ADVERTISEMENT

Djokovic has Won 24 Grand Slams. Nadal at 22, Federer at 20. Djokovic Year End World #1 a Record 8 Times & World #1 a Record 404 Weeks(Federer at 310)

how did Wimbledon turn out for Medvedev when he played Alcaraz?

I think the point is pretty clear but I guess I have to spell it out; playing THAT FAR back is not a good strategy, even if it works ONE NIGHT when the opponent is clearly having an off night

They are not playing at Wimbledon. regarding this match, you said he would be doing better if he wasn't playing that far back, and he was up 2-0, your comment was idiotic or poorly stated.
If you are attempting to make a blanket statement over all the times they play then you need to better assert that position.
 
They are not playing at Wimbledon. regarding this match, you said he would be doing better if he wasn't playing that far back, and he was up 2-0, your comment was idiotic or poorly stated.

I think we all know they are not playing at Wimbledon. But playing back didn't work there; playing back at Indian Wells didn't work, either. All anyone has to do is watch the video I posted above.

And, yes, I do believe Medvedev would be doing better TONIGHT if he didn't play back. The first set, after all, went to an uncomfortable tie breaker, did it not? And now, instead of possibly winning in straight sets, off to the 4th set we go. This match is far from over. This is what I typed tonight:

"He barely won the first set even with Carlos playing so poorly"

"Imagine if Medvedev didn't play so far back? It would be an even bigger rout for Medvedev at this point."




If you are attempting to make a blanket statement over all the times they play then you need to better assert that position.


And that's what I clearly did in a prior post:

I think the point is pretty clear but I guess I have to spell it out; playing THAT FAR back is not a good strategy, even if it works ONE NIGHT when the opponent is clearly having an off night.
 
I think we all know they are not playing at Wimbledon. But playing back didn't work there; playing back at Indian Wells didn't work, either. All anyone has to do is watch the video I posted above.

And, yes, I do believe Medvedev would be doing better TONIGHT if he didn't play back. The first set, after all, went to an uncomfortable tie breaker, did it not? And now, instead of possibly winning in straight sets, off to the 4th set we go. This match is far from over. This is what I typed tonight:

"He barely won the first set even with Carlos playing so poorly"

"Imagine if Medvedev didn't play so far back? It would be an even bigger rout for Medvedev at this point."







And that's what I clearly did in a prior post:

I think the point is pretty clear but I guess I have to spell it out; playing THAT FAR back is not a good strategy, even if it works ONE NIGHT when the opponent is clearly having an off night.

The 3rd and 4th set have no bearing on your comment about doing better at 2-0, you are pursuing a differing line of reasoning based on the idiocy of your initial comment. You stated Medvedev would be doing better through 2 sets if he was playing closer in, even though he was up two sets.
Spin it all you want, that was your comment and the outcome of this match or any other has no bearing on what you stated.
 
I'm laughing because you're being ridiculous. You are claiming that the player up two sets is being "schooled" by his opponent. That is laughable.


Alcaraz is not schooling him once again at the net with drop shots? What's laughable is you not recognizing this. And yes, 20 year old and #1 in the world Acaraz is having an off night and is down 2 sets to 1 but it does not change the point, which, for some reason, you cannot grasp.

Net points won (earlier in the match):

26 of 30 (87%) for Alcaraz

87% is schooling if there ever was.
 
The 3rd and 4th set have no bearing on your comment about doing better at 2-0, you are pursuing a differing line of reasoning based on the idiocy of your initial comment. You stated Medvedev would be doing better through 2 sets if he was playing closer in, even though he was up two sets.
Spin it all you want, that was your comment and the outcome of this match or any other has no bearing on what you stated.

re-read my post and try again.

or don't waste our time and accept defeat.
 
are you saying he will rise on this list?


I responded to your comment that Medvedev would ascend no higher than #3. I pointed out you were wrong and offered you the chance to correct your comment by stating he will not ascend further than his current #3 ranking.
Are you saying he was not #1?
 
Well, this is what I posted:

And, yes, I do believe Medvedev would be doing better TONIGHT if he didn't play back. The first set, after all, went to an uncomfortable tie breaker, did it not?

Glad you finally conceded the point, unsure why you are quoting a different comment when it is not germane to the rout comment discussion.
 
I responded to your comment that Medvedev would ascend no higher than #3. I pointed out you were wrong and offered you the chance to correct your comment by stating he will not ascend further than his current #3 ranking.
Are you saying he was not #1?


LOL

No, I was not wrong. I clearly was not looking back; I was looking at the present. I simply said "that's [#3] as far as he'll ascend, too."

Now, I will offer you a chance to correct your comment.

And I clearly recognized that he has been #1 in the past by showing he's just #18 on the all time weeks #1 list. Not exactly something to brag about.
 
LOL

No, I was not wrong. I clearly was not looking back; I was looking at the present. I simply said "that's [#3] as far as he'll ascend, too."

Now, I will offer you a chance to correct your comment.

