Djokovic's current place in history; actually, what exactly is it??? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Djokovic's current place in history; actually, what exactly is it???

MatchFederer
12-16-2011, 12:49 AM
Djokovic's full 2011 REVIEW

Part One
_5_v23rk-7w

Part Two
GLXkTbT2NOs

Novak Djokovic's 2011 was one of the best seasons in Tennis history (specifically the Open Era). Where does his legendary season place him among the pantheon of greats?

Here is a list of elite titles won by players mainly from Open Era (naturally just an estimation, I don't know enough about tennis history to be completely reputable):

Federer - 22 (16 Slams, 6 Year-end Championship equivalents)
Sampras - 21 (14 , 7)
Lendl - 15 (8 , 7)
McEnroe - 15 (7 , 8)
Borg - 14 (11, 3)
Nadal - 11 (10, 1 Olympic Gold)
Connors - 11 (8 , 3)
Becker - 10 (6 , 4)
Agassi - 10 (8 , 1 , 1)
Newcombe - 8 (7 , 1)
Edberg - 7 (6 , 1)
Wilander - 7 (7)
Nastase - 6 (2 , 4)
Djokovic - 5 (4 , 1)
Vilas - 5 (4 , 1)
Ashe - 4 (3 , 1)
Courier - 4 (4)
Kuerten - 4 (3 , 1)
Murray - 0

***

More contentious:

Rosewall - 25 + (not including probably lots of YEC wins or tournaments of equal prestige - but includes 2 WCT Finals wins which were both over Rod Laver)
Laver 19+ (not including probably lots of YEC wins or if not, then tournaments of equal prestige)


Reason? Didn't always partake in the same Slam equivalent tournaments due to being on different tours for a few years and, even when both on the same tour for several years, still a divide existed between two alternative tours (implications are obvious. I am not the type to spell them out).

****

This is based on Slams and Year-end Championship tournaments containing only the cream of the crop (Oh, and Olympic Gold). Winning these tournaments generally takes an incredibly high level of play and requires victory over an elite field.

Please, those who have a greater insight into the status of tournaments at certain times, feel free to give alternative numbers for these players.''[/QUOTE]

Where does Djokovic Stand?

stewietennis
12-16-2011, 01:08 AM
I find it strange that Murray is on the list.

fast_clay
12-16-2011, 01:14 AM
objectively i would say he is up there with the likes of kevin curran and tim mayotte after you factor in Strength of Era (SoE) quotient... needs to have a good 2012 to stick his nose above todd martin...

good thread.

MatchFederer
12-16-2011, 01:19 AM
objectively i would say he is up there with the likes of kevin curran and tim mayotte after you factor in Strength of Era (SoE) quotient... needs to have a good 2012 to stick his nose above todd martin...

good thread.

Some valid points, agree wholeheartedly, any chance of shoving John Lloyd into that bracket as well? Get back to me.

Naudio Spanlatine
12-16-2011, 01:23 AM
djokovic is already a legend, and why is murray in the list, im just curious:shrug: :scratch:

Johnny Groove
12-16-2011, 01:25 AM
I've got him at #31 all time, just ahead of Nastase.

He is #17 in the Open Era.

As it stands right now, of course.

If he wins 2 slams next year plus few TMS, MM events, he could get up there with 6 slams with Becker and Edberg, around #24 all time, and top 10 of the Open Era.

MatchFederer
12-16-2011, 01:32 AM
djokovic is already a legend, and why is murray in the list, im just curious:shrug: :scratch:

OK OK. I'll admit I'm being cruel to include Murray in that list...:devil:


I've got him at #31 all time, just ahead of Nastase.

He is #17 in the Open Era.

As it stands right now, of course.

If he wins 2 slams next year plus few TMS, MM events, he could get up there with 6 slams with Becker and Edberg, around #24 all time, and top 10 of the Open Era.

I appreciate your work in that thread Groovemaster, well put together. Now, hit the practice courts. Dedication, dedication, dedication.

Naudio Spanlatine
12-16-2011, 01:49 AM
OK OK. I'll admit I'm being cruel to include Murray in that list...:devil:

:lol: its ok i understand;)

Mountaindewslave
12-16-2011, 02:48 AM
objectively i would say he is up there with the likes of kevin curran and tim mayotte after you factor in Strength of Era (SoE) quotient... needs to have a good 2012 to stick his nose above todd martin...

good thread.

hahahhahha :haha: maybe he'll reach Ivanesivic one day too

TennisOnWood
12-16-2011, 09:16 AM
Where is his fan girl to tell us he is best ever?

finishingmove
12-16-2011, 09:22 AM
Legenda

BigJohn
12-16-2011, 10:40 AM
Where is his fan girl to tell us he is best ever?

