right now. Your grasping at straws man, but your guy just needs 6 more to be considered the best ever across all surfaces (talking about GS surfaces)hahaha


Wog Boy Says:

Right, so we have to discard Laver’s calendar slam as not in the same league as Nole Slam using your logic, agree then.


lakie Says:

Try harder Wogboy. Fed had to contend with Nadal at his Peak. Djok is benefiting from the decline of Fedal.


kjb Says:

@Wogboy

I would probably agree that Nole feat was more difficult to achieve than Lavers. But IMO the channel slam is an important part to a true Grand Slam. Serena has won 4 in a row at least twice and I have never once heard of any one call it a Grand Slam. And when she was going for the calander slam a few years back that is all anyone was talking about even though she had already won 4 in a row twice. I am a big Fed fan but I am a tennis fan first, Nole achievement was amazing, up there Rafas French exploits and Feds 23 straight GS semis.


lakie Says:

Hardcourt is a poor man’s slam surface. Grass and clay are natural surfaces and it requires great talent to be the best on either. Federer and Sampras have a game which is the best on grass. Serve, forhand, Sampras’s overhead, Sampras and Fed’s movement on grass. Similarly Murray too is exquisite on grass though he doesn’t have a proportionate gs haul. Djoko is more workmanlike. His game is kind of efficient but not superlative. His movement on grass and his net game are not great. But all his weapons are good, none are superlative. Combined with his injury free body at a time when the more talented are old or injured, he has piled up a big haul on grass and hardcourt. He is not the best on clay either. His victories in a weak era, as opposed to Fed’s victories in the age of huge and exciting talent, definitely leave us cold. No wonder his 4 in a row did not excite the tennis cognoscenti though everyone made polite noises hailing it as a great achievement. And you must note that his 4 in a row (apart from not being a grand slam) is the most inferior of the four possible ways one can win 4 in a row.


Wog Boy Says:

Anyway, you don’t have to worry about Nole winning anymore big ones, particularly GS titles as long as he keeps that Witch Doctor with him, holds the hand of his “little” useless brother who cries “nobody loves me, everybody loves Nole”, and sulk to his possessive wife demands who doesn’t realize she married top athlete and should stick with his schedule and commitments until his career is over, like Mirka and Kim are doing.
If Nole goes back to his roots (first most important step), brings back “this is Sparta” attitude, attitude that brought him all those titles and glory, not “peace &love” (as my good friend says) attitude and get rid of Which Doctor, yes, he can and would win few more GS, but I don’t see that happening, I wish he proves me wrong.


Wog Boy Says:

And yet Roger hasn’t managed to win four in the row (even in that 2003-2007, the age of huge and exciting talents) and yet Sampras hasn’t managed to win four in a row (not even made FO final) and yet Rafa hasn’t managed to win four in a row and yet nobody since RL managed to win four in a row, even most inferior one, like Nole Slam…keep trolling.


Wog Boy Says:

“Federer and Sampras have a game which is the best on grass. Serve, forhand, Sampras’s overhead,”
How come your favorite had all those weapons, but still ended up as one slam wonder, “poor man’s slam surface”?


Wog Boy Says:

^^ To be more precise, one of your favorites.


jane Says:

wog boy, some will “carry on smartly” no matter what you say. sometimes it’s best to ignore. :)


Truth Says:

Lol only a few humorous and excellent people would be left because they don’t pretend to be fair sweethearts that want hugs all the time and demand that every top player win instead of the ‘boring’ Serb.

Such hypocritical fans. They were suckered in by Fed and his lapdog Roddick, but block out his efforts when Novak beats him in Slams.
I’m sure they’ll sincerely praise Novak when he avoids winning 4 straight Slams and wins a calendar slam that won’t involve Federer.


Willow Says:

All praise Novak, all hail Novak, your the best ever, your achievments are the best ever, dont worry fans he will win the true calendar GS in 2017, and probably the year after, and the year after that, and all this talk will be pointless, he will undoubtedly go on to win 30 GS before his careers finished, surpassing every man and woman before him, praise Novak, praise Novak, ive got a feeling though it doesnt seem to matter how much praise you give the guy, you can write it in the sky, in the stars in blood, but for his fans it will never be enough ….