And I clearly recognized that he has been #1 in the past by showing he's just #18 on the all time weeks #1 list. Not exactly something to brag about.

That is what I expected, you are unable to make a point with typed word and then spend time defending an idiotic or inaccurate comment.
Your sentence was not clear and lacked basic structure to suggest that it was only forward thinking.
Thats as far as he will ascend, means he will never be higher, he has already, so your comment was inaccurate.
you sound completely defeated, which you are.

hope you have a better night.

Your reading comprehension is as inept as your sentence structuring.
Are you going to explain the superfluous quote?
 
That is what I expected, you are unable to make a point with typed word and then spend time defending an idiotic or inaccurate comment.
Your sentence was not clear and lacked basic structure to suggest that it was only forward thinking.
Thats as far as he will ascend, means he will never be higher, he has already, so your comment was inaccurate.


Your reading comprehension is as inept as your sentence structuring.
Are you going to explain the superfluous quote?

LOL

You complain about my sentence structuring when in your very first sentence you use a comma when you should have used a semi-colon or a period.

Again, just accept defeat. I realize being stupid is probably hard on you and hard to accept but do try to have a better night.

You clearly are not very bright and not worth any more of my time but I am sure you will reply again with more stupid comments. Maybe you will prove me wrong for the first time tonight; I doubt it, however.
 
LOL

You complain about my sentence structuring when in your very first sentence you use a comma when you should have used a semi-colon or a period.

Again, just accept defeat. I realize being stupid is probably hard on you and hard to accept but do try to have a better night.

You clearly are not very bright and not worth any more of my time but I am sure you will reply again with more stupid comments. Maybe you will prove me wrong for the first time tonight; I doubt it, however.

Fran, why do you avoid addressing direct questions?
 
Still wasting my time. Still have yet to prove me wrong tonight.

We're done here.

Thank you for again conceding that you made an idiotic post regarding the status of the match when the score was 2 sets to zero.
Hope you were able to enjoy the match tonight even though the guy getting “schooled” was victorious 3-1.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DFSNOLE
Thank you for again conceding that you made an idiotic post regarding the status of the match when the score was 2 sets to zero.
Hope you were able to enjoy the match tonight even though the guy getting “schooled” was victorious 3-1.

LOL

I clearly did not concede a thing. What I did do, however, was easily punch holes in all of your idiotic statments. I am not surprised that you fail to see this. You have failed all night, after all.
 
LOL

I clearly did not concede a thing. What I did do, however, was easily punch holes in all of your idiotic statments. I am not surprised that you fail to see this. You have failed all night, after all.
Your ability to comprehend that you conceded is less surprising than Medvedev's victory.


We're done here.

Another inaccuracy in your posting, the pattern is crystal clear at this point.
 
Your ability to comprehend that you conceded is less surprising than Medvedev's victory.




Another inaccuracy in your posting, the pattern is crystal clear at this point.

LOL

Again, I clearly did not concede a thing. What I did do, however, was easily punch holes in all of your idiotic statements. Again, I am not surprised that you fail to see this. You have failed all night, after all.

You're going to reply again, aren't you? It's crystal clear at this point!

LOL
 
What a match!! I mean the tennis not whatever stupid shit is going on in this thread. Lol

Hope Medvedev can beat Djoker again. Should be a great match.
 
Man after Med v Alcaraz I thought today was going to be a much better match. Kudos to the man. Cool moments with his family
 
  • Like
Reactions: Franisdaman
Novak Djokovic won his 24th major championship this evening, beating Daniil Medvedev 6-3, 7-6 (7-5), 6-3 in the 2023 US Open final. The 2023 US Open was Djokovic's 36th Major Final (most all-time, men & women)

Djokovic leads Roger Federer 24-20 in career Grand Slam titles. Djokovic has won 12 of the last 20 major tournaments he has participated in (it would have been 13 of 20 had he not been disqualified at the 2020 US Open for striking a line judge with a ball). He did not participate in 2 majors during this span because of his refusal to get vaccinated for covid (Novak was deported from Australia in Jan 2022 before the Australian Open and he was not allowed to fly to the United States ahead of the 2022 US Open under a covid rule that has since been lifted).


(24 Grand Slam Titles, 389 weeks as World #1) Djokovic has won:

10 Australian Opens
7 Wimbledon
4 U.S. Opens
3 French Opens


(22 Grand Slam Titles, 209 weeks as World #1) Nadal has won:

2 Australian Opens
2 Wimbledon
4 U.S. Opens
14 French Opens


(20 Grand Slam Titles, 310 weeks as World #1) Federer has won:

6 Australian Opens
8 Wimbledon
5 U.S. Opens
1 French Open


Career Grand Slam Titles

At the start of 2011:

16: Federer
14: Sampras
..9: Nadal
...1...Djokovic

Grand Slam titles since 2011:
23. Djokovic
13: Nadal
.4: Federer


Overall Grand Slam Titles:

24 Novak Djokovic
24 Margaret Court
23 Serena Williams
22 Rafael Nadal
22 Steffi Graf
20 Roger Federer


Here's when the Big 3 and Carlos Alcaraz won their first major:

