Who is the greater tennis player: Djokovic vs Wilander [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Who is the greater tennis player: Djokovic vs Wilander

sexybeast
06-02-2011, 04:16 PM
Ok, this sounds like the most trollish poll ever, true bandwagon style or as a jinxing thread or something. But please let me explain.

I have always valued to find objective ways to really compare greatness of tennis players in different generations, but in the end I have found it quite boring and limiting. I find myself almost arguing for things I dont really belive in because the numbers soeak that way. We have different numbers, this player won 7 grand slams, that player won 2 grand slams and so on or how many years did this and that player end nr1.

In the end this kind of rational arguments ends with real limitations, we end up talking about other things than tennis, we discuss numbers.

What I want with this thread is to ask questions that seem absurd because we are so obsessed with numbers like if Djokovic is a greater tennis player than Wilander?

Some will say this is absurd, other will say wait and see what results he will produce in the future. But if you can see Djokovic's greatness already you should be ready to compare them before the numbers allow you to do this.

I will revisit this thread in some years, it will be kind of interesting to look back at what you will say no matter what kind of results Djokovic will have.

I will begin by saying that I dont really like Djokovic as a tennis player but I cant see how he will be stopped from reaching status as a great, 6 slams minimum and I would say he is a better tennis player than Wilander already, there is more potential in him, more weapons and more athletism. Anyway, I couldnt really see he had this much potential only 6 months ago, so I feel like a bandwaggoner now that I understand he might dominate tennis for a couple of years.

Anyway, this is an experiment but maybe I should have done this when Djokovic was a little bit less "hot".

sexybeast
06-02-2011, 04:48 PM
I didnt just want to make a thread about predicting numbers aswell, so it got a little bit messed up.

Think, for a moment what makes an athlete great besides numbers?

We know in 100 meters that the number 2 today is actually the 2nd greatest 100 m runner of all time. He hasnt won alot but he is the 2nd fastest 100 m runner of all time.

In other sports all we have is subjective analysis, that can be completely not neutral and just based on how much we like or dislike certain players.

I just wanted to have a thread without objectivity and numbers, only your subjective reasoning. Compare their opponents, compare raquet technology, dont compare numbers.

Comparing numbers just gets you to compare a certain limited truth which is what a player has achieved, I just wanted to go beyond that. Instead of discussing numbers, can we talk about these both players real qualities as tennis players?

Wilander's tennis brain, Djokovic's movement, how would they do against different kind of opponents, how would they do in different eras with different raquet technology?

I heard someone say that all great players would be great in all eras, but this cant possibly be true in my mind. Anyway, I didnt really have an answer how to compare players without numbers but I wanted to hear what you had in mind about the subject.

rocketassist
06-02-2011, 04:50 PM
Wilander 7 slams, including a grass AO. Incomparable at this point.

finishingmove
06-02-2011, 04:50 PM
they should comment on eurosport together

Mechlan
06-02-2011, 04:54 PM
Interesting thought but the comparison you're asking for is probably impossible here because most posters have likely never seen Wilander play.

Action Jackson
06-02-2011, 04:54 PM
Someone is hell bored.

vn01
06-02-2011, 05:05 PM
obviously wilander

oranges
06-02-2011, 05:12 PM
Bandwagon is an understatement :lol: So are you actually asking/predicting he'll surpass Wilander's achievements because subjective views of greatness game-wise are of dubious point even when generations are closer and more comparable. If so, no. If you're looking mainly for subjective part, I'll only offer that Edberg is the indisputable GOAT :p

alter ego
06-02-2011, 05:14 PM
they should comment on eurosport together

I agree. Hope they will comment the RG final together!

velikikomsa@gmai
06-02-2011, 05:21 PM
You just can't compare player from different generations, but if I must chose then I'll say Djokovic for sure if you ignore their GS titles. Todays tennis is just another sport in comparison with tennis 10, 20 or 30 years ago.

sexybeast
06-02-2011, 05:21 PM
Wilander is a mystery to me, sometimes I think he achieved alot mostly because he was a bad matchup for Lendl and Connors/Mcenroe/Edberg/Becker all sucked on red clay and the Australian open was valued so little in the 80s. He was taken to 5 sets by 18 year old Agassi on red clay in his best year 1988 and after that year he did absolutely nothing for the rest of his career, he was 24 1988.....

I am sorry to offend Wilander fans, I really cant think of any greater overachiever than Wilander. I sometimes doubt Wilander would even win slams had he been born 10 years later or earlier.

Anyway, I would never take from Wilander what he has achieved and I could be completely wrong about everything. Still these are my honest thoughts about Wilander's tennis.

I still love Wilander as a personality, unlike Djokovic so there is no hate against Wilander from my part.

Action Jackson
06-02-2011, 05:28 PM
Wilander is a mystery to me, sometimes I think he achieved alot mostly because he was a bad matchup for Lendl and Connors/Mcenroe/Edberg/Becker all sucked on red clay and the Australian open was valued so little in the 80s. He was taken to 5 sets by 18 year old Agassi on red clay in his best year 1988 and after that year he did absolutely nothing for the rest of his career, he was 24 1988.....

I am sorry to offend Wilander fans, I really cant think of any greater overachiever than Wilander. I dont think Wilander would even win slams had he been born 10 years later or earlier.

If you don't go on with bandwagoning , then you wouldn't make silly comments like the above. He peaked for the Slams, rest of the tour was boring for him. Lendl had a 15-7 H2H in favour, they were evenly matched in Slams so he wasn't a bad match up.

It was cause of the 80s the Aus Open got on track because Lendl, McEnroe, Wilander played it, then the other top ones played it. Since he peaked for Slams, the others during his era Lendl, McEnroe, Becker and Edberg were better day in day out.

He got taken to 5 sets by Slobodan Zivojinovic as well in 88. He won matches through his mental strength, tactical adaptability and not talent. Once he reached the top in 88, he didn't have the Lendl relentlessness to stay here. It's really not hard to fathom, the information is clearly out there.

The game isn't even close to the same then as it now, so stop using this current timeframe to compare with the game in the 80s when it was clearly different.

sexybeast
06-02-2011, 05:38 PM
If you don't go on with bandwagoning , then you wouldn't make silly comments like the above. He peaked for the Slams, rest of the tour was boring for him. Lendl had a 15-7 H2H in favour, they were evenly matched in Slams so he wasn't a bad match up.

It was cause of the 80s the Aus Open got on track because Lendl, McEnroe, Wilander played it, then the other top ones played it. Since he peaked for Slams, the others during his era Lendl, McEnroe, Becker and Edberg were better day in day out.

He got taken to 5 sets by Slobodan Zivojinovic as well in 88. He won matches through his mental strength, tactical adaptability and not talent. Once he reached the top in 88, he didn't have the Lendl relentlessness to stay here. It's really not hard to fathom, the information is clearly out there.

The game isn't even close to the same then as it now, so stop using this current timeframe to compare with the game in the 80s when it was clearly different.

You are right, Wilander was not really a bad matchup for Lendl but was mentaly just stronger than Lendl in the right moments in his career, Lendl always was a better tennis player. I think Wilander is the kind of player who really could not have achieved anything more than he did in his era. Yes, he was a tactical genius but this would never be enought in the 90s when power tennis meant you hadnt as much time to think on the court and place the ball where you want to.

Subjective reasoning in tennis is difficult because the game is very different in every era, but that doesnt make it useless to have it as base for a discussion. We can discuss about 16 beeing more than 14 beeing more than 9 all day or we can move away from numbers and talk about tennis in different eras, about the fortune of beeing born in the right time or how certain kind of tennis styles dissappear with the evolution of raquet techonology.

bright
06-02-2011, 05:39 PM
I dunno about as tennis players... but if Djoko happens to be a TV host at some point of his after-tennis life, then I bet he would be 10000 times better than this constantly ass-licking pseudo-expert Wilander.:o

xdrewitdajx
06-02-2011, 05:40 PM
interesting that Wilander seems to have won 6 slams before he finally reached the #1 ranking! unless I'm looking at something wrong

Action Jackson
06-02-2011, 05:43 PM
interesting that Wilander seems to have won 6 slams before he finally reached the #1 ranking! unless I'm looking at something wrong

You're right. The 1988 US Open final was the match where Wilander took the number 1 ranking from Lendl. He only won Palermo as #1, then it was downhill from there.

Bobby
06-02-2011, 05:46 PM
You are right, Wilander was not really a bad matchup for Lendl but was mentaly just stronger than Lendl in the right moments in his career, Lendl always was a better tennis player. I think Wilander is the kind of player who really could not have achieved anything more than he did in his era. Yes, he was a tactical genius but this would never be enought in the 90s when power tennis meant you hadnt as much time to think on the court and place the ball where you want to.

Subjective reasoning in tennis is difficult because the game is very different in every era, but that doesnt make it useless to have it as base for a discussion. We can discuss about 16 beeing more than 14 beeing more than 9 all day or we can move away from numbers and talk about tennis in different eras, about the fortune of beeing born in the right time or how certain kind of tennis styles dissappear with the evolution of raquet techonology.

Just because the game evolved and was faster in the nineties, doesn't mean Wilander was not a great player. Besides, tennis has always been a very tactical game and it still is.

Action Jackson
06-02-2011, 05:47 PM
You are right, Wilander was not really a bad matchup for Lendl but was mentaly just stronger than Lendl in the right moments in his career, Lendl always was a better tennis player. I think Wilander is the kind of player who really could not have achieved anything more than he did in his era. Yes, he was a tactical genius but this would never be enought in the 90s when power tennis meant you hadnt as much time to think on the court and place the ball where you want to.

Subjective reasoning in tennis is difficult because the game is very different in every era, but that doesnt make it useless to have it as base for a discussion. We can discuss about 16 beeing more than 14 beeing more than 9 all day or we can move away from numbers and talk about tennis in different eras, about the fortune of beeing born in the right time or how certain kind of tennis styles dissappear with the evolution of raquet techonology.

You still keep on with these threads, when it's not even close to comparing even with generations when less time has passed.

Yes, it is useless as Wilander didn't play in the 90s at his peak and no matter how many times I say it, you don't get it. He wouldn't play the same if he was at that time, just Nadal or Djokovic wouldn't play like they do now if transported back to that time or when they have retired and the style of tennis will have changed again.

Tacticians work in any era.

yesh222
06-02-2011, 05:55 PM
Better player is always impossible to compare between different eras and styles. Wilander is still far more accomplished.

MaxPower
06-02-2011, 06:07 PM
I'm obviously a bit biased but Wilander was simply a very smart player. He understood the game completely and also how he could adapt his own game to have the best possible chance to win depending on the opponents style and the surface and weather conditions. If his era was different he would have adapted to that. Maybe he hadn't been as successful who knows but he would have found a way to be very hard to beat.

Djokovic too me is more machine-like. He is the perfect modern player. Fast, strong, great serve, good returns, amazing mental strength. No need to adapt. Just put him on court and he will do his thing. When we sum up his career he might very well have 7+ slams and been nr1 for a longer stretch. But he is a very different player and will get his achievements in a very different way.

sexybeast
06-02-2011, 07:14 PM
Let me be more specific about the limitation of thinking in numbers how great a tennis player was.

Let me take the case of Hewitt, some players have their fate decided by one single player in their same era. Now Hewitt is considered a "2", if Federer would be born 2 years before he would be considered a "0" and if Federer would have decided to be a soccer player Hewitt would probably be a "5".

All the same he would be the same player, he could have been a "5" or a "0" but still the quality of his tennis would be the same.

Fortune plays a role in every part in life, I consider some tennis players fortunate and others less so.

Murray I consider very unfortunate, in different eras you could win slams beating players like Enqvist, Todd Martin, Clement and Schuettler but he found himself in an era where the dominant forces just wont stop appearing in semifinals and finals of grand slams. Murray most often needs to beat 2 of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic to win a slam. Kafelnikov needed to beat Sampras on clay and Stich to win his RG and he needed to beat Enqvist in the final of Australian Open to win his other slam.

I consider Murray not only a greater talent than Kafelnikov but also a better tennis player. He might end up beeing a "0" in the end of his career, but I will always remember him as a special tennis player (taking into consideration mentality, work ethics, dedication and all else that is part of the game).

I am not talking about "greater talent". Safin is a great talent who would not have won much more than 2 slams in any other era because he would always be his own worst enemy and would have it in him to beat a "Federer" aswell as lose to Johansson in slam finals.

Today Djokovic is considered a "2" and it is an atrocity to compare a "2" to a "7", in 4 years Djokovic might be a "8" but he will still be the same tennis player as today, just a bit older and probably in decline.

Action Jackson
06-02-2011, 07:16 PM
Keep digging.

sexybeast
06-02-2011, 07:31 PM
I am just showing the difficulty in comparing greatness with or without numbers, I am not trying to give any answers.

LawrenceOfTennis
06-02-2011, 07:34 PM
At the moment Djokovic looks far more impressive but that's mostly because of his streaks freshness. Tennis from the old days looks less impressive for most people, I know why. But 30 years later when tennis lovers look at stats, they will see Wilander's 7 slams, and Djokovic 4-5 slams ( I think ).Of course he can surpass Wilander with more than 7 slams but that's unlikely to happen IMO.

LawrenceOfTennis
06-02-2011, 07:39 PM
Let me be more specific about the limitation of thinking in numbers how great a tennis player was.

Let me take the case of Hewitt, some players have their fate decided by one single player in their same era. Now Hewitt is considered a "2", if Federer would be born 2 years before he would be considered a "0" and if Federer would have decided to be a soccer player Hewitt would probably be a "5".

All the same he would be the same player, he could have been a "5" or a "0" but still the quality of his tennis would be the same.

Fortune plays a role in every part in life, I consider some tennis players fortunate and others less so.

Murray I consider very unfortunate, in different eras you could win slams beating players like Enqvist, Todd Martin, Clement and Schuettler but he found himself in an era where the dominant forces just wont stop appearing in semifinals and finals of grand slams. Murray most often needs to beat 2 of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic to win a slam. Kafelnikov needed to beat Sampras on clay and Stich to win his RG and he needed to beat Enqvist in the final of Australian Open to win his other slam.

I consider Murray not only a greater talent than Kafelnikov but also a better tennis player. He might end up beeing a "0" in the end of his career, but I will always remember him as a special tennis player (taking into consideration mentality, work ethics, dedication and all else that is part of the game).

I am not talking about "greater talent". Safin is a great talent who would not have won much more than 2 slams in any other era because he would always be his own worst enemy and would have it in him to beat a "Federer" aswell as lose to Johansson in slam finals.

Today Djokovic is considered a "2" and it is an atrocity to compare a "2" to a "7", in 4 years Djokovic might be a "8" but he will still be the same tennis player as today, just a bit older and probably in decline.

If we talking about unfortunate players....well by far the most unfortunate player is Del Potro. After winning the USO he kept improving and beat Federer again in London, then came the injury...but let's consider what if Del Potro could have continued the improving process...I think in that case we couldn't talk about Nadal's career GS now ( Del Potro almost surely have taken the USO again in 2010) and possibly not about this unbeliviable Djokovic streak. Del Potro had/ has huge potential - you can call him a ballbasher - and mentally a huge one too. So I don't consider Murray unfortunate at all, I don't see him that talented.

sexybeast
06-02-2011, 07:40 PM
You still keep on with these threads, when it's not even close to comparing even with generations when less time has passed.

Yes, it is useless as Wilander didn't play in the 90s at his peak and no matter how many times I say it, you don't get it. He wouldn't play the same if he was at that time, just Nadal or Djokovic wouldn't play like they do now if transported back to that time or when they have retired and the style of tennis will have changed again.

Tacticians work in any era.

I doubt tacticians work in any era, in an era where you have more time to think between points obviously there is more room for tactics.

Just like if your strength is reflexes and touch at the net an era where your opponents generate spin easily like in this era makes it very difficult for players to take advantage of their special talent. Players like Edberg, Mcenroe and Rafter are my favorite players but I just doubt they would make it today with modern raquets limiting players with their special talent.

People are born with different talents, in different eras different talents pay off. This era awards athletism more than touch and sensitive wrists, strength and endurance more than reflexes at the net and tactical mind.

sexybeast
06-02-2011, 07:51 PM
At the moment Djokovic looks far more impressive but that's mostly because of his streaks freshness. Tennis from the old days looks less impressive for most people, I know why. But 30 years later when tennis lovers look at stats, they will see Wilander's 7 slams, and Djokovic 4-5 slams ( I think ).Of course he can surpass Wilander with more than 7 slams but that's unlikely to happen IMO.

I dont think tennis players look less impressive in other eras, most players excell in many areas compared to players today, specialy in their netgame ofcourse but also in mixing things up. It is just that Wilander in my opinion is the great overachiever of his generation, but this is nothing else than an opinion and people are free to disagree with me. I cant really accept Wilander beeing ranked at the same level as Edberg or Mcenroe. For example Wilander won 2 Australian Opens on grass (slow, but still...) and Wilander was known as a quite bad grasscourt player, there he defeated grasscourt legend Lendl once and the other time Kevin Curren 1984.

At this year Mcenroe was unbeatable on many surfaces but specialy on grass. He just didnt feel like going to Australia like many other players in his time and if he did he never took it seriously. If Mcenroe would have cared about the Australian Open as much as Wilander their slam counts would be very different.

oranges
06-02-2011, 08:15 PM
Let me be more specific about the limitation of thinking in numbers how great a tennis player was.

Let me take the case of Hewitt, some players have their fate decided by one single player in their same era. Now Hewitt is considered a "2", if Federer would be born 2 years before he would be considered a "0" and if Federer would have decided to be a soccer player Hewitt would probably be a "5".

...yada, yada...



Yet, funnily enough, all those unfortunate enough to be born earlier or later than would be opportune tend to be current players, while those fortunate are as a rule from before :zzz: You'd think no one ever had any competition until Federer arrived. There were far better periods than this one and Wilander had plenty of competition, get over it. Think of Murray as poor man's Wilander if it helps get some perspective. Personally, he bored to me to tears as well, but your arguments have zero weight.

Bottom line is, if you believe Djokovic is better, he should be able to at least achieve comparable things.

Vida
06-02-2011, 08:28 PM
Yet, funnily enough, all those unfortunate enough to be born earlier or later than would be opportune tend to be current players, while those fortunate are as a rule from before :zzz: You'd think no one ever had any competition until Federer arrived. There were far better periods than this one and Wilander had plenty of competition, get over it. Think of Murray as poor man's Wilander if it helps get some perspective. Personally, he bored to me to tears as well, but your arguments have zero weight.

Bottom line is, if you believe Djokovic is better, he should be able to at least achieve comparable things.

not necessarily. he may have lacking in luck the other player has, and this win less :shrug:

he also might have an illness or an accident that has nothing to do with how 'good' he is.

oranges
06-02-2011, 08:32 PM
not necessarily. he may have lacking in luck the other player has, and this win less :shrug:

he also might have an illness or an accident that has nothing to do with how 'good' he is.

I don't think anyone would care even five years from now, let alone 20. You do what you do with what's given to you. Otherwise, Haas is superior to Djokovic, which wouldn't be a bad thing at all, but it's just not how it works. If you want to boast, you gotta have something to back it up. Simples.

Mountaindewslave
06-02-2011, 08:44 PM
Let me be more specific about the limitation of thinking in numbers how great a tennis player was.

Let me take the case of Hewitt, some players have their fate decided by one single player in their same era. Now Hewitt is considered a "2", if Federer would be born 2 years before he would be considered a "0" and if Federer would have decided to be a soccer player Hewitt would probably be a "5".

All the same he would be the same player, he could have been a "5" or a "0" but still the quality of his tennis would be the same.

Fortune plays a role in every part in life, I consider some tennis players fortunate and others less so.

Murray I consider very unfortunate, in different eras you could win slams beating players like Enqvist, Todd Martin, Clement and Schuettler but he found himself in an era where the dominant forces just wont stop appearing in semifinals and finals of grand slams. Murray most often needs to beat 2 of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic to win a slam. Kafelnikov needed to beat Sampras on clay and Stich to win his RG and he needed to beat Enqvist in the final of Australian Open to win his other slam.

I consider Murray not only a greater talent than Kafelnikov but also a better tennis player. He might end up beeing a "0" in the end of his career, but I will always remember him as a special tennis player (taking into consideration mentality, work ethics, dedication and all else that is part of the game).

I am not talking about "greater talent". Safin is a great talent who would not have won much more than 2 slams in any other era because he would always be his own worst enemy and would have it in him to beat a "Federer" aswell as lose to Johansson in slam finals.

Today Djokovic is considered a "2" and it is an atrocity to compare a "2" to a "7", in 4 years Djokovic might be a "8" but he will still be the same tennis player as today, just a bit older and probably in decline.

i understand what sexy beast is saying, he is saying that (those who are familiar with both Djokovic and Wilander's games) he wants you to say which player you think is more talented or has a better skillset overall. their style of plays, their mentality, how they handled big situations----- which player is stronger. as he has stated and is correct, results are not really what one would use to compare talent as luck can be involved a lot with results. it's easier, much easier, to compare players from different generations with their results and very hard to compare them by talent because it has been a long time since Wilander played and Djokovic is so fresh in our minds...... I can't say an opinion either way, but I am surprised no one has responded to this thread by at least saying which player they think is 'better'. certainly people have an opinion on the matter and certainly at their best one had more talent than the other... i would be surprised if Wilander had DJokovic's talent but I haven't seen him play very much

Dougie
06-02-2011, 08:50 PM
I doubt tacticians work in any era, in an era where you have more time to think between points obviously there is more room for tactics.

Just like if your strength is reflexes and touch at the net an era where your opponents generate spin easily like in this era makes it very difficult for players to take advantage of their special talent. Players like Edberg, Mcenroe and Rafter are my favorite players but I just doubt they would make it today with modern raquets limiting players with their special talent.

People are born with different talents, in different eras different talents pay off. This era awards athletism more than touch and sensitive wrists, strength and endurance more than reflexes at the net and tactical mind.

You think Edberg, Mcenroe and Rafter would play the way they did, if they were playing in this era? No way. Players like Mac and Edberg would have made it to the top in any era, they just wouldn´t have played the same way.

sexybeast
06-02-2011, 09:02 PM
Yet, funnily enough, all those unfortunate enough to be born earlier or later than would be opportune tend to be current players, while those fortunate are as a rule from before :zzz: You'd think no one ever had any competition until Federer arrived. There were far better periods than this one and Wilander had plenty of competition, get over it. Think of Murray as poor man's Wilander if it helps get some perspective. Personally, he bored to me to tears as well, but your arguments have zero weight.

Bottom line is, if you believe Djokovic is better, he should be able to at least achieve comparable things.

Not at all, I am not saying Hewitt is unfortunate. I am saying Hewitt could be seen as fortunate to have dominated in an era without greats 2001-2002 or he could be seen as unfortunate to have played in Federer's era 2004-2005.

I see Hewitt as a neutral player in the unfortunate-fortunate scale. I am just saying that Hewitt could if he was lucky have won 5 slams and if he would be unlucky he would have won 0 slams, but in both cases he would be the same tennis player, only we would have seen him as in case 1)a loser with 0 slams who always was runner up and lost to Federer in every slam 2)as one of the legends of the sport with 5-6 slams.

But in both these cases he would have been the same tennis player, so how can his slam counts meassure his greatness as a tennis player?

The same kind of reasoning could be applied with many old champions.

Certinfy
06-02-2011, 09:05 PM
After hearing all the shit Wilander says regarding tennis on Eurosport? Djokovic.

tyruk14
06-02-2011, 09:07 PM
Ban everyone who voted for Djokovic. I mean there really is no excuse.

oranges
06-02-2011, 09:14 PM
But in both these cases he would have been the same tennis player, so how can his slam counts meassure his greatness as a tennis player?


Any kind of completely subjective criteria you could set up results in far more meaningless conclusions than any fortune that might affect player's careers. So how does that help your argument? If you wish to talk like that, like I said, Haas is a better player than Djokovic. Infinitely more talented, gorgeous variety, as unlucky as you could possibly get short of being ran over by a bus. I have a stronger case than you with Wilander-Djokovic. Does that seem like a fruitful direction for a discussion at all?

Vastly different accomplishments settles this issue pretty clearly and unless they come close, there's nothing to discuss. The very fact that you started this thread now and not this time last year should tell you something about it's value as well. If this superior game is evident at all, you wouldn't have needed actual results to come up with it. :shrug:

Shirogane
06-02-2011, 09:32 PM
If you wish to talk like that, like I said, Haas is a better player than Djokovic. Infinitely more talented, gorgeous variety, as unlucky as you could possibly get short of being ran over by a bus. I still remember him rolling his ankle on a ball while practising serve during warm-up at Wimbledon. :o

sexybeast
06-02-2011, 09:42 PM
Any kind of completely subjective criteria you could set up results in far more meaningless conclusions than any fortune that might affect player's careers. So how does that help your argument? If you wish to talk like that, like I said, Haas is a better player than Djokovic. Infinitely more talented, gorgeous variety, as unlucky as you could possibly get short of being ran over by a bus. I have a stronger case than you with Wilander-Djokovic. Does that seem like a fruitful direction for a discussion at all?

Vastly different accomplishments settles this issue pretty clearly and unless they come close, there's nothing to discuss. The very fact that you started this thread now and not this time last year should tell you something about it's value as well. If this superior game is evident at all, you wouldn't have needed actual results to come up with it. :shrug:

Yes, but I admited my own weakness in seeing greatness in tennis players right from the beginning. I couldnt see Djokovic as someone who probably will win 6-8 slams until very late, I didnt see Nadal getting anywhere close to the greatness he achieved, I never thought he would win Usopen and the career slam. Anyway, it was always there and I couldnt see it. I would have laughted at someone comparing Nadal to Borg 3 years ago and I would be wrong to do that.

People are obsessed with numbers and only when they have it on paper they belive some players can be compared with this or that player.

I think someone like Murray has it in him to win 4-5 slams or even more, but if I compare him to someone like Wilander today I would be even more ridiculed than in this thread. In 4 years maybe I would be vindicated by domination from Murray after Nadal and Federer decline and he surpasses Djokovic.

If I would say Lendl will end up a greater tennis player than Mcenroe and Connors 1984 people would make fun of me, people seem to only relly on numbers sometimes even in very personal beliefs on the greatness of different tennis players.

I would rather seperate 2 different kind of analysis, one where I have a personal opinion on how to compare achievments (a kind of subjective-objective analysis based on numbers) and another where I have a personal opinion about how great a tennis player really is that goes beyond what he has achieved.

An example: If Federer would have died at the end of 2004 in a car accident I would not be able to rank him as the GOAT based on his achievments but I would still consider him the greatest tennis player I have ever seen together with Laver.

If Hewitt would have died in the end of 2002 he would wrongly be considered a greater tennis player than he really was and Federer would be seen as lucky to have got the oppurtunity to dominate without the real talent of his era around (who also dominated him 7-2 h2h).

eduggs
06-02-2011, 09:49 PM
Gotta be Wilander. Many people probably underappreciate his ability and achievements because they rely on old youtube clips. But he was an all-time great.

Djokovic may be finally realizing his potential, but he is still way behind.

sexybeast
06-02-2011, 09:49 PM
Ban everyone who voted for Djokovic. I mean there really is no excuse.

When I get back here 4 years from now do you feel absolutely certain Djokovic wont get another 5 slams?

Have you seen the young generation coming up? It seems to be a weaker generation than this one, but I could be wrong.

oranges
06-02-2011, 09:50 PM
And I consider Edberg the greatest tennis player ever, but that does not make it so for the general public :lol: Your conundrum about objective/subjective part of the analysis is easily solved. If you believe he's better, you predict he'll surpass Wilander. You're using your subjective judgment, but offering some objective criteria to measure it. Asking us to take your word for it he's better, but offering only excuses why this might not happen is the pointless part.

eduggs
06-02-2011, 09:52 PM
If Djokovic stays hot like this for another year or two, he could match or eclipse Wilander. But he is not a young player and history suggests a regression to the mean.

sexybeast
06-02-2011, 10:02 PM
And I consider Edberg the greatest tennis player ever, but that does not make it so for the general public :lol: Your conundrum about objective/subjective part of the analysis is easily solved. If you believe he's better, you predict he'll surpass Wilander. You're using your subjective judgment, but offering some objective criteria to measure it. Asking us to take your word for it he's better, but offering only excuses why this might not happen is the pointless part.

I dont need excuses because I have disliked Djokovic from the first day I saw him play, I am not trying to jump his bandwagon and become a fan of him but just aknowledging what I can see now on the tennis court.

What you take as excuses is just me trying to add complexity to how we meassure greatness, I already said I have no answers to my problem but it exists no matter if you like it or not.

The hypothesis with Hewitt and also someone like Roddick(another tennis player I dislike) whose greatness relly on only one single variable (Federer) show how suddenly the same tennis player jumps from a "1" to a "6" only because one variable disappears from the equation. Just to make it clear I absolutely dont think Roddick is a "6" but still it would be a problem to have him as a 6-time slam champion without Federer around and nothing could take him away from the status as a "great". If you look back at predictions people made for Roddick 2003 no one thought he would stay a 1-slam wonder, most people really thought he would win 4-7 slams and these people didnt even overestimate Roddick, they underestimated Federer. Obviously the system has these kind of problems and in the end the only conclusion might be that greatness cant be compared at all, I really dont know.

sexybeast
06-02-2011, 10:05 PM
If Djokovic stays hot like this for another year or two, he could match or eclipse Wilander. But he is not a young player and history suggests a regression to the mean.

He is younger than Lendl when he won his first slam and might already have 3 by sunday.

Corey Feldman
06-02-2011, 10:11 PM
poll should have been public so i could see who the 11 idiots are, although i have a fair idea

never compare a 7 time slam winner with a 2 slam wonder

only thing Mats does worse than McHoleo is talk shit

sexybeast
06-02-2011, 10:19 PM
poll should have been public so i could see who the 11 idiots are, although i have a fair idea

never compare a 7 time slam winner with a 2 slam wonder

only thing Mats does worse than McHoleo is talk shit

I dont know about that(feel free to translate yourself):

http://www.eurosport.se/tennis/australian-open/2008/han-ar-bast-i-varlden_sto1455935/story.shtml

Wilander on Tsonga:

He is the greatest tennis player in the world. I have never seen anyone play better than he did.

Wilander on Tsonga vs Federer:

Tsonga has better physics, tactics and technique than Federer. Without the history books Tsonga is better than Federer.

oranges
06-02-2011, 10:45 PM
What you take as excuses is just me trying to add complexity to how we meassure greatness, I already said I have no answers to my problem but it exists no matter if you like it or not.

I'm not sure what part of you need something substantial to make the discussion worthwhile you do not understand. Call it something else if excuses sounds too personal for a player you're not a fan of, I don't care, but unless you make some kind of a commitment regarding actual results, it's useless. It doesn't seem my examples with Haas and Edberg illustrated why, but they should have. You're not making it sound more complex, we're all aware (well, those able to form coherent thoughts, not the fanboy monkeys, but you get the point) of all kinds of complexities in comparing players. What you're doing is avoiding your judgment to be objectively measured at some point.

The hypothesis with Hewitt and also someone like Roddick(another tennis player I dislike) whose greatness relly on only one single variable (Federer) show how suddenly the same tennis player jumps from a "1" to a "6" only because one variable disappears from the equation.

No, it doesn't rely on a single variable named Federer. Both of them would more likely than not have very similar careers in most eras. Years when there was no one better to take over are few and far between and physical decline is a part of the equation no matter when. It seems you're not after making it more complex, but rather simplifying it.

Sophocles
06-02-2011, 10:53 PM
Well obviously Wilander is greater in terms of achievements so far, but that's not the OP's question. Unfortunately it's not clear what the question is. Let me put it like this: can I see Wilander ever going on the kind of streak Djoker's having? No, not in his era, & not in this one. Can I see Djoker ever having 7 slams & a year-end No. 1? Yes I can.

dombrfc
06-02-2011, 10:54 PM
Wilander if you have any idea.

FerrerAndNadal
06-02-2011, 10:56 PM
We need a good old Clay Death "Mods take this thread..." Post

MaxPower
06-02-2011, 11:02 PM
Wouldn't be surprised if some people vote against Wilander for his commentating. It's his freaking job to hype up players and finals. So yeah for example he hyped up Tsonga to epic level when he totally demolished Nadal 6-2, 6-3, 6-2 in AO. He hyped up Del Potro too in similar fashion. Bet more people have seen threads here about trollander than people who have actually seen him play :)

Nothing more boring than experts who can't have a real opinion about anything. Wilander is the opposite. Too many opinions about everything. Wrong sometimes- spot on other times. Usually entertaining

luie
06-02-2011, 11:08 PM
Whoever stated that,this era is stronger than the 80s,have very little knowledge of tennis.

oranges
06-02-2011, 11:11 PM
I am yet to here him have a spot on opinion. By the amount of insight he shows, and I don't mean just the hype, you'd think he was the most brainless player ever and wonder how he ever found his way to the court, let alone played the match :lol:

MatchFederer
06-02-2011, 11:16 PM
This is an excellent thread.

Usually, people must wait for the required statistical results to come before proclaiming that someone is as great or as 'good' a player as one from another era. This thread is asking one to make the call before the achievements have been put in bank.

It's easy to seem like a knowledgeable tennis connoisseur in hindsight, but what about with foresight?

Unfortunately, my knowledge on Wilander is OK at best. I'm not really at liberty to answer this question.

For those who are older and/or who are at liberty, you should try to open your eyes and look at this question in a more proactive manner. At the end of the day, achievements are often only the affirmation of ones excellence; Jim courier said as much for Roger Federer long before he surpassed 14 majors.

Some things a person may believe they can just see and feel. They make the bold prediction already that when all is said and done their intuition will be proved correct. This is pretty much what sexybeast is doing, providing I am right in my thinking. Why wait for the accomplishments to roll in and then say, 'Oh yeah!!'.

Make the call, it's worth a shot.

green25814
06-02-2011, 11:20 PM
Coulda woulda shoulda. You say you don't want to judge via results but the fact is when comparing from different generations ITS ALL WE HAVE. You cannot timedrop players from one era into an other. If Djokovic played in the 80s, he would be TOTALLY different. If Wilander played in the 00s, he would be TOTALLY different. Therefore all we have are results, and the answer is obvious.

MatchFederer
06-02-2011, 11:23 PM
Coulda woulda shoulda. You say you don't want to judge via results but the fact is when comparing from different generations ITS ALL WE HAVE. You cannot timedrop players from one era into an other. If Djokovic played in the 80s, he would be TOTALLY different. If Wilander played in the 00s, he would be TOTALLY different. Therefore all we have are results, and the answer is obvious.

It's all we have in hindsight eventually, but there is no harm in making the early call, letting history be created and finding out if your opinion was well founded or if you are a profound mug.

sexybeast
06-02-2011, 11:27 PM
I'm not sure what part of you need something substantial to make the discussion worthwhile you do not understand. Call it something else if excuses sounds too personal for a player you're not a fan of, I don't care, but unless you make some kind of a commitment regarding actual results, it's useless. It doesn't seem my examples with Haas and Edberg illustrated why, but they should have. You're not making it sound more complex, we're all aware (well, those able to form coherent thoughts, not the fanboy monkeys, but you get the point) of all kinds of complexities in comparing players. What you're doing is avoiding your judgment to be objectively measured at some point.


No, it doesn't rely on a single variable named Federer. Both of them would more likely than not have very similar careers in most eras. Years when there was no one better to take over are few and far between and physical decline is a part of the equation no matter when. It seems you're not after making it more complex, but rather simplifying it.

I understand what you mean when you say discussion can be seen as not worth your time if the discussion is limited to just personal observations that is not based in any way on results on the court, it is difficult to even make arguments that would make someone understand that player X is indeed a special talent that just was born in the wrong era or player Y was fortunate to play in a weak era.

What I tried to show with the Hewitt/Roddick example was how the boundary between beeing regarded as a "great" to be limited to ridicule in the tennis world is sometimes limited to really 1 variable and here we can have base our discussion on something I think.


Roddick was in 10 SFs and 5 Fs, he lost 4 Fs to Federer and 3 SFs. Out of the 9 SF appearances where he failed to win a grand slam 7 was because of Federer. You are right about one thing, I also dont consider his chanses great in any other era except in those crossovers between eras, like between 98 and 02 would be great years for players of Roddick's caliber to peak. What is worrysome is not that Roddick won only 1 slam, but that a player with his limited talent could have won 6 slams if only one player would not exist and in this parallel reallity people would think of him as incomparable to Djokovic or Rafter.

Anyway, I dont consider Haas a great example because he battled with his own demons and really I am not so much interested in players like Haas or Safin who do all the work themselves to put limitations to their own potential, they would have the same head to battle no matter what era they played in, no matter if they played Johansson or Federer/Sampras at the other side of the net.

Roddick on the other hand has had a career limited by only one outside force and that is Federer. So, I am not asking you to revaluate your opinion of Roddick, I am asking you if you would consider Roddick comparable to Wilander, Edberg and Becker had he won 6 slams or if you would hold to what opinion you have today of him as an avarage player with a big serve who would be lucky to play in a weak era in this parallel universe?

oranges
06-02-2011, 11:31 PM
It's all we have in hindsight eventually, but there is no harm in making the early call, letting history be created and finding out if your opinion was well founded or if you are a profound mug.

But that's just it, there's no call about actual results. We are to speculate on their greatness without committing to predictions where their respective achievements will stand at the end of Djokovic's career.

Sophocles
06-02-2011, 11:32 PM
^ I think the point is though, it's hard to imagine any era in which nobody was talented enough to stop Roddick from winning slams.

green25814
06-02-2011, 11:32 PM
It's all we have in hindsight eventually, but there is no harm in making the early call, letting history be created and finding out if your opinion was well founded or if you are a profound mug.

Sure, nothing wrong with predictions. Problem is MTF tends to become blinded very easily by bandwagoning.

sexybeast
06-02-2011, 11:34 PM
Wouldn't be surprised if some people vote against Wilander for his commentating. It's his freaking job to hype up players and finals. So yeah for example he hyped up Tsonga to epic level when he totally demolished Nadal 6-2, 6-3, 6-2 in AO. He hyped up Del Potro too in similar fashion. Bet more people have seen threads here about trollander than people who have actually seen him play :)

Nothing more boring than experts who can't have a real opinion about anything. Wilander is the opposite. Too many opinions about everything. Wrong sometimes- spot on other times. Usually entertaining

I agree, many people hate Wilander as a commentator but I enjoy him alot. He is quite entertaining and mixes it up well between sometimes discussing based on his knowledge on tennis and just beeing an enthustiastic fanatic of tennis players based only on emotions felt and not rationality.

Pure entertainment, that is what I want from tennis commentators and I get that from Wilander.

oranges
06-02-2011, 11:38 PM
Oh please, not the Roddick discussion again. I've had an overdose of it post his last Wimbledon final when the hype was mega. It is dubious how much Roddick would have won even in current era minus Federer, which is an artificial situation par excellance. He's a player of limited talent. Federer is not the only player in the world able to beat him time and again. If he went without a slam to his name, it wouldn't be shocking. That's my own subjective call on Roddick. Scud had more game and is slamless. Goran almost. I could go on.

And as for Haas, Federer battled his own demons early on, but he was able to play and mature. Who are you to say what would happen with Haas' game if he wasn't sidelined more than half the time. But if you'd rather speculate on the misfortunes of the limited players bing born at the time of more talented ones, be my guest. The history books are full of them.

sexybeast
06-02-2011, 11:41 PM
What I am calling for is to see talent, potential and greatness before it is written on paper.

But also to consider fortune as a factor and not only numbers when meassuring greatness, which I know is a hard thing to do with all bias everyone carries with them when they analyse tennis.

sexybeast
06-02-2011, 11:49 PM
Oh please, not the Roddick discussion again. I've had an overdose of it post his last Wimbledon final when the hype was mega. It is dubious how much Roddick would have won even in current era minus Federer, which is an artificial situation par excellance. He's a player of limited talent. Federer is not the only player in the world able to beat him time and again. If he went without a slam to his name, it wouldn't be shocking. That's my own subjective call on Roddick. Scud had more game and is slamless. Goran almost. I could go on.

Ok, all I want you to agree with me is that it is possible for a player with Roddick's limited talent to be a multiple slam winner, I am not trying to make you think again about how talented Roddick is.

If Federer would have become a soccer player, I say Roddick would be the greatest grasscourt player 2003-2005, he would have defeated Philippoussis, Haas, probably Hewitt too in finals. This is what I call a very weak grass era and I think Federer was a player way too talented to play in such a weak grasscourt era, he deserved better opponents. There is no way anyone would beat Roddick in the 2006 Usopen, not Davydenko atleast. What else Roddick would be able to achieve with the added confidence factor I want to leave out, if he would win 2007 AO against Gonzalez and some other more doubtful tournaments I would also leave out.

Goran is a different animal because we know that some of the opponents Sampras beat in SFs in Wimbledon like Becker and Edberg had it in them to beat Ivanisevic in a potential final, even Agassi did that in one Wimbledon final. There is no way however that Roddick would be anything less than a 5-6 slam winner without Federer around and then I just wonder if people wouldnt blindly just follow what is written on paper and compare Roddick to the likes of Becker, Mcenroe and Edberg (sounds terrible, I know)?

sexybeast
06-03-2011, 12:04 AM
And as for Haas, Federer battled his own demons early on, but he was able to play and mature. Who are you to say what would happen with Haas' game if he wasn't sidelined more than half the time. But if you'd rather speculate on the misfortunes of the limited players bing born at the time of more talented ones, be my guest. The history books are full of them.

Sure, Haas is an interesting player to discuss. Problem is that he never really reached any heights at all with his tennis, it had potential but I cant tell how far he could go with his tennis without his injuries. He never had time to even develop a tennis to heights where he in certain important tournaments defeated the greatest tennis players in the world like Nalbandian and Safin did.

It leads to even more speculative discussions than the one I started.

sexybeast
06-03-2011, 12:13 AM
Well obviously Wilander is greater in terms of achievements so far, but that's not the OP's question. Unfortunately it's not clear what the question is. Let me put it like this: can I see Wilander ever going on the kind of streak Djoker's having? No, not in his era, & not in this one. Can I see Djoker ever having 7 slams & a year-end No. 1? Yes I can.

I think you put words in my mouth, I couldnt formulate clearly the question because I had many different thoughts in my mind at the same time. So this discussion could take turns to many different directions.

Anyway, I see in Djokovic what could be called the potential to really dominate. Wilander was more of a player who found some way to win grand slams, most often without even creating that much hype. It is no surprise to me that the year he really made it in the tour and somehow won 3 slams and became world nr1 meant the end of his career.

oranges
06-03-2011, 02:15 AM
Ok, all I want you to agree with me is that it is possible for a player with Roddick's limited talent to be a multiple slam winner, I am not trying to make you think again about how talented Roddick is.

Who cares, really? You have to decide whether you're arguing he perhaps could under some very special circumstances or whether you're saying he would if not for Federer, as was your initial claim. The first does not imply any extraordinary lack of luck, quite the contrary, it's common to have more talented guys around. If Federer would have become a soccer player, I say Roddick would be the greatest grasscourt player 2003-2005, he would have defeated Philippoussis, Haas, probably Hewitt too in finals.


:lol: Talk about overrating Roddick. And I suppose we should take your word for it and this constitutes this complex discussion. I'm certain he would beat Flip as easily as Fed becuase after all he's as good at blocking such serves, not dire returning much worse ones. Hewitt would shit his pants and suddenly forget how return, all so that we can build Roddick into an unbeatable grass monster that only one man could stop and he did. We'll simply forget what his limitations really are becuase it suits your argument to have him as multiple slam winner. Not that hypothetical scenario 'minus-the-best-player-of-the-era' has any merit whatsoever anyway, for where would an entire host of players be if it were not for those better at their time.

Goran is a different animal because we know that some of the opponents Sampras beat in SFs in Wimbledon like Becker and Edberg had it in them to beat Ivanisevic in a potential final, even Agassi did that in one Wimbledon final. There is no way however that Roddick would be anything less than a 5-6 slam winner without Federer around and then I just wonder if people wouldnt blindly just follow what is written on paper and compare Roddick to the likes of Becker, Mcenroe and Edberg (sounds terrible, I know)?

OK, I'm done, too ridiculous for my taste. Unlike Roddick, Goran was able to beat the best grasscourt player of his time. Enough said.

oranges
06-03-2011, 02:22 AM
Sure, Haas is an interesting player to discuss. Problem is that he never really reached any heights at all with his tennis.

But you have no problems comparing Djokovic and Wilander despite the fact that he has not reached anywhere near those heights? And you won't commit to actually predicting he'll eventually reach those heihgts. Makes sense.

Topspindoctor
06-03-2011, 02:40 AM
Wilander has 7 slams :shrug:

Action Jackson
06-03-2011, 06:32 AM
The OP just wants an excuse to bandwagon Djokovic, but doesn't have the Wilanders to make a prediction. At the same time it's obvious he thinks Djokovic is greater already.

tyruk14
06-03-2011, 06:43 AM
When I get back here 4 years from now do you feel absolutely certain Djokovic wont get another 5 slams?

Have you seen the young generation coming up? It seems to be a weaker generation than this one, but I could be wrong.

We are speaking of the present. :wavey:

acionescu
06-03-2011, 06:43 AM
they should comment on eurosport together

Great idea :banana:

maybe this way Nole will stop playing :yeah:

CyBorg
06-03-2011, 07:03 AM
Not at all, I am not saying Hewitt is unfortunate. I am saying Hewitt could be seen as fortunate to have dominated in an era without greats 2001-2002 or he could be seen as unfortunate to have played in Federer's era 2004-2005.

I see Hewitt as a neutral player in the unfortunate-fortunate scale. I am just saying that Hewitt could if he was lucky have won 5 slams and if he would be unlucky he would have won 0 slams, but in both cases he would be the same tennis player, only we would have seen him as in case 1)a loser with 0 slams who always was runner up and lost to Federer in every slam 2)as one of the legends of the sport with 5-6 slams.

But in both these cases he would have been the same tennis player, so how can his slam counts meassure his greatness as a tennis player?

The same kind of reasoning could be applied with many old champions.

You're going around in circles, desperately trying to justify this thread's existence.

CyBorg
06-03-2011, 07:09 AM
Sure, nothing wrong with predictions. Problem is MTF tends to become blinded very easily by bandwagoning.

Yeah, there's nothing wrong with predictions. Which is why Nadal will win 12 French Opens.

Easily.

Right?

Okay, 18.

CyBorg
06-03-2011, 07:11 AM
What I am calling for is to see talent, potential and greatness before it is written on paper.

Talent isn't written on paper. Greatness is.

You just have to decide at which point. There have been good discussions about this topic on MTF before. Better than this crappy thread.

Djokovic is not even yet past his prime. He's only entering his peak. You want to talk about greatness? Wait another two years at least.

sexybeast
06-03-2011, 11:45 AM
Talent isn't written on paper. Greatness is.

You just have to decide at which point. There have been good discussions about this topic on MTF before. Better than this crappy thread.

Djokovic is not even yet past his prime. He's only entering his peak. You want to talk about greatness? Wait another two years at least.

I have no doubt all kind of discussions you have in life have been done sometime before by someone who had more interesting insights than yourself about the subject, if we are to discuss only original ideas that never have been discussed before my guess is that this forum would be silent as a church.

I think greatness is there before it is written on paper, I have seen it sometimes and other times I could not see it before it was written on paper.

I understand this thread can be seen as silly but to be honest I think threads comparing Djokovic to Rafter and other 2 slam champs really doesnt make much sense, they lack imagination. It is like comparing Federer to Courier in 2004, I think Courier were among the first to say Federer was the greatest tennis player he had ever seen, that wasnt written on paper.

Action Jackson
06-03-2011, 12:00 PM
No, this is not lacking imagination, it's just rubbish. I have given reasons as to why I think this thread is rubbish.

sexybeast
06-03-2011, 12:09 PM
No, this is not lacking imagination, it's just rubbish. I have given reasons as to why I think this thread is rubbish.

Why do people waste time in threads they think is rubbish? In every thread I see these kind of people wasting their precious time by saying something has been discussed before or that what other people are discussing is silly and nonsensical.

Go find yourselves some discussion you find interesting, go to whatever discussion you enjoy and let other people discuss things you might have discussed before but they havent. Plenty of people were interested in the ongoing discussion before you and Cyborg came here to say this thread is rubbish. Interesting thing you still keep coming back.

Action Jackson
06-03-2011, 12:21 PM
Why do people waste time in threads they think is rubbish? In every thread I see these kind of people wasting their precious time by saying something has been discussed before or that what other people are discussing is silly and nonsensical.

Go find yourselves some discussion you find interesting, go to whatever discussion you enjoy and let other people discuss things you might have discussed before but they havent. Plenty of people were interested in the ongoing discussion before you and Cyborg came here to say this thread is rubbish. Interesting thing you still keep coming back.

If you want to start a rubbish thread like this, then be prepared for it to be scrutinised in a way you might not like. Cyborg, myself, oranges have stated reasons as to clearly why this thread if flawed and completely swimming in subjectivity even more than usual.

green25814, rocketassist, tyruk14, Feldman, eduggs, and others made simple but relevant points on the subject matter.

You keep shifting the goal posts, not prepared to make an opinion and you keep thinking eras can be compared, no matter if you put a dress, lipstick and bra on a pig trying to think it's a woman, it's still a pig.

Elaka Farmor
06-03-2011, 01:13 PM
Wilander was taken to 5 sets by 18 year old Agassi on red clay in his best year 1988 and after that year he did absolutely nothing for the rest of his career, he was 24 1988.....

His fighting spirit more or less died just after he beat Lendl in the US Open final that year. He never found the real hunger again after that. :crying2:

hipolymer
06-03-2011, 01:37 PM
People really don't know how Wilander would have played in the modern era? He would have been an even worse pusher than Mugray.

Djokovic style is much better.

Dougie
06-03-2011, 02:05 PM
People really don't know how Wilander would have played in the modern era? He would have been an even worse pusher than Mugray.

Djokovic style is much better.

It never ceases to amaze me how some people think that players from past eras would play exactly the same way if the played today.

Action Jackson
06-03-2011, 02:08 PM
People really don't know how Wilander would have played in the modern era? He would have been an even worse pusher than Mugray.

Djokovic style is much better.

Are you picking up the same girls at 17 as you are when 40.

hipolymer
06-03-2011, 02:21 PM
It never ceases to amaze me how some people think that players from past eras would play exactly the same way if the played today.

You don't suddenly gain newfound offensive talent just because you play in a different era. Today's game is a power game and Wilander was not a power player.

Dougie
06-03-2011, 02:34 PM
You don't suddenly gain newfound offensive talent just because you play in a different era. Today's game is a power game and Wilander was not a power player.

You´re missing the point. How are we to know how he would play, if he grew up and developed his game using the same equipment as todays pros?
Besides, there has never been an era where all the players were equally attacking. There´s always room for tactics, and that´s where WIlander´s talent was.

feuselino
06-03-2011, 02:37 PM
Never heard Djokovic comment a tennis match but I'm absolutely sure he owns Wilander in that regard at least...

Dougie
06-03-2011, 02:49 PM
Never heard Djokovic comment a tennis match but I'm absolutely sure he owns Wilander in that regard at least...

Hard not to.

Action Jackson
06-03-2011, 02:50 PM
Never heard Djokovic comment a tennis match but I'm absolutely sure he owns Wilander in that regard at least...

Wilander is the best tennis troll around.

sexybeast
06-03-2011, 03:05 PM
It never ceases to amaze me how some people think that players from past eras would play exactly the same way if the played today.

Different eras reward different talents and punish weaknesses. Like in the 60s it was important to have great touch and reflexes at the net, in the 00s the game is more physical and rewards different talent like athletisism. If you think Rosewall would find a way to play with a powerful twohanded backhand in the 00s instead of his trademark sliced backhand that was based on a completely different talent (sensitive wrists) or that Nadal would be a great serve and volleyer in the 60s, I wouldnt agree players would "find a way" in any era.

To neglect the role that fortune plays in tennis is a great mistake, many greats are handmade for their eras, some are fortunate to have avoided certain kind of opponents and others are unlucky to have played in an era with a greater more dominant outside force they just couldnt handle.

sexybeast
06-03-2011, 03:09 PM
All I have to say to those who think this discussion is worthless, just go and do something you like. In real life people dont come and interrupt and say that the discussion is worthless and rubbish, people either stay away or join the discussion and dont behave like internet trolls.

Please start your own threads, I usually stay away from people I dont like and activities I dont like, anything else would be a waste of time from my part.

oranges
06-03-2011, 03:31 PM
I'm afraid you can't tell people to piss off from your thread. You'll have to deal with those opinions too.

sexybeast
06-03-2011, 03:58 PM
:lol: Talk about overrating Roddick. And I suppose we should take your word for it and this constitutes this complex discussion. I'm certain he would beat Flip as easily as Fed becuase after all he's as good at blocking such serves, not dire returning much worse ones. Hewitt would shit his pants and suddenly forget how return, all so that we can build Roddick into an unbeatable grass monster that only one man could stop and he did. We'll simply forget what his limitations really are becuase it suits your argument to have him as multiple slam winner. Not that hypothetical scenario 'minus-the-best-player-of-the-era' has any merit whatsoever anyway, for where would an entire host of players be if it were not for those better at their time.


It is so easy today to diminish Roddick, but in 2003 the hype was incredible and not one single tennis expert would ever doubt that Roddick would win another slam, no one would doubt he would win atleast something like 4 slams. If you back then could say the things about Roddick that you say today then I would greatly respect your knowledge about tennis, but to look back on results is so easy and anyone can laught at those who history made to be losers and praise the winners. If you always talk in retrospect you will always be right and anyone today talking about Roddick as a possible 5-6 slam champion must be crazy.

Ofcourse you could be right, Philippoussis would not be an easy task for Roddick even if I consider Roddick to be mentally stronger, Hewitt despite losing in Queens in straight sets could still cause problems for Roddick on grass 2004-2005. Even Haas 2009 could have caused a great upset, even if I greatly doubt it and even Davydenko/Blake in Usopen 2006 could have defeated Roddick, it is within the realm of possibilities. Just aswell Roddick could have defeated Djokovic in Usopen 2007, he could have defeated Gonzalez in AO 2007, he could even have defeated Nadal in AO 2009. These are ofcourse more speculations than anything else.

Anyway, everything we know about Roddick is that he was in 4 finals and lost only to Federer. He was in 5 SFs and lost 3 to Federer and one to Schuettler when he was death tired and 1 to Hewitt.

I would like to know what you thought about Roddick the first time you saw him play. You obviously disliked his game like I did, did you think to yourself that this guy would only win this slam when he completely destroyed all opposition in the hardcourt summer 2003? Did you think he would win maximum 1-2 more slams?

I confess I thought Roddick could mean death of tennis in 2003, I didnt know if Federer would be mentally strong to challenge Roddick and Hewitt looked to be declining that year, Safin and Nalbandian did not have their head in the right place. I feared this player would win 4, 5, 6slams as I couldnt see who would be there to stop him, I had the opinion that era was very weak. Federer may have been in the end the only one in that era with the capacity to stop Roddick from dominating tennis.

oranges
06-03-2011, 04:00 PM
It is obviously even easier to diminish a 7-time grand slam champion, while glorifying the one who should be happy he has any

the cat
06-03-2011, 04:49 PM
The 2 grand slam singles titles that Novak Djokovic won does not compare to the 7 that Mats Wilander won. Mats by a landlide! I can't believe anyone would vote for Djokovic in this poll. :rolleyes: If Novak wins 5 grand slam singles titles then the arguement could be made as to who is greater between Djokovic and Wilander. But the better question would have been who is the greater tennis player between Stefan Edberg and Mats Wilander.

CyBorg
06-03-2011, 05:25 PM
I understand this thread can be seen as silly but to be honest I think threads comparing Djokovic to Rafter and other 2 slam champs really doesnt make much sense, they lack imagination. It is like comparing Federer to Courier in 2004, I think Courier were among the first to say Federer was the greatest tennis player he had ever seen, that wasnt written on paper.

What threads? Dumb threads on MTF? No way.

CyBorg
06-03-2011, 05:27 PM
I think that if the OP simply stated the opinion that he feels Djokovic to be a better peak-level player than Wilander there would have been fewer objections. There's more to greatness than that though.

UncleZeke
06-04-2011, 02:29 AM
Wilander today. Djokovic somewhere down the road if he's able to remain healthy.

TennisLurker
06-04-2011, 02:55 AM
I agree with Sexy Beast, back in 2003, in MTF, there was panic because of Roddick's success, I think that many of the current posters were not active back in 2003, but here, and in the press, there was panic over a possible Roddick domination. No one could handle his serve, and he was not a pusher back then.

sexybeast
06-04-2011, 07:20 AM
I agree with Sexy Beast, back in 2003, in MTF, there was panic because of Roddick's success, I think that many of the current posters were not active back in 2003, but here, and in the press, there was panic over a possible Roddick domination. No one could handle his serve, and he was not a pusher back then.

It was not only in MTF but in the whole tennis world, people sometimes have short memory. If we go back to the moment 2003 Roddick was red hot and more consistant than Federer, he really had no nightmarish matchups except Federer (which many belived he could still turn around) and people thought of him as by far the greatest hardcourt player in the world and the scary thing is he was the youngest in the pack (Federer, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Safin) and would only get better. He was oozing with confidence, no one actually belived back then that he would win anything less than 4 slams, atleast they would not dare to speak out. He was the next big thing in american tennis, what followed is probably the most singlehanded destruction of a career by one single opponent.

tests
06-04-2011, 07:29 AM
It was not only in MTF but in the whole tennis world, people sometimes have short memory. If we go back to the moment 2003 Roddick was red hot and more consistant than Federer, he really had no nightmarish matchups except Federer (which many belived he could still turn around) and people thought of him as by far the greatest hardcourt player in the world and the scary thing is he was the youngest in the pack (Federer, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Safin) and would only get better. He was oozing with confidence, no one actually belived back then that he would win anything else than 4 slams, atleast they would not dare to speak out. He was the next big thing in american tennis, what followed is probably the most singlehanded destruction of a career by one single opponent.


reading that last line makes me giggle for some reason. Watching roddick get completely dismantled at that 2007 aus open was a treat

TennisLurker
06-04-2011, 08:15 AM
Fed saves us from Roddick, God bless him.

Action Jackson
06-04-2011, 09:49 AM
Fed saves us from Roddick, God bless him.

Best thing Fed did and as for Roddick dominating I wasn't fearful of it at the time. I was like hell yeah great 2003 back it up next year, then maybe. He didn't.

luie
06-04-2011, 03:07 PM
Fed saves us from Roddick, God bless him.
Fed saves us for us from nole spam n' vida for a couple weeks,God bless him.:angel:

sexybeast
09-13-2011, 12:51 AM
Tennis conneiseurs may now allow people to compare Djokovic with Wilander?

Or will they have to wait and see the big 8 to admit what we all could see a long time ago?

That is, Djokovic belongs to the tier of Lendl, Connors and Agassi and has an ability to dominate Wilander never had.

But as for now people can stick with their numbers if they are afraid of jumping the gun and actually admit that they are watching another great and not just another Courier.

rocketassist
09-13-2011, 12:53 AM
Djokovic is now on Courier's level, still quite a way off Becker and Edberg for now.

Action Jackson
09-13-2011, 12:53 AM
All surfaces play virtually the same, so comparing makes so much sense.

MatchFederer
09-13-2011, 02:38 AM
Tennis conneiseurs may now allow people to compare Djokovic with Wilander?

Or will they have to wait and see the big 8 to admit what we all could see a long time ago?

That is, Djokovic belongs to the tier of Lendl, Connors and Agassi and has an ability to dominate Wilander never had.

But as for now people can stick with their numbers if they are afraid of jumping the gun and actually admit that they are watching another great and not just another Courier.

Djokovic is now on Courier's level, still quite a way off Becker and Edberg for now.

*sigh*


Djokovic is unquestionably greater than Courier I think, but that isn't the point.

The point is why should one wait for the accomplishments before suggesting they are x good?

Jumping the gun isn't a problem. One can look at a players game and say well he looks good for 6 - 9 slams, or whatever.

Suggesting so after the fact is too simple. Too many people unwilling to take an educated guess based on what they see and want to base everything entirely on results and only make claim once x results have been equalled and such.

Egreen
09-13-2011, 02:56 AM
Wilander.

Djokovic is now on Courier's level, still quite a way off Becker and Edberg for now.


Agree.




That is, Djokovic belongs to the tier of Lendl, Connors and Agassi

He needs to reach 8 slams.

hipolymer
09-13-2011, 03:05 AM
All of these things are so hard to compare. Wilander, Lendl, Connors, and Agassi never had to contend with TWO goat candidates.

sexybeast
09-13-2011, 03:13 AM
All of these things are so hard to compare. Wilander, Lendl, Connors, and Agassi never had to contend with TWO goat candidates.

This is attleast as relevant to take into consideration as the fact that surfaces play more alike nowadays. I think Djokovic would in fact rather have played without Federer and Nadal around but with faster grass in Wimbledon.

sexybeast
01-29-2012, 02:09 PM
Djokovic>Wilander, I dont think this will even be disputed by anyone in MTF. What a differense a year can make and yes, this is shameless gloating.

Why So Serious?
01-29-2012, 02:12 PM
Nice one!

TennisGrandSlam
01-29-2012, 02:14 PM
I can only says that, Lendl >>> Wilander

Comparsion of Djo and Wilander is meaningless!

SERBINATOR
01-29-2012, 02:16 PM
NOVAK easy

MatchFederer
01-29-2012, 02:18 PM
Oh how pertinent this thread is becoming in retrospect.

TennisGrandSlam
01-29-2012, 02:21 PM
All of these things are so hard to compare. Wilander, Lendl, Connors, and Agassi never had to contend with TWO goat candidates.

Lendl > Connors > Agassi >>> Wilander :devil:

LawrenceOfTennis
01-29-2012, 02:53 PM
NOVAK easy

serb:facepalm:

rocketassist
01-29-2012, 04:26 PM
Wilander won slams on all surfaces, the AO being on grass.

Djokovic needs an RG and to get to 7 slams to pass him.

Johnny Groove
01-29-2012, 04:27 PM
Wilander as of right now, today.

Djoko can probably pass him this year.

rocketassist
01-29-2012, 04:28 PM
All of these things are so hard to compare. Wilander, Lendl, Connors, and Agassi never had to contend with TWO goat candidates.

Wilander had Lendl, Becker and Edberg around towards the latter part of his career. Evenly spread Slam titles between some strong guys.

SetSampras
01-29-2012, 04:31 PM
Connors and Lendl are right up there with Nadal career wise. Agassi was certainly better then Nadal on hardcourts. Fed is getting old. I don't think Fed now measure up with Andre at his best. Gotta look at it in context

Shinoj
01-31-2012, 07:55 AM
Djokovic is an attacking player who take risks on every point. And i do not even care if Wilander has 20 Grand Slams but Djokovic is clearly a better player than Wilander. No Doubt about it. It take Balls to play the brand of tennis that Djokovic plays.

LawrenceOfTennis
01-31-2012, 09:08 AM
Djokovic is an attacking player who take risks on every point. And i do not even care if Wilander has 20 Grand Slams but Djokovic is clearly a better player than Wilander. No Doubt about it. It take Balls to play the brand of tennis that Djokovic plays.

While theirstyles are different and we are talking about different eras, Wilander won 7 GS and Djokovic won 5 GS. He will surpass Mats most probably, but at the moment Wilander's greater.

Shinoj
01-31-2012, 09:16 AM
While theirstyles are different and we are talking about different eras, Wilander won 7 GS and Djokovic won 5 GS. He will surpass Mats most probably, but at the moment Wilander's greater.

Nopes. What you have answered is who is better in terms of Grand Slams not in terms of a better player, quality wise. Quality of play wise Djokovic is better than Wilander. And i think thats what the OP meant.

Sophocles
01-31-2012, 09:47 AM
At least Wilander could volley once in a while.

nastoff
01-31-2012, 10:06 AM
Wilander because he represents an era where tennis was more attractive as a sport. But Djokovic will easily surpass him in terms of achievements.

Clashcityrocker
01-31-2012, 10:09 AM
wilander !!!!!

abraxas21
01-31-2012, 12:07 PM
djokovic has won 4 or the past 5 GS and is still losing the poll v. a player who hasnt picked up a racquet to play pro sport in over 20 years :worship:

shows you how much this era sucks

sexybeast
01-31-2012, 12:15 PM
Wilander because he represents an era where tennis was more attractive as a sport. But Djokovic will easily surpass him in terms of achievements.

I didnt ask for the more attractive player, if we meassured greatness in what aesthetic beauty is produced from players' tennis, Santoro and Nalbandian would be greater than Nadal.

Anyway, you could question if Wilander's first 2 AOs counts as grand slams at all, the YEC was the 4th slam at that era, most great players didnt even go down to Australia. Doesnt matter, Djokovic will get 2 more slams, it is only a question of time.

sexybeast
01-31-2012, 12:23 PM
Anyway, I think maybe I should put people at a more difficult spot now when Djokovic clearly is going to surpass mr Wilander. How about Djokovic vs Lendl?

Shinoj
01-31-2012, 12:43 PM
Anyway, I think maybe I should put people at a more difficult spot now when Djokovic clearly is going to surpass mr Wilander. How about Djokovic vs Lendl?


Its just impossible to compare. And that's the same for any player in two different eras.

Quadruple Tree
01-31-2012, 01:00 PM
Djokovic is an attacking player who take risks on every point.

I think your keyboard is broken. It says "takes risks" when you must have typed "grinds". You should get this checked out.

Shinoj
01-31-2012, 01:17 PM
I think your keyboard is broken. It says "takes risks" when you must have typed "grinds". You should get this checked out.


Djokovic did his Best in those conditions. The courts are extremely slow and Nadal retrieves almost everything. If you want to hit winner at every point its simple, its not gonna happen and sooner or later you are bound to get frustrated and lose out. And in those conditions he was trying to maneuver the ball on almost every shot. Djokovic has adapted his game perfectly to the conditions. Full kudos to him. Without an iota of Doubt.

And by the way of he was grinding the match would have never got over. Two Grinders would never finish a match. It was Nadal who was grinding.

thrust
01-31-2012, 01:17 PM
Better player is always impossible to compare between different eras and styles. Wilander is still far more accomplished.

I mostly agree, but I would say that Wilander is a bit more accomplished, rather than far more. Then there is the good possibility that Novak will surpass Wilander in the near future, if he stays healthy.

jonas
01-31-2012, 01:26 PM
Anyway, you could question if Wilander's first 2 AOs counts as grand slams at all, the YEC was the 4th slam at that era, most great players didnt even go down to Australia.

What are you smoking? Wilander won AO 1983 on grass at 19 years old. He beat world number 5 Johan Kriek in straights in the QF, world number 2 McEnroe in the semis in four and humiliated world number one Lendl in the final.

At that time AO was gaining status.

Sure, Wilander wasn't a shotmaker. But he had great brains. And to win 7 GS at four different surfaces, with his limited game style is more than impressive.

sexybeast
01-31-2012, 01:56 PM
What are you smoking? Wilander won AO 1983 on grass at 19 years old. He beat world number 5 Johan Kriek in straights in the QF, world number 2 McEnroe in the semis in four and humiliated world number one Lendl in the final.

At that time AO was gaining status.

Sure, Wilander wasn't a shotmaker. But he had great brains. And to win 7 GS at four different surfaces, with his limited game style is more than impressive.

How about AO 84, where his highest ranked opponent was nr15 in the world?

Just because Mcenroe went to Australia doesnt mean he considered it an important tournament, Mcenroe only played 3 AOs in the 80s which shows how much that tournament mattered to him. Lendl played half of all AOs in the 80s. I think AO only became important at the end of the 80s (in 1988 to be exact), no one really questions the fact that every player in the late 70s and early 80s considered the YEC much more important than the AO. Thereby I would count the YEC as the 4th slam from the mid 70s to the late 80s. Giving a fair representation of how good Borg, Mcenroe and Connors were (they only had oppurtunity to play 3 slams).

Counting YEC as the 4th slam between 73-87 you get a correct meassure of how good Mcenroe, Borg and Lendl really were compared to Wilander (who never was in their league despite his 7 slams):

Borg 13 slams
Mcenroe 10 slams
Lendl 13 slams

Wilander 5 slams

Gorre
01-31-2012, 03:49 PM
Obviously Wilander. Novak still has much to learn from him...


http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/wilander-fails-in-court-1343120.html
:haha:

Sophocles
01-31-2012, 04:30 PM
How about AO 84, where his highest ranked opponent was nr15 in the world?

Just because Mcenroe went to Australia doesnt mean he considered it an important tournament, Mcenroe only played 3 AOs in the 80s which shows how much that tournament mattered to him. Lendl played half of all AOs in the 80s. I think AO only became important at the end of the 80s (in 1988 to be exact), no one really questions the fact that every player in the late 70s and early 80s considered the YEC much more important than the AO. Thereby I would count the YEC as the 4th slam from the mid 70s to the late 80s. Giving a fair representation of how good Borg, Mcenroe and Connors were (they only had oppurtunity to play 3 slams).

Counting YEC as the 4th slam between 73-87 you get a correct meassure of how good Mcenroe, Borg and Lendl really were compared to Wilander (who never was in their league despite his 7 slams):

Borg 13 slams
Mcenroe 10 slams
Lendl 13 slams

Wilander 5 slams

This is probably true but there's no reason to discount Wilander's A.O. 1983, which was a tremendous run. McEnroe had a great record in all grass tournaments, not just Wimbledon, & beating Kriek, Mac, & Lendl in consecutive matches on grass is some achievement, especially when it was scarcely Wilander's favourite surface. Entries varied at events up to the mid-1980s so sometimes you have to take it year by year. For example we all know Wimbledon meant jack-shit in 1973. Wilander's R.G. run in 1982 was one for the ages too.

Shinoj
01-31-2012, 04:36 PM
How about AO 84, where his highest ranked opponent was nr15 in the world?

Just because Mcenroe went to Australia doesnt mean he considered it an important tournament, Mcenroe only played 3 AOs in the 80s which shows how much that tournament mattered to him. Lendl played half of all AOs in the 80s. I think AO only became important at the end of the 80s (in 1988 to be exact), no one really questions the fact that every player in the late 70s and early 80s considered the YEC much more important than the AO. Thereby I would count the YEC as the 4th slam from the mid 70s to the late 80s. Giving a fair representation of how good Borg, Mcenroe and Connors were (they only had oppurtunity to play 3 slams).

Counting YEC as the 4th slam between 73-87 you get a correct meassure of how good Mcenroe, Borg and Lendl really were compared to Wilander (who never was in their league despite his 7 slams):

Borg 13 slams
Mcenroe 10 slams
Lendl 13 slams

Wilander 5 slams

So Why would Mc Enroe go and waste his time at Australian Open if he didnt consider it important? Some hilarious Logic there. But for me it isnt a surprise considering your remarkable foresight on Jim Courier. I know what you are doing here.

sexybeast
01-31-2012, 05:01 PM
This is probably true but there's no reason to discount Wilander's A.O. 1983, which was a tremendous run. McEnroe had a great record in all grass tournaments, not just Wimbledon, & beating Kriek, Mac, & Lendl in consecutive matches on grass is some achievement, especially when it was scarcely Wilander's favourite surface. Entries varied at events up to the mid-1980s so sometimes you have to take it year by year. For example we all know Wimbledon meant jack-shit in 1973. Wilander's R.G. run in 1982 was one for the ages too.

Wilander's 1982 RG was out of this world, his AO run in 83 was great but it was still not counted as one of the big tournaments at that time. I mean Federer's run in the YEC 2010 was pretty awesome aswell but it was not one of the big 4 tournaments, it cant count as a slam if other players dont emotionally and physically invest time beeing prepared for this tournament. You know Nadal didnt care too much losing that final in 2010 compared to the AO final against Djokovic, Mcenroe was definetly more hurt losing the YEC final to Lendl than losing against Wilander in AO 1983.

sexybeast
01-31-2012, 05:03 PM
So Why would Mc Enroe go and waste his time at Australian Open if he didnt consider it important? Some hilarious Logic there. But for me it isnt a surprise considering your remarkable foresight on Jim Courier. I know what you are doing here.

Why do players travel all over the world and play small and midsize tournaments? Why was Nadal playing Tokyo in 2010 and 2011? Should we count that as a slam because Nadal and Murray wasted time playing that tournament?

I dont know why Mcenroe specifically felt he had time and energy to go to Australia in 1983, while not going there 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 86, 87 and so on. Maybe he felt like playing some more tennis, visit Australia that year, god knows...

But just look at the pattern, how the greats valued AO in 75-87:

In this timespan Mcenroe went there 83 and 85.

Borg only went there 75.

Jimmy Connors won the tournament 74, was in the final 75 and never more visited Australia in his life (this from a guy who played 30 tournaments every year all over the world).

Lendl actually was more warm for Australia, he was there 80, 83-85 and 87.

You see a pattern here? Master series is more packed nowadays with top players than Australian Open back in the old days. Mcenroe 83 decided to go there but was his hearth there like in a slam? Furthermore should we consider Australian Open as a slam when there was another tournament obviously more valued by the players?

sexybeast
09-07-2012, 12:44 PM
If Djokovic wins this Usopen he passes not only Wilander but also Becker and Edberg. Sad but true.

TigerTim
09-07-2012, 12:49 PM
Djokovic, for sure. What happened to Willander? Would be a better thread.

sexybeast
09-07-2012, 12:52 PM
Djokovic, for sure. What happened to Willander? Would be a better thread.

Well, it is easy to say now. Only a fool would pick Wilander 18 months after I started this thread.

I should maybe go on and start a Murray vs Courier thread as a follow up to this.

rinnegan
09-07-2012, 12:55 PM
Well, it is easy to say now. Only a fool would pick Wilander 18 months after I started this thread.

I should maybe go on and start a Murray vs Courier thread as a follow up to this.

Your next thread should be the most relevant comparison today: Tomic v Laver. :shrug:

TigerTim
09-07-2012, 12:57 PM
Well, it is easy to say now. Only a fool would pick Wilander 18 months after I started this thread.

I should maybe go on and start a Murray vs Courier thread as a follow up to this.

Fair enough :shrug: my comment on Mats still stands though.

I think Murray will win maybe 3/4 slams so that would be a decent thread, but of course my prediction is looking more and more unlikely.

Tag
09-08-2012, 12:53 AM
If Djokovic wins this Us Open to make 6 grand slams, he is equal with Becker, Wilander and Edberg, but not above them. Edberg has superiority over Djokovic in everything apart from Masters wins.

A 7th slam takes him beyond all three, as he surpasses Wilander in everything but Slam count/Slam finals. His resume is already better than Wilander outside those.


Edberg

- 11 Grand Slam Finals

- 6 Grand Slams (2 AO, 2 WIM, 2 US, runner up at FO)

- 72 weeks as no1

- 1 Year End Championship, 1 runner up

- 8 Masters Series wins (equivalent) from 18 finals

- Olympic Bronze medal

- 42 total career titles

- 2 finishes as Year End no1


Becker

- 10 Grand Slam Finals

- 6 Grand Slams (2 AO, 3 WIM, 1 US, 3 semi finals at FO)

- 12 weeks as no1

- 3 Year End Championships, 4 runner ups

- 10 Masters Series wins from 17 finals

- 49 total career titles


Djokovic

- 8 Grand Slam Finals

- 5 Grand Slam Wins (3 AO, 1 WIM, 1 US, runner up at FO)

- 53 weeks as no1

- 1 Year End Championship

- 12 Masters Series wins from 22 finals

- Olympic Bronze Medal

- 31 total career titles

- 1 finish at Year End no1


Wilander

- 11 Grand Slam Finals

- 7 Grand Slam Wins (2 AO, 3 FO, 2 US, 3 quarter finals at WIM)

- 20 weeks as no1

- 1 Year End Championship runner up

- 8 Masters series wins from 15 finals

- 33 total career titles

- 1 finish at Year End no1

Tag
09-08-2012, 01:00 AM
And I will say right here, right now, that Djokovic would need at least 10 Grand Slams + Career Grand Slam + at least 200 more weeks as no1 + 2-3 more Year End titles + at least 5 more Masters titles to surpass Lendl. Can't see him doing it.

Lendl's 8 Grand Slams is the tip of the iceberg - his achievements were just ridiculous. Agassi has 8 grand slams, and even his Career Grand Slam doesn't make up for Lendl being better in every other area.

Johnny Groove
09-08-2012, 01:06 AM
I pretty much agree, Tag. Djokovic winning this USO and having 6, and most likely getting to #1 at the end of the year would put him into the discussion with Becker/Edberg/Wilander, but not above.

Now, if he should take also the AO and get to 7 slams, then he would be closing in on McEnroe. But Djokovic, like Nadal, his biggest resume weakness is time at #1. Only 53 weeks thus far. But he still has much time to ascend the ladder of GOATs.

Tag
09-08-2012, 01:20 AM
I pretty much agree, Tag. Djokovic winning this USO and having 6, and most likely getting to #1 at the end of the year would put him into the discussion with Becker/Edberg/Wilander, but not above.

Now, if he should take also the AO and get to 7 slams, then he would be closing in on McEnroe. But Djokovic, like Nadal, his biggest resume weakness is time at #1. Only 53 weeks thus far. But he still has much time to ascend the ladder of GOATs.


he's already surpassed Wilander in everything important (apart from slam wins/finals).

And he's past Becker in everything apart from year end titles (this is the one thing Becker has going for him above this lot), total titles, and slam finals.

Edberg, not yet. his resume is incredibly varied and underrated. i put him above Wilander personally.

53 weeks is still significant compared to a lot of others at number 1. personally I see Djokovic finishing with 8 slams, possibly 9 if he gets the career grand slam.

So, better than McEnroe, even/better with Agassi, but behind Connors and Lendl.

thrust
09-08-2012, 01:55 AM
How about AO 84, where his highest ranked opponent was nr15 in the world?

Just because Mcenroe went to Australia doesnt mean he considered it an important tournament, Mcenroe only played 3 AOs in the 80s which shows how much that tournament mattered to him. Lendl played half of all AOs in the 80s. I think AO only became important at the end of the 80s (in 1988 to be exact), no one really questions the fact that every player in the late 70s and early 80s considered the YEC much more important than the AO. Thereby I would count the YEC as the 4th slam from the mid 70s to the late 80s. Giving a fair representation of how good Borg, Mcenroe and Connors were (they only had oppurtunity to play 3 slams).

Counting YEC as the 4th slam between 73-87 you get a correct meassure of how good Mcenroe, Borg and Lendl really were compared to Wilander (who never was in their league despite his 7 slams):

Borg 13 slams
Mcenroe 10 slams
Lendl 13 slams

Wilander 5 slams
RIDICULOUS POST! If McEnroe went all the way to Australia, he obviously thought he could and wanted to win that AO. To say that he didn't take that AO seriously is plain silly. How can you only credit Wilander with only 5 slams, when he won 7? Only out of hatred or stupidity. Wilander won slams on clay, grass and hard courts. That is a fact, whether you like it or not! The YEC is a very important tournament, but not a Slam. That is a Fact, whether You like it or not. Overall, IMO, Wilander is not quite in the same league as Lendl, Connors or McEnroe but he certainly is very close. As of now, he is still a bit superior to Novak, accomplishment wise. That was a VERY TOUGH ERA!

Thirty All
09-08-2012, 05:33 AM
Wilander is the Martina Hingis of men's tennis imo.

TigerTim
09-08-2012, 10:19 AM
McEnroe is ahead of the Djoke even if he gets 9 slams imo

streetskater
04-29-2014, 12:44 AM
I think numbers and stats have their place but they can never tell the whole story. For me John McEnroe is the greatest pair of hands to ever pick up a racket. He has some pretty impressive numbers but you totally can't take his real measure by stats alone.

I was a HARD fan of NOLE when he was perennial #3 and I would have been regardless. In fact he's the first player to really engage my interest since Johny Mac. But the Djoker is wild and he's starting to put himself in tennis history in his own way. There are times watching him when I do NOT believe I've ever seen an overall talent like that, EVER.

He may never get to FedExpress numbers. I don't care. Roger bores me, so did Sampras. Tennis is Entertainment as are all spectator sports. There's a lot goes into making an historically significant player.

streetskater
04-29-2014, 01:51 AM
RIDICULOUS POST! If McEnroe went all the way to Australia, he obviously thought he could and wanted to win that AO. ...Have to agree with SexyB on this one. When John was making his way to OZ that slam had nothing near the cred it has today. He's said himself in interviews as has Martina and other contemporaneous pros that the Australian open was closer to optional participation than any slam and even many "lesser" events.

Not to Impugn it's popularity and support within Australia but it's been a long road to get it on equal footing from an international participation perspective with the other slams. Great Aussie players weren't enough in and of themselves to get it there solely with their participation and support.

Early days one never even knew when they would hold it as they let the whether dictate dates from January to March. There were also competing Australian events that helped keep the Australian open more Down Under than not up until arguable just into the 1980's and with the Participation of Lendl, McEnroe, and Wilander.

Today certainly there can be no question that it's ranks on equal footing with any slam--unless one holds that special affection for Wimbledon--which may not be breachable by comparative prize money, attendance or any other factor.

Johnny Groove
04-29-2014, 02:14 AM
Now this one is a good debate.

Probably Wilander at the moment right now, but 1 more slam for Djokovic and he passes, but then Djokovic would still be behind McEnroe.

2 more slams for Djokovic and then he is in there with Agassi/Connors/Lendl level with 8 slams.

Mr. President
04-29-2014, 05:19 AM
gymnast

Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App (http://www.verticalsports.com/mobile)

underspin
04-29-2014, 08:06 AM
I would go with Djokovic by this point.

Kirijax
04-29-2014, 11:53 AM
It's pretty close but what Wilander did between 1982-1988 was incredible.

3 French Open titles (clay)
3 Australian Open titles (two on grass, one on hard)
1 U.S. Open (hard)
3 Davis Cup titles
1 Wimbledon doubles title
3-2 Record vs. Lendl in Grand Slam Finals (Beat him in '83 Australian, '85 French and '88 U.S.)
1988 Year-End No. 1

A couple more years and Djokovic will pass him but at this point I think Wilander is still ahead.

bjurra
04-29-2014, 12:40 PM
I'm obviously a bit biased but Wilander was simply a very smart player. He understood the game completely and also how he could adapt his own game to have the best possible chance to win depending on the opponents style and the surface and weather conditions. If his era was different he would have adapted to that. Maybe he hadn't been as successful who knows but he would have found a way to be very hard to beat.

Still amazing that you can achieve so much with so little. Just looking at his shot repertoire, he had so many weaknesses and hardly any proper strengths. Looking at youtube clips, the only thing that impresses me is his ability to read the opponent. Always going the right way.

thrust
04-29-2014, 12:56 PM
It's pretty close but what Wilander did between 1982-1988 was incredible.

3 French Open titles (clay)
3 Australian Open titles (two on grass, one on hard)
1 U.S. Open (hard)
3 Davis Cup titles
1 Wimbledon doubles title
3-2 Record vs. Lendl in Grand Slam Finals (Beat him in '83 Australian, '85 French and '88 U.S.)
1988 Year-End No. 1

A couple more years and Djokovic will pass him but at this point I think Wilander is still ahead.

If one has a book that gives results of not only finals but semis or quarters, you will see that the years Wilander won the AO most top players competed. Edberg, Lendl, Becker, Cash, and other top players competed those years. The statement that the AO was always lacking top internation players is ignorant. As of now I would rate Wilander's achievements slightly superior to Novak's. He has one more slam on three different surfaces. Novak's only advantage is his 3 YE championship titles. Hopefully, Novak will win a few more slams, with at least one FO.

thrust
04-29-2014, 01:05 PM
Still amazing that you can achieve so much with so little. Just looking at his shot repertoire, he had so many weaknesses and hardly any proper strengths. Looking at youtube clips, the only thing that impresses me is his ability to read the opponent. Always going the right way.

IMO, one cannot truly judge a players power or speed by watching highlights on Youtube. Players today, primarily due to equipment, can hit the ball harder with more spin but in the 60's-80's, tactics and all court tennis was more important than in todays game. AGAIN, players can only be judged by their accomplishments in the era they competed.

Roy Emerson
04-30-2014, 02:02 AM
Nole

hipolymer
04-30-2014, 02:06 AM
Nole

:haha:

Mountaindewslave
04-30-2014, 05:31 AM
Wilander is still better overall in terms of resume but it's prettyyyyyyyy close

obviously its almost not in doubt that Novak will pass him, probably this season

Balthazar
07-09-2014, 04:47 PM
Djokovic has passed him right?

Adri89
07-09-2014, 04:52 PM
Djokovic has passed him right?

Without any doubt.

In my head, you have (for the Open era only) :

Federer - Nadal - Sampras - Borg (in no particular order)

Connors - Lendl - Mc Enroe

Agassi - Djokovic

Becker - Edberg - Willander

janko05
07-09-2014, 04:58 PM
1ole

hipolymer
07-09-2014, 05:00 PM
Djokovic passed him when he won his 2nd WTF :o