Chrisford1 Says:

The thing some Fedal fans miss when saying that Tiger Woods 4 in a row is just called the “Tiger Slam” is a lot more golfers than tennis players exist and Woods Slam was just as hard to get as one that started in Augusta and they ended up in large consensus that Woods achievement was as big, probably bigger given modern era competition – as Bobby Jones “Major Slam” achieved in 1 year.
Navratilova (lesbian and controversial) and Serena (black ad polarizing) had writers diss their feats. But many are coming around as Serena played and won enough to approach Seffi’s records. And Martina’s being screwed because in her streak of 5 they played the AO in December,
“Grand Slam” originates in the card game ‘bridge’, BTW. With no requirement it be done (win 13 contracts) at one time. It migrated to sports writers who spent more time going to sports events on trains playing card games – than spent actually covering sports events. It started there with a few reporters fishing for words that could describe Bobby Jones feat.


Chrisford1 Says:

Last thing I will say on Novak’s non-calendar year Grand Slam –
Had Fed done it or WTA media marketing machine Sharapova.

I have no doubt at all that most writers and all the Fed fans and Masha fans would call it a non-calendar year Grand Slam.


Chrisford1 Says:

13 contracts won in the month of January only..or just 13 won at a “National” bridge tournament in Sept-Oct.


Truth Says:

The little Fed gloryhunters were so excited when Roddick had his annual verbal abuse tirades. That’s the only idiot that faced Fed for many beatdowns.
Anyone who watched Hewitt knows he smiled with embarrassment each time he choked, including in Roddick matches.
Fed was talking about not possessing any weakness.
The propaganda was strong.

The McEnroes and other fanboys were certain that Fed was winning over 20-30 Slams. Of course, the one ridiculing Novak was Fed. How embarrassing that Roddick couldn’t copy Fed’s “charm, ballet and talent” but he emulated Fed’s desperate insults at the Serb. Fed didn’t see Nadal as much of a player so he only called nadal a one dimensional player.

Since Novak was at the bottom of the typical top 10 player’s confidence level, it was easy to kick him and hope he’d bow down at Fed’s feet.

Novak better be careful now.
In 2011, Novak wasn’t playing to fake how special he was, and grab as much salary & sponsor millions as possible for a trophy wife and their greedy lifestyle. He didn’t praise Fed to make himself look like a good, gracious, strong loser to the “unbeatable GOAT”. Novak would never stoop to Roddick the faker’s level.


jalep Says:

lakie, you are a bit harsh on Nole…hey? ;)
December 29th, 2016 at 11:01 pm

The Channel Slam doesn’t get enough kudos. That combo is by far the hardest of all doubles. I agree that winning Wimbledon first and doing Four Consecutive GS’s is possibly the least physically demanding than the other ways. But the pressure, as we saw with Nole and in 2015 for Serena, is enormous no matter which way it’s done. And speaking pressure — way more spotlight in the age of instant global media than in Laver’s time.


jane Says:

an interesting note: no one had done the AO-FO double for 24 years on the men’s side. the last to do so was courier in 1992.

“The Aussie-French double has historically been the least attained double with only 3 players able to achieve this (Rod Laver in 1969, Mats Wilander in 1988 & Jim Courier in 1992). The below plot illustrates the number of double slams attained post the Open Era.”

winning that pair of slams consecutively seems to be very difficult, whether it’s doing well on both hard and clay courts OR the long stretch of time between the two slams and staying motivated and in form for both. not sure.

here’s an interesting piece on it

http://www.sportskeeda.com/tennis/australian-open-french-open-double-a-near-impossible-feat-to-achieve


Travis Bickle Says:

Sorry Jane, but the AO-FO double is not too hard to achieve!
And I am going with the infallible logic used by Fed fanatics (who suddenly think Laver’s opinion on greatness in tennis is BS).

This is how it goes:
Federer has never achieved the AO-FO double, therefore that achievement is nothing special. A decent achievement for sure but nothing spectacular like, for example, the FO-Wimbledon double (a.k.a. “channel slam”), which Federer did achieve.

Similarly, Federer has never (nor will ever;) achieved 4 majors in a row (calendar year or non-calendar year), therefore that is not so special, not even close to the ‘channel slam’. Again, a decent feat but starting with Wimbledon and winning all four majors in a row is not that hard, not even remotely hard like, say, winning four Halle Open tournaments in a row – achieved only by (you guessed it) Roger Federer! Please note that NOBODY else has won 4 Halle Open tournaments in a row, EVER…

I happened to stumble upon Rod Laver’s interview before the FO this year in May where he claimed that Djokovic had equalled Federer in terms of tennis greatness. Here it is:
http://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/15452386/tennis-rod-laver-comes-goat-novak-djokovic-roger-federer-equal

I personally thought it was to soon to state it then, since Novak hasn’t won FO at that time. I believe that only after winning FO this year and consequently the Grand Slam, Novak has become the greatest player to pick up a tennis racquet. Looks like Laver’s trust in Novak is greater than mine. Perhaps because he knows way more about tennis than I will ever know. I’m OK with that…

Just please don’t tell us again that the AO-FO double is hard to achieve ;-)
Channel slam baby, channel slam!
And Halle too…


jalep Says:

At least sportskeeda is keeping track.
Also from sportskeeda, the players to win a Channel Slam:

http://www.sportskeeda.com/slideshow/10-players-who-have-done-the-french-open-wimbledon-double-in-tennis-open-era

In general it’s just a more physically demanding game and GS’s are harder to win in the 21st Century. And what were the differences along the way in tournaments on offer between AO and FO for these winners? How many more were best of five masters back in the day…maybe it was just as hard when adding it up!

To me it would seem a lengthy stretch with plenty of motivation for match play during the time in between would give me a better chance of winning a double AO-FO. But that’s not the case! My experience is only in plotting for running a calendar of road races . In tennis though… a Channel Slam GS is easier?

Also thinking in terms of cycling. It’s far harder to do the Giro d’Italia – TDF double than TDF – Vuelta Espana. But that’s actually about there being the most technical descents, steepest climbs, narrowest roads and harsher conditions of Italy in May; and then trying to tackle the pressure of winning in the frenzy that is TdF. It’s only comparable to tennis in terms of the need to maintain a high level of fitness, have a body that does extremely fast recoveries, and a lot of luck.

How about Wimbledon-Us Open and US Open – AO? Didn’t Rafa win Three consecutive in 2010? That was Channel Slam and US Open.


jalep Says:

Way to ruin a good post with your sarcasm, TB. But that’s what makes you popular to the malcontents here.


Wog Boy Says:

People keep talking about masters being best of five, but that was never the case, only final was best of five the rest of the matches were best of three, so no biggie. Am I wrong?

Agree with TB, sorry jane..:)

One private message, thanks for the present and card that arrived from the states yesterday and cheered me up, though I am not baseball fan, I will carry the key ring and cheer the certain team:)


lakie Says:

you are absolutely right TB! The AO-FO is not difficult. Federer could not achieve it only because of Nadal at his prime. Djok could do it now because of subpar Nadal but he could not achieve the more difficult channel slam. Anyway be happy Djok is lucky he is 6 years younger than Fed. Otherwise he would have been a permanent bridesmaid.


jalep Says:

‘Only’ the final the best of five? Even if it’s “only final” the best of five, it does up the ante and make it a harder masters to win, I should think. Depends also on draw, ect. But yes…throwing in a best of five final, no doubt matters.

And I don’t remember if best of five all the way through rounds was a format used in ATP masters.


Wog Boy Says:

Not even all masters played best of five finals, they all became best of three from 2088 onwards, until then some had best of five finals some didn’t and rest of the matches were best of three, easy to check. Considering that IW and Miami are spread over almost two weeks, it not really biggie.
In 2007 Nole made three finals (IW, Miami and Roger’s cup) only Miami was best of five. So to much talking about nothing.


Wog Boy Says:

^^ 2008


jalep Says:

Well, I disagree about adding in a best of five being to a masters 1000 being nothing. In terms of difficulty to win and recover …it could be a significant difference. Why don’t they add them back to masters now? Make them more difficult to contest. And taking them out of Davis cup, if they do that will be sad. This is an opinion: best of five ‘final only’ makes masters 1000 potentially more difficult, thus, add them back in! It would indeed make them harder to dominate all year don’t you think? Come on back with some facts on it. Until then I’ll speculate.


Wog Boy Says:

The facts that you didn’t even know that only finals were played as best of five no other matches were played as best of five.
The facts that you didn’t know that not even all of masters had best of five finals (Cincinnati, Rogers cup, IW was changing it , etc..)