At age 19, in 2022--Alcaraz's 1st Grand Slam win, at the US Open


At age 20, in 2008--Djokovic's 1st Grand Slam win, at the Australian Open. He interrupted Federer & Nadal's streak of 11 consecutive majors


At age 19, in 2005
--Nadal's 1st Grand Slam win, at the the French Open


At age 22, in 2003--Federer's 1st Grand Slam win, at Wimbledon


Top 5: Overall Weeks as World #1:

389 Novak Djokovic
377 Steffi Graf
332 Martina Navratilova
319 Serena Williams
310 Roger Federer

(209 Rafael Nadal)
 
  • Like
Reactions: DooBi

Most Years With 3 Or More Major Titles -- Men & Women All-Time

Margaret Court5
Steffi Graf5
Novak Djokovic4*
Roger Federer3

* 2023, 2021, 2015 and 2011
 
  • Like
Reactions: DooBi
I guess I need to post a whole bunch of laughing emojis; I'm laughing so hard, I have tears, TEARS, i tell you.

All this back and forth bitching and arguing--on a freaking TENNIS thread? This has been hysterical. I'm surprised someone didn't bring up Trump's name in all this.

Martin Lawrence Lol GIF by Martin
 
I guess I need to post a whole bunch of laughing emojis; I'm laughing so hard, I have tears, TEARS, i tell you.

All this back and forth bitching and arguing--on a freaking TENNIS thread? This has been hysterical. I'm surprised someone didn't bring up Trump's name in all this.

Martin Lawrence Lol GIF by Martin
I dont get it. Everyone has to like the same sports?
 
The author of the story linked at the end of this post argues that Novak is the GOAT; he then ranks all 24 of Djokovic's grand slam titles.

8 of Novak's 24 titles came by beating Nadal/Federer in the final.

4 times he defeated Federer in the Final:
* 2014 Wimbledon (Roger was 32 years old)
* 2015 Wimbledon
* 2015 US Open
* 2019 Wimbledon (Roger was 37 years old)

4 times he defeated Nadal in the Final:
* 2011 Wimbledon (Rafa was 25 years old)
* 2011 US Open
* 2012 Australian Open
* 2019 Australian Open (Rafa was 32 years old)


Djokovic's 12 losses in Grand Slam Finals:
2007 US Open vs Federer

2010 US Open vs Nadal
2012 French Open vs Nadal
2013 US Open vs Nadal
2014 French Open vs Nadal
2020 French Open vs Nadal

2012 US Open vs Murray
2013 Wimbledon vs Murray
2015 French Open vs Wawrinka
2016 US Open vs Wawrinka
2021 US Open vs Medvedev
2023 Wimbledon vs Alcaraz


The Story:



F5s44sMbsAMiZzy
 
Last edited:

Majors Record makes Novak Djokovic Best in History, Nadal says


  • ESPN News Services
  • Sep 20, 2023, 07:04 AM ET

Rafael Nadal's most recent Grand Slam win came at the French Open in 2022, and with Novak Djokovic having overtaken his mark for most major titles in men's tennis, the Spanish player conceded that his rival is the best player in history.

Djokovic's recent win at the US Open, his third Grand Slam title this year, took his tally to 24 majors, two ahead of Nadal's total.

"I believe that numbers are numbers and statistics are statistics. In that sense, I think he [Djokovic] has better numbers than mine and that is indisputable," Nadal said in an interview with AS published Wednesday.

"This is the truth. The rest are tastes, inspiration, sensations that one or the other may transmit to you, that you may like one or the other more," he added. "I think that with respect to titles, Djokovic is the best in history and there is nothing to discuss about that."

Nadal has been hampered by injury issues in recent years, missing the past three majors with a lingering hip issue and sitting out Wimbledon and the US Open in 2021.

He has not played in a tournament since losing in the second round of the Australian Open in January and said in May that he expected 2024 to be the final season of his tennis career.

However, he told AS doesn't want his injury history to be used as an excuse.

"As always, everyone can see the story as they wish, saying that I suffered many injuries. Bad luck for me or bad luck that I had my body this way," he said. "He has had another one, and in some ways that is also part of the sport. I congratulate him for everything he is achieving, and it doesn't cause me any kind of frustration."

Nadal, 37, also spoke about fellow Spaniard and new kid on the block Carlos Alcaraz, the 20-year-old winner of this year's Wimbledon.

"He has been the world No. 1 until recently. Although he's very young right now, practically the only rival I see for him is Djokovic," Nadal said.

Despite losing his Grand Slam record to current world No. 1 Djokovic, Nadal is more than happy with what he has achieved in his career.

"I said it when I was the one with the most Slams, I said it when we were tied, and I say it now that I am behind: I am not going to be the one who tries, through a personal struggle, to want to be what I am not," Nadal said. "What is, is, and what is not, is not. I say this: I am very satisfied with everything that I have done."

Reuters contributed to this report.

 
  • Like
Reactions: seminoleed
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT