Former player Nikola Pilic on Novak

[stroke]

https://tennisuptodate.com/atp/the-level-of-tennis-then-and-today-is-not-at-all-comparable-former-coach-of-novak-djokovic-shades-jimmy-connors-all-tlme-record-as-not-important

[stotty]

In one sense I agree, but in another sense there is no comparison to be made. Not only was it a completely different game back then, the metrics were also entirely different. No one was keeping a tally back then for starters, players instead just tried to win what was in front of them. Winning Wimbledon was a goal but not the necessity to win it umpteen times. Had players been worried about tally counts they would all have rushed off to the Aussie Open, which none of them did.

I do think Novak is the best of the lot but I also think he has big chunks missing in his game that he might have needed were he playing in the 60's or 70's for example. On the other hand Novak is playing now and not back then so doesn't need a 'back then' game. Therein lies the folly of comparing generations. I can't stand the bloke but Connors was a terrific player. He was humiliated by Borg and McEnroe at times but he never went away. No doubt his game would have looked entirely different were he a player of today's generation.

[stroke]

In one sense I agree, but in another sense there is no comparison to be made. Not only was it a completely different game back then, the metrics were also entirely different. No one was keeping a tally back then for starters, players instead just tried to win what was in front of them. Winning Wimbledon was a goal but not the necessity to win it umpteen times. Had players been worried about tally counts they would all have rushed off to the Aussie Open, which none of them did.

I do think Novak is the best of the lot but I also think he has big chunks missing in his game that he might have needed were he playing in the 60's or 70's for example. On the other hand Novak is playing now and not back then so doesn't need a 'back then' game. Therein lies the folly of comparing generations. I can't stand the bloke but Connors was a terrific player. He was humiliated by Borg and McEnroe at times but he never went away. No doubt his game would have looked entirely different were he a player of today's generation.

And humiliated by Lendl. Lendl had no respect for him. I still remember some insignificant match they played when Lendl was number 1. Lendl did absolutely nothing on purpose just to embarrass Connors, as if to say, I don't have to do anything except hit the ball back because you suck. I still remember the Connors post match interview. Connors was seething, talking about how Lendl did not do anything except bunt the ball back. Connors was completely missing the point of what has just happened out there.

[stroke]

https://www.sportskeeda.com/tennis/news-at-36-roger-federer-able-win-3-slams-serena-williams-ex-coach-sets-apart-novak-djokovic-swiss-legend

Patrick M chimes in.

[jimlosaltos]

https://www.sportskeeda.com/tennis/n...c-swiss-legend

Patrick M chimes in.

The "Big Difference" is that Djokovic doesn't have to have the other 2 of the Big 3 during his dotage.

[stotty]

Patrick has a good point. Both Roger and Novak were/are better players than they were at 26, no question. Both became better players by doing what they perhaps ought have done in the first place, basically be more aggressive. But Novak is streets ahead of Roger at this stage. Roger won his latter slams courtesy of Novak being sidelined by an elbow operation and a fling with the babysitter. The history books won't say that...but I will.

Roger was great and is the best ever player to watch, even better than Nasty, Mecir and McEnroe. To me that matters more than anything, being great to watch, that is. But Novak has surpassed him and there is little argument about that. What Novak has done in his 30s is simply unreal. As of 1 December 2023 he is, at 36, still the very best player in the world. The only other player comparable in terms of playing at a super high level at 36 is Pancho Gonzales.

[jimlosaltos]

Patrick has a good point. Both Roger and Novak were/are better players than they were at 26, no question. Both became better players by doing what they perhaps ought have done in the first place, basically be more aggressive. But Novak is streets ahead of Roger at this stage. Roger won his latter slams courtesy of Novak being sidelined by an elbow operation and a fling with the babysitter. The history books won't say that...but I will.

Roger was great and is the best ever player to watch, even better than Nasty, Mecir and McEnroe. To me that matters more than anything, being great to watch, that is. But Novak has surpassed him and there is little argument about that. What Novak has done in his 30s is simply unreal. As of 1 December 2023 he is, at 36, still the very best player in the world. The only other player comparable in terms of playing at a super high level at 36 is Pancho Gonzales.

Checking. You think Fed and Rafa were better players at 30 years old, then they were at 26 years old?

Is Djokovic playing better now than he did in either 2011 or 2015, in your opinion?

All 3 definitely improved areas of the play, but IMHO that was necessary to compensate for strengths that ebbed. Hard to measure.

[stroke]

Checking. You think Fed and Rafa were better players at 30 years old, then they were at 26 years old?

Is Djokovic playing better now than he did in either 2011 or 2015, in your opinion?

All 3 definitely improved areas of the play, but IMHO that was necessary to compensate for strengths that ebbed. Hard to measure.

No doubt just speculation. I personally think Novak has improved the most. His serve and volleys are definitely better to me than when he was 26. I think Rafa was at his best at about 26, his physicality at his absolute prime. Fed hard to say, he always looked great to me.

[stotty]

Checking. You think Fed and Rafa were better players at 30 years old, then they were at 26 years old?

Is Djokovic playing better now than he did in either 2011 or 2015, in your opinion?

All 3 definitely improved areas of the play, but IMHO that was necessary to compensate for strengths that ebbed. Hard to measure.

I think Roger and Novak became better players in their thirties, Rafa not. Rafa's peaked in his mid twenties and never really got better. A good benchmark for this is where Roger starting beating Rafa again after a sustained period of losing. You felt Rafa could never quite fathom or accept Roger's resurgence.

[jimlosaltos]

I think Roger and Novak became better players in their thirties, Rafa not. Rafa's peaked in his mid twenties and never really got better. A good benchmark for this is where Roger starting beating Rafa again after a sustained period of losing. You felt Rafa could never quite fathom or accept Roger's resurgence.

I blame the black RF97

I remember someone (Chris Clarey? ) interviewing Fed's trainer, Pierre Paganini, back when 30 seemed so old and people were speculating if anyone could possible win a major at such an advanced age. Asked if Fed had slowed down Paganini reportedly sad, yes, we measure everything and we know. But wouldn't reveal what Fed had slowed at, let alone by how much.

Tangentially, when Fed turned, I believe, 28 years old, Djokovic was asked if he noticed any difference and said something like, "Not really, he's lost a step maybe." Make of it what you will.