But yet you stated like all matches and all masters were played best of five in your first post just to admit later that you actually don’t really know, but yet made a statment originally that you know, just to add more weight on masters titles won before 2008.

So as I said, not a biggie, too much talking about nothing, but you can speculate all day along nobody is stopping you.


jane Says:

i thought this was a good point about AO-FO double

“Also after the Australian open, players tend to go to US to play on the outdoor hard courts in Indian Wells and Miami before coming back to Europe to participate on the clay courts of Monte Carlo, Madrid, Rome. These events are physically demanding and takes a huge toll on the players. Thus by the time, the big players are ready to compete at the French Open, they are perhaps stressed failing to recover in time.”

going from hardcourts in north american, traveling to euro-clay, physically taxing, could mean sometimes players are taxed by the time they reach the FO.

2009 rafa is a good example: won AO, fought tough battles on clay throughout that spring with novak, and by the time they reached the FO, both of them were somewhat/arguably spent. rafa was epic for the early part of that year and paid for it in the second half, sort of like novak this year.

anyhow, it’s worth a ponder…


jalep Says:

No I knew that it’s changed over time and I thought there was a time that best of five was all the way through the rounds. I do remember Masters 1000 being final only bo5.

There’s no having a civil discussion with you. All you want is to fight, put posters down, assert your macho-ness, get the last word… horrendous poster.


jalep Says:

Yeah, there’s a lot of tournaments plus Davis Cup on the winter/spring schedule – it’s packed in, especially if maybe the Golden Swing is part of the schedule. Indeed over scheduling and ambition is the temptation. Maybe someone will get it right and complete a calendar slam the way it is, maybe not. Probably not Dominic Thiem any time soon.


Wog Boy Says:

Sorry, I just stated the facts, I was just quoting your posts, didn’t invent nor put words in your mouth, too bad there is no edit button so you can erase your first post. No need to get argo, I was having civil conversation based on your posts.


Wog Boy Says:

^^aggro


jalep Says:

You flatter yourself. There’s no use.


Travis Bickle Says:

Wog Boy is an honest dude and above all a big boy and I don’t have to defend hime here, but one thing has to be said:
Wog Boy caught a pretentious poster Jalep blabbering nonsense and clearly called him/her on it. In addition, Wog Boy was fairly civil about it, i.e. no insults that I could see…

On the other hand, Jalep tried (now we can say unsuccessfully) to create a picture of tennis knowledgeability on this forum and his/her huge ego was hurt by getting called on his/her BS by Wog Boy. That is fine, it happens to all bloated ego folks on occasion.
What is not fine however, is the fact that Jalep resorted to personal insults and called Wog Boy a “horrendous poster”! Furthermore, he/she stated that WB does not carry out “civil discussion” (see the 8:10 pm post)… tsk, tsk, tsk …

Friendly banter is OK, even links to cheesy personalized name cards could be tolerated, sarcasm and irony towards players and posters is also fine… but insulting other posters for pointing your factual mistakes is bad form. I am against censorship and am not calling for ban on Jalep, but come on man/woman, you don’t have to be here if you are planning on acting like that – you’re a superstar on Tenngrand under one of you other names anyway – if you find posters “horrendous” for pointing your own inaccuracies and misleadings in your posts, you clearly don’t enjoy it here – therefore I RESPECTFULLY suggest you go somewhere else…


jalep Says:

hahaha, I’m not going anywhere, dude.


jalep Says:

He is a horrendous poster to ME and many others. He is also a poster many here can’t live without. duh, TB


jalep Says:

BTW, your post I commented about truly would have been a good post but you ruin it with the sarcasm…in my opinion. Is it okay that I express my opinion? Not really a question. You certainly express yours and most of the time I wish you wouldn’t post here either TB, but, alas…you do keep posting. Nothing I can do about it.


jalep Says:

All you and WB seek to do is discredit me and play down your own mistakes…like Wog Boy trying to say best of five finals in masters is nothing. Ask some tennis pro’s what they think adding back best of five to the masters 1000 would mean in terms of difficulty. I can admit I’m wrong…no problem with it. I was wrong thinking Channel Slam was harder than AO-FO double and said so after reading Jane’s link.

