[EliSter]

Originally Posted by Fishnet

Couldn't care less.

You posting over 20 times in your thread says otherwise retard.

[Sapeod]

The weeks at #1 clinches it for him over Becker. He's definitely above Edberg though unfortunately. Djokovic being above those two legends of the game is quite sad actually.

[Saberq]

Originally Posted by Sapeod

The weeks at #1 clinches it for him over Becker. He's definitely above Edberg though unfortunately. Djokovic being above those two legends of the game is quite sad actually.

you see this is why I like you Dani no matter your hate for any player you will always tell it like it is

[Saberq]

Originally Posted by Fishnet

One of the 10 most powerful countries in the world with less than 200 years of history. Meanwhile, Serbia has what? More than a thousand years of history and no relevance in the world whatsoever. You should study more, it would do you some good and you would avoid making a fool of yourself.

Serbia has Nobel prize winners and has Tesla more than Brazil will ever have and hell I even like Brazil just think you're a bitter tool

[KeiranLee]

Originally Posted by Fishnet

NoleFan showing her utter lack of class:

Attachment 256489

You talking about class???

[Han Solo]

...

So to summarise what I've read here - it appears Djokovic has surpassed (at the very least matched) Becker and Edberg taking into account titles and time at number one.

But there is some doubt as to whether these achievements are as valuable due to posters insisting on comparing eras, conditions, etc - comparisons which always end up as futile exercises in debate.

There is also some doubt as to whether Djokovic can be considered a better, more complete player than either, due to some insisting he lacks skills with his netgame, etc, etc.

Of course, then we have the increasingly juvenile trolling and counter-trolling, descending into name-calling, hair-pulling, bad-repping, and "my country's bigger than your country" nonsense.

Quality stuff.

[Sapeod]

Originally Posted by Saberq

you see this is why I like you Dani no matter your hate for any player you will always tell it like it is

I don't like it but it's the sad truth unfortunately.

Becker and Edberg will always be better to watch and the more entertaining players BY FAR though.

[arod3425]

Originally Posted by Han Solo

...

So to summarise what I've read here - it appears Djokovic has surpassed (at the very least matched) Becker and Edberg taking into account titles and time at number one.

But there is some doubt as to whether these achievements are as valuable due to posters insisting on comparing eras, conditions, etc - comparisons which always end up as futile exercises in debate.

There is also some doubt as to whether Djokovic can be considered a better, more complete player than either, due to some insisting he lacks skills with his netgame, etc, etc.

Of course, then we have the increasingly juvenile trolling and counter-trolling, descending into name-calling, hair-pulling, bad-repping, and "my country's bigger than your country" nonsense.

Quality stuff.

To take this further, according to the progression of Fishnet's posts, I think he will next suggest that Djokovic should relinquish all his career achievements for Becker and Edberg to divide up simply because he is playing in 2013 and cannot volley.

[Saberq]

Originally Posted by Sapeod

I don't like it but it's the sad truth unfortunately.

Becker and Edberg will always be better to watch and the more entertaining players BY FAR though.

I agree on Edberg but Becker?Not really

[Sapeod]

Originally Posted by Saberq

I agree on Edberg but Becker?Not really

Becker is miles above Djokovic in terms of game and entertainment value

[Saberq]

Originally Posted by Sapeod

Becker is miles above Djokovic in terms of game and entertainment value

I disagree with that Nole would beat him more times than not

[tektonac]

Fishnet = FishNet? IP check, mods, please.

[MIMIC]

Originally Posted by Caesar1844

Greater number of players achieving higher slam counts than in the past.

This argument is extremely flawed. What makes you think that you can determine how a high slam count was achieved? Are you going to ignore factors such as TALENT and COMPETITION? Or are you just going to attribute it to surface homogeneity for the people you don't like? Is there some objective indicator of slam merit that you're going to use to measure the worth of a slam?

Player X: "I like his game! He is extremely talented! He will go on to win many more slams! They're all 100% legit!"
Player Y: "Oh, he's only winning because of the slow surfaces! His slams are only worth 75%"

The U.S. Open used to be played on clay. So because of the surface change, do none of Fed's U.S. Opens count?

[Time Violation]

Originally Posted by Caesar1844

Greater number of players achieving higher slam counts than in the past.

Complete rubbish. Nole is only the third player with more than 2 slams in the last decade, and Fed and Nadal would be winning multiple slams in any era in history.

[Fishnet]

Originally Posted by EliSter

You posting over 20 times in your thread says otherwise retard.

Originally Posted by Saberq

Serbia has Nobel prize winners and has Tesla more than Brazil will ever have and hell I even like Brazil just think you're a bitter tool

Serbia has the same power and stature in the world today as Costa Rica.