[5555]

Originally Posted by StatRacket

He's only a bit over half to Nadal so let's not get too excited.

Are you saying it's unrealistic that Novak will stay the No. 1 until October?

Originally Posted by RafaelNadalisGod

Doesn't matter unless he gets 11 slams which he won't come near

Wishful thinking. Steve Flink said (at the time when Nadal had 10 slams) that Jack Kramer is greater player than Nadal even though Kramer has 3 slams.

Originally Posted by Ash86

Novak has a good shot at surpassing Nadal but to me it's not that significant as it has so much to do with timing - Nadal would have been no.1 from 2005-2010 if it hadn't been for Roger - he earned more points as no.2 than many players in the past did to be no.1. So his lack of time at no.1 has a clear explanation and not something which I would mark him down against vs Novak.

Following your logic, I can say that Sampras's superior slam count over Djokovic has a clear explanation and not something which I would mark Novak down against Sampras. Think about this: Djokovic's 2008 season is better than Sampras's 1998 but Sampras finished 1998 as No. 1 while Novak finished 2008 as No. 3. Djokovic would have more slams than Sampras, hadn't it been for Federer and Nadal.

Slams are what matter for both these guys now.

Wishful thinking. Apart from slams, there are other factors (which means Novak does not have to win the same number of slams as Nadal in order to have better career).

[Sophocles]

Originally Posted by stewietennis

I find it impressive (for Hewitt) and sad (for how the rankings work) that Hewitt has more weeks in #1 than six times major winners Edberg and Becker, as well as seven time winner Wilander; he also has more total weeks at #1 than Kuerten, Safin, Roddick and Ferrero combined.

In the cases of Becker, Edberg, & Wilander, the explanation is simple: look at how many weeks McEnroe, Lendl, & Sampras spent at No. 1. Becker, Edberg, & Wilander were just unlucky that one or other of the other 3 was around and usually doing that bit better, just as Nadal was unlucky to be playing at the same time as Federer.

[heya]

You can't think Fed, Safin, Hewitt & Roddick were the best because of Slams.
That's absurd.

[atennisfan]

Originally Posted by Ash86

Just like Fed won't repeat 2006 and Nadal won't repeat 2008 - that summer where he just couldn't be beaten on any surface...

But Roger's 2006 was a repeat of his 2005.

[atennisfan]

Originally Posted by EliSter

I do not care about Federer records to be honest.

Of course you don't care about Federer's records now, because for Djokovic now they are so unattainable.

But I guarantee that you will start caring a lot more about Fed's records if Djokovic start get anywhere close to any one of Fed's records.

[atennisfan]

Originally Posted by uxyzapenje

If Murray gets to #1 he'll catch up with Rafter (I would expect Frekeyman to start a thread about this)

He won't catch up with Rafter until he wins second slam

[heya]

Actually, Djoker had fans when Federer called him a joke 6 years ago. No need for press insults, lies, arrogance and media hype to scare off losers on tour.

[Roy Emerson]

Originally Posted by 5555

Are you saying it's unrealistic that Novak will stay the No. 1 until October?



Wishful thinking. Steve Flink said (at the time when Nadal had 10 slams) that Jack Kramer is greater player than Nadal even though Kramer has 3 slams.



Following your logic, I can say that Sampras's superior slam count over Djokovic has a clear explanation and not something which I would mark Novak down against Sampras. Think about this: Djokovic's 2008 season is better than Sampras's 1998 but Sampras finished 1998 as No. 1 while Novak finished 2008 as No. 3. Djokovic would have more slams than Sampras, hadn't it been for Federer and Nadal.



Wishful thinking. Apart from slams, there are other factors (which means Novak does not have to win the same number of slams as Nadal in order to have better career).

Borg is considered better than Lendl despite Lendl spending more weeks as #1. Why? Because Borg won more slams than Lendl. Unfortunately slams are the #1 criteria taken under consideration. First slams and then weeks as #1. Borg is also considered better than McEnroe and Connors even though they spent more weeks as #1 than the Swede.

[Nole Rules]

Originally Posted by heya

Djokovic is a real man with a heavy burden on him
because media trolls are bitter haters.
He has charm, so only jealous Fed fans hate him.

Federina can only depend on self-involved flattery.

He says he's dominant when no one else cares to play well.
Remember, clowns also beat him & won 2 Mickey Mouse titles just like him.

He claimed he was exhausted after finally playing Davis Cup & winning a Masters title after 2 years of winning none. That US Open semi hurt him. Booohoooo.

I'm seriously inlove with you.

[saviopr]

Originally Posted by atennisfan

But Roger's 2006 was a repeat of his 2005.

2006 was better.

2005: 2 GS titles, 1 GS final, 1 GS semifinal + WTF final
2006: 3 GS titles, 1 GS final + WTF title.

[Branimir]

Federer's 2007 is a repeat of 2006.

[Alex999]

Originally Posted by heya

Actually, Djoker had fans when Federer called him a joke 6 years ago. No need for press insults, lies, arrogance and media hype to scare off losers on tour.

ah, as much as I love Fed's game, that's one thing I can't forgive Fed. He was so arrogant towards a young Nole, putting him down saying all kind of things when Nole was a young nobody ... My strong believe is that experienced players should show understanding and support to the young ones. Novak has never said anything negative about Fed, yet Fed felt like a God and BS so much. sorry guys.

oh well, it doesn't really matter any more. Fed is much more humble nowadays ... but, but, but

[End da Game]

Originally Posted by Alex999

ah, as much as I love Fed's game, that's one thing I can't forgive Fed. He was so arrogant towards a young Nole, putting him down saying all kind of things when Nole was a young nobody ... My strong believe is that experienced players should show understanding and support to the young ones. Novak has never said anything negative about Fed, yet Fed felt like a God and BS so much. sorry guys.

oh well, it doesn't really matter any more. Fed is much more humble nowadays ... but, but, but

what did fed say anyway?

[HKz]

Unless Novak racks up a pile of more slams and weeks at number 1, the ranking stuff doesn't matter for his career nor for Rafas. For them, just getting to number was the achievement as when comparing stats and history, their small weeks at number one won't really account for anything. Plus, just to show the strangeness of it, if Novak were to surpass Rafa in 2013 for weeks at #1, he could theoretically do it will like 1 slam I suppose, so if that were the case, a current 6 slam champ has more weeks than a 11 slam champ. Of course slam success doesn't necessarily mean #1 spot in our sport, but it just goes to show unless he is really racking up the numbers, it doesn't matter right now.

[HKz]

Originally Posted by saviopr

2006 was better.

2005: 2 GS titles, 1 GS final, 1 2 GS semifinal + WTF final
2006: 3 GS titles, 1 GS final + WTF title.

fixed