I’m not used to having to read your post and you aren’t used to mine. I just barely read your posts because I have a history of disliking them a lot. I don’t say I can’t stand you personally – who knows – but your posts were insulting from day One that you posted and I don’t see much improvement – others think you are great. so, carry on TB. Let’s try not to interact. That’s my suggestion.


lakie Says:

Wog boy, Jalep must be half your age. No big deal if she doesn’t know sets in Masters when she was just a baby. She is the most knowledgeable about current tennis, both ATP and WTA and I am really amazed at the depth and breadth of her knowledge. Andy fans like Margot come close. Curiously most Djok fans have their tennis knowledge limited to Djok and spend countless hours bigging him up without respect for facts.


Travis Bickle Says:

Ooops, four reply posts to me in a rapid-fire succession! Did I touch a nerve? I hope not…

Jalep, no need to take it personally. Also, who said anything about you not being allowed to express your opinion. Even your lack of knowledge on basic tennis facts is OK. Nobody knows everything! And it is fine to dislike other people’s posts too! Why not…

However, you did throw personal insults Wog Boy’s way, while he was perfectly civil in communicating with you. All I did is point that out. It is YOUR fault, Jalep.
And your reply (in no less than four posts) to my post stating simple truth was to never acknowledge you being rude (or wrong) but to even reiterate how “horrendous” poster Wog Boy is.
I sense an anguish in you and was trying to help you by suggesting to go somewhere else to spare yourself from that negativity that causes you to call posters “horrendous” etc… After all, Wog Boy did nothing bad to you – he simply pointed out how little you know about history of Masters tournaments and how inaccurate/misleading your post was!

Other than that, I don’t care – you are free to stay of course, and as I stated above, I would never called for censorship for anyone here, it is against my principles.

So carry on, keep insulting Wog Boy if you wish so, keep disliking posters and their posts, etc… just try not to be too angry – I sense lots of anguish in you…
I could be wrong though, it’s just a feeling and feelings are not necessarily truths ;-)


Wog Boy Says:

“He is a horrendous poster to ME and many others. He is also a poster many here can’t live without. duh, TB”

I am pretty happy if that’s the case, particularly knowing who “many others”, though you made one mistake, pointing at one group of people you can’t say twice “many”, it could be only “to many people” on one end, and “to some people” on the other, there are no two “many people” pointing at one group of the people, I am happy in which evrr end you position me, either “many” or “some” as long as it is not group that you are in.

” All you and WB seek to do is discredit me and play down your own mistakes…”

It’s is good for your self esteem to believe that you are so importan to me, but that’s not the case unfortunately, I couldn’t care less about “jalep”, I was just correcting another poster’s inaccuracy, was it deliberate or no (inaccuracies), I don’t know…but on the other hand you are seasoned tennis fan so…


skeezer Says:

LMAO the Church if Novak is at it again. Lay off the nice people already!
Just remember, a Serena Slam is not The Grand Slam. And RF has 17 Slams and the most all time records in history. Doesn’t need 4 in a row. GOAT maximus.
You may now resume your biased programming.


BBB Says:

“Doesn’t need four in a row.”

LOL. That’s Church o’Roger right there. Physician, heal thyself.


skeezer Says:

BBB,
Lol. So RF needs 4 in a row over 17 Slams, most weeks @ #1, and most alltime records. That is quite the logic you have there. You need to heal yourself ;)

@jalep
Your logic of 5 set finals is sound, and was obviously tougher masters back then…but that …may-could-possibly-say it ain’t so-oh no-not in my church-maybe-slightly-possibly be a dis credit to the Church of you know who. I sense an anguish in this Church, and its disturbing. I think a guru may be part of this anguish. The result is the usual personal insult at a quality poster like yourself friend m this tandem. Familiar stuff from the Church of Novak.
Ignore, rinse and repeat.


David Says:

Skeezer, not diminishing the overall Federer achievements, they are very good. 2004 to 2007 was boring in a competitive sense. Tennis is qualitatively better with competition. One great player with many ordinary competitors just makes it a monopoly and the records look better than they are qualitatively. This is not Federer’s fault, just his good luck. Having Nadal and Djokovic at their best in 2004 to 2007 (instead of Safin, Roddick etc.) would have been more challenging, the totals would be lower but yes Federer would match them both but the spoils would be shared, not monopolized. Say in an era when we have 3 great mature players instead, 2008 to 2012 was that. It is getting boring again for sure and those 5 years will not be easily matched again in the future.


Willow Says:

Im surprised that there are not more players that have completed the AO /FO double, as i would think it more doable due to the fact theres a significant break between the two GS, and more time to get used to the change in surfaces, where as with the FO and W theres only a short break, my two cents ….


Willow Says:

And some people need to take a chill pill ….


skeezer Says:

David,
I’d rather say we were lucky during that period, not Fed. He was sublime.
It is what it is, not what shoulda coulda woulda. I could say (but I’m not)Djoker was lucky Fedal wasn’t around for the most part the last couple of years, for sure not in their prime when Novak was/is. Guess Novak has been lucky, eh? Fact is Novak won four Slams in a row, who cares who wasn’t in their prime? Pretty sure Novak doesn’t.


BBB Says:

Skeezer, your post reminds of a four-year-old who watches his friend get a toy firetruck for Christmas. Disappointed, he says “I didn’t want a stupid firetruck anyway. I have legos!”


skeezer Says:

BBB,
Didn’t know you still spend your time reading childrens stories. I prefer the Lion and the Mouse.


jalep Says:

My mistake was posting that I thought Channel slam was the hardest GS double. According the numbers, I was wrong and admitted it. More players, have won the Channel Slam. I don’t have a problem being wrong about it. And I still have more questions on the subject.

Next problem tennis topic:

Wog boy insists there is no difference when a best of five is added to the final of a masters: Bo5 and Bo3 is the same – no biggie. Nothing to see here. End of story. But that’s not true — sorry WB and TB, bully tag team extraordinaire. You both are very good at deflecting WB’s mistake by attempting to trash me, whatever. No surprise there. I see I was the one who hit a nerve on the subject. It’s a bigger feat adding in the final as best of five.

And yes, I was wrong in thinking somewhere way back in the history of tennis they did play more tournaments during the season that were all best of fives outside of the GS’s and Davis Cup.

But I did know they dropped all best of five finals in masters in 2008. Sorry they did that. I think it detracts from the prestige of winning a masters. And a change like that can effect can change the numbers of masters won per year by an individual player. Stats and comparisons over time are never golden because of these changes and inequities in the sport of tennis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_Masters_Series

When I look over the list and the five set final scores I can help but think it was a lot harder back then and appreciate the accomplishment more prior to 2008. I missed a lot of great matches.

Wish they’d bring back best of five format for masters finals.


Giles Says:

Jalep. ” Bully tag team extraordinaire”. You just made my day! ROFL


Willow Says:

Jalep i wasnt being disrespectful to you about the channel GS, as i only would agree to disagree, for the reasons i said above, but i do agree on best of 5 in Masters, especially in the latter rounds, and HAPPY NEW YEAR BTW, AND HOPE YOU HAVE A GREAT NIGHT ;-) ….


lakie Says:

Just because AO FO has ben done less often than FO-Wimbledon it doesn;t mean it is more difficult or more prestigious. It has been done less often simply because earlier not many great players thought it worthwhile to play AO and later it became difficult because of Nadal.


sinha71 Says:

Before 20 years ago Australia was commonly skipped my many great players including Sampras, Agassi.

Connors only played there twice and Borg just once.

So we can really only look at last 20 years or something like this. And for nine of those years Rafa owned the French Open. Only Nadal (twice) and Federer (once) when Nadal was injured could manage the Channel slam. Only Djoko could manage the Australia/French.

Because of the insignificance of Australia until recently and the wall of Nadal at the French Open, the data is insufficient to say which is more difficult.

I think that both are very difficult because of different surfaces.

In terms of best of five finals in Masters, I believe that, like slams, it becomes more difficult for the upset and easier for the favourite to win. However, it is more difficult for the fast turnaround for the few events that are back to back but those events are few – really just Madrid and Rome. Indian Wells and Miami are two week events and I don’t believe that best of five final would make a difference.

Djoko’s Grand Slam rises above them all on three different surfaces! Never accomplished by any other player. Phenomenal especially given how physical the game has become compared to 10, 20, 30 years ago.


Willow Says:

Giles and mine ….


Truth Says:

Plus, Nole had the worst physical condition when he had probs with stamina and serving in 2006 and 2009-10. Fedal had some injuries but they weren’t troubled by food and physical weakness.
That makes Nole’s middle-age career comeback even more amazing.
I didn’t doubt his ability to dominate and win all 4 slams.
Only jealous fedalray glory hunters were horrified and shocked by his dreams come true.
When you compared Nole to Roddick/Safin/Hewitt, you couldn’t have doubted Nole’s far superior genius level, especially when he wasn’t an overrated faker and joke.
Phonies don’t win dozens of Masters & 11 Slams in a short period of time

Fed suffered only a few injuries in 13 years. One injury when he hopped around in the park.
Novak didn’t leave the tour for 5-7 months, as Fedal did.


lakie Says:

Djok’s achievement is only a career slam. If you do not win all the slams in one season., what difference does it make whether you win wimbledon uso in one season with Ao Fo in the next or AO Fo in one season with Wimbledon USO in the next? The fact is, Djok did NOT win all the slams in one season. period.
50% of Djok’s slams come from AO which is the least prestigious slam. Djok fans are jealous of Fed and are trying to put down Fed and big up Djok. But they cannot get away from the fact that, except once, Djok couldn’t beat Fed in slams when Fed was at his peak. Only Nadal could stand up to Fed. Both Djok and Andy though far above the field are a notch below Fedal.


jane Says:

sinha71, not sure if you read the link i posted above about the AO-FO double, but it does mention that fact as a contributor, and it gives a number of others as well.


Chrisford1 Says:

In this era, you had 4 guys that were just breakaways from the pack. The Big 4. Sure a Wawrinka or del Potro or Cilic could threaten them in big matches, but they lacked consistency. Their careers did not precisely overlap and Fed had 4 years with little competition so he has padded records, and Andy lagged – but few will argue that the 4 were The Ones of the 2000′s and 2010s.
The only argument is place. And that is not purely objective. Past the stats, Rafa was the toughest. Novak was best on hardcourt, Rafa’s nightmare, 2nd best on clay in his time, and somewhere in the lower Top 5 on grass. Writers and fans exist who believe Djokovic at his best was the best player. Not the “most decorated”, just the best player. Federer best on grass in his prime, maybe the 2nd best hardcourt player when facing the other Big 4, and 3rd best on clay. Subjectively, his serve was underrated and his older fans adored the balletic beauty of his biggest weakness – his backhand.
Subjectively, Andy will never be considered best on any surface of the Big 4, or of the stature of the other three. But this is Sir Andrew Frigging Murphy. After an 80 year drought, he bought Britain 2 Golds, Davis Cup, a return to hoisting the Wimbledon trophy. Owns a friggen castle and is worth over 100 million and subjectively seems a pretty good guy and the only one who can match or exceed Novak’s defense on a given day.


Okiegal Says:

@lakie 12:00……Agree with you on this one……


lakie Says:

okie, looks like you want to extend the olive branch to me.
I am still upset with you but I will try not to think of it and we will talk about tennis which we both love. Happy New Year to you!


AndyMira Says:

@Yayyy!!That’s great sportsmanship lakie and okie!Full credit to both of you!AWESOME!!LET’S HUG!!


lakie Says:

AndyMira, thanks! Let us hope 2017 is a great year for tennis and tennis fans!


AndyMira Says:

@Lakie…No,thanks to YOU and OKIE for willing to disregard your differences in the name of tennis..It takes a BIG and GREAT heart to display such an incredible attitude lakie!I knew i like you for a reason!ha ha ha..Vamos!


Margot Says:

Thumbs up to OK and lakie. If only posters on here could shove their long held grievances into the rubbish bin of history and send them right back to 2016 and start 2017 anew.
Just seen some pigs flying past the window, more likely I guess.
lakie: there are many posters on here who are so far away from me on the political spectrum, they are just shimmering dots in the distance, but hey, we’re all here just because, in the end, we love tennis.


Okiegal Says:

@lakie…..Yes let’s talk tennis! Hey, no hard feelings….so we had a little tiff, it’s done and dusted! Over it…….I was serious that I agreed with your comment, wanted to say the same thing but didn’t. Lakie, here’s wishing you a happy and prosperous new year and thanks for your kind greeting to me! By the way, I just love olives!

Happy New year to all the posters on this forum and the TX staff!!
Black-eyed peas tomorrow for good luck in 2017!! Cheers 🍻🍻🍻


Okiegal Says:

@Margot…..Thanks…..you are right the love of tennis is why any of us come here. My New Years resolution….let bygones be bygones!


Okiegal Says:

@AM…..Thanks for the pat on the back! I’m good and I really believe @lakie is OK too. She admitted to still being upset with me but willing to try to get past it for the love of the game. And I feel so much better about the whole ordeal too! Moving on……..

Hey everyone EAT MORE OLIVES or drink more martinis!🍸🍸🍸


lakie Says:

okie I know you really agreed with that comment. Sorry if I gave the impression that I thought you agreed with me merely to make peace.
Thanks Margot! Here’s to tennis 2017!
AndyMira you like everybody for some reason or the other! Anyway I am glad I am not the exception!


AndyMira Says:

@Okie…No problem ma’am!YOU GUYS ARE AWESOME!!

#RESPECTMUCH!!!!


Truth Says:

This vicious liar clown lakie has “friends”. No one else would be her friend. LMAO
She’s almost programmed and forced by that hugger. It’s embarrassing.😻😂


kjb Says:

@Truth

I think this is the first post I’ve ever seen from you where you didn’t mention your favorite player.. Andy Roddick.


Truth Says:

If Roddick loved Novak, he’d be playing tennis for real.
Without dick, Novak wouldn’t know much about Federer sycophants.


kjb Says:

@CF1

When mentioning the padded stat era, as you do in every single one of your post on this site, you should start to add in the even weaker era of tennis 2012-2016.


kjb Says:

@Truth
Roddick is on a short list of players who was in the top 10 for 10 straight years and if he was still playing now he would likely be top 15. But your obsession with him is hilarious, its like he stole your girlfriend back in the day or something.


lakie Says:

Djok fanatics like CF1 are fond of talking of Fed’s padded stats and their posts in this regard make them appear ridiculous because if anyone padded his stats , it is Djok. The weakest era of all that I have witnessed is 2015 plus part of 2016.
Fed’s rivals were young like him. He started winning everything because he brought in a level much above the field, not because the field was weak. Even Djok did not have much success against Fed. So what weak era did Fed pad his stats in?
But in 2015 and part of 2016, Djok started winning practically everything It was clear that it was because of lack of competition, not because Djok had suddenly found a higher level after a decade on the circuit. His chief rivals were injured or old, field was aging and the next gen was not up to the mark. That was the true weak era in which Djok padded his stats. Hopefully in 2017 there will be some competition.


Okiegal Says:

@Lakie…..well it crossed my mind tbh but then after thinking about it more, you know what a big fan I am of Rafa…..so I would be agreeable with anything positive you would say concerning him!! 🐂🐂🐂🐂


Truth Says:

Roddick, Hewitt and Safin were so strong. They had nothing but long periods of winning nothing. You must be proud of Roddick, kjb.
They can only look back in anger.
Blake was #4. At least Blake beat Fed and a top 5 player in the Olympics.

Roddick couldn’t beat a top 10 guy for Davis Cup.
The Davis Cup hero said he was disappointed that Fed didn’t play DC.
Fed was afraid of playing Davis Cup and losing to Roddick.
Roddick just couldn’t wait to lose for his country, dramatically and graciously to Fed.
He always talked about how Fed was unbeatable at the Davis Cup event that didn’t include Fed!

That is how he can justify Fed being the GOAT. He also believes Nadal is one dimensional. Who cares about beating Fed on clay when you can lose to Fed every time, eh!

Roddick with a sleazy and overrated life.
His ex-girlfriend, the supremely talented Mandy Moore is looking for pet dog money support from her ex husband.
Poor Roddick could ignorantly spew his lies & jealousy on tennis people for 10 years, but he was in agony when a fan said his trophy model wife Brooklyn was too skinny.
“That’s my wife!”

Bad fitness, poor flexibility, lack of talent, and the self sabotaging and in his own words “supreme loser” status.
Roddick choked badly due to being an awful, shallow money grubbing player and lucky liar that bluffed his way through Mickey Mouse tournaments to pad his rankings.
You can’t blame Novak for that.

Roddick, the reckless weasel tried to “pay back” to his charity with the millions of dollars he received from sponsors and mostly D list celebs to compensate for being an abusive, spoiled clown that didn’t take tennis seriously when Novak and Nadal won Slams. Oooooops.

Roddick couldn’t be cured of stupidity, sycophant behavior.
Fed worship disease added to his getting away with abusing officials and some opponents.

lack of athleticism and low talent.

Top story: Novak Djokovic Talks About The Hiring Of Andre Agassi