This.

Hensafmurrafter
12-16-2011, 10:53 AM
Do you mean to tell me that of all the names on that list, only Nadal and Agassi have won olympic Gold?

Ibracadabra
12-16-2011, 11:02 AM
Top 20 open era for me.

Sophocles
12-16-2011, 12:07 PM
Do you mean to tell me that of all the names on that list, only Nadal and Agassi have won olympic Gold?

Yeah. They started playing it again only in 1988 & it's widely regarded as a Mickey Mouse event in tennis, which is why the illustrious roll-call of winners includes such luminaries as Nicolas Massu.

samanosuke
12-16-2011, 12:08 PM
djokovic is above the history . he stands alone

munZe konZa
12-16-2011, 01:21 PM
why talk about history when he is just making it ?

Talk about putting your mouth before the foot

Chirag
12-16-2011, 01:24 PM
I would put him with Kuerton/Courier right now :)

abraxas21
12-16-2011, 02:01 PM
objectively i would say he is up there with the likes of kevin curran and tim mayotte after you factor in Strength of Era (SoE) quotient... needs to have a good 2012 to stick his nose above todd martin...

good thread.

:lol:

post of the thread

arm
12-16-2011, 02:31 PM
Well, he certainly made history. Google included him in a 2011 review :inlove: (2:25)

SAIEamakLoY#!

(fangil moment :o)

Sapeod
12-16-2011, 04:12 PM
Achievements? Nowhere near the top 10. In the lower top 20. A fluke year like 2011 doesn't make him a legend.
Going by talent? Outside of the top 50.

Also, take out Murray. There's no reason for him being on the list.

MatchFederer
12-16-2011, 04:23 PM
Achievements? Nowhere near the top 10. In the lower top 20. A fluke year like 2011 doesn't make him a legend.
Going by talent? Outside of the top 50.

Also, take out Murray. There's no reason for him being on the list.

Done it, mate.

SetSampras
12-16-2011, 04:29 PM
I got Agassi at #20 thereabouts.. So Nole is pretty low with only 4 slams and only one real year of dominance.. Of course that will change.. He hasn't been in his prime all that long. Below Edberg or Becker but more then Kuerten thereabouts. At the end of the day he will probably be on par at 18-20 with Agassi.

Laver
Pancho
Rosewall
Tilden
Fed
Pete
Borg
Budge
Nadal
Lendl
Perry
Kramer
Connors
Dre
Mac
Wilander
Becker
Edberg
Courier


Im missing some names.. But Nole is certainly down the list

Naudio Spanlatine
12-16-2011, 04:36 PM
Achievements? Nowhere near the top 10. In the lower top 20. A fluke year like 2011 doesn't make him a legend.
Going by talent? Outside of the top 50.

Also, take out Murray. There's no reason for him being on the list.

:eek:.........................:speakles:

Sapeod
12-16-2011, 04:41 PM
Done it, mate.
You just added another Murray. Do you think you're being funny? :scratch:
:eek:.........................:speakles:
Murray is the best player without a slam and surpasses some who have 1 (Del Potro for example), but he doesn't belong on here.
Kuerten = 3 slams
Murray = 0 slams

In between them, there are players like Hewitt, Safin, Rafter, Kafelnikov who aren't added. Either add all of these players or just take Murray out.

TennisOnWood
12-16-2011, 04:49 PM
I got Agassi at #20 thereabouts.. So Nole is pretty low with only 4 slams and only one real year of dominance.. Of course that will change.. He hasn't been in his prime all that long. Below Edberg or Becker but more then Kuerten thereabouts. At the end of the day he will probably be on par at 18-20 with Agassi.

Laver
Pancho
Rosewall
Tilden
Fed
Pete
Borg
Budge
Nadal
Lendl
Perry
Kramer
Connors
Dre
Connors
Becker
Edberg
Courier


Im missing some names.. But Nole is certainly down the list

Agree with top.. Laver, Pancho and Ken are something special

Hoad, Lacoste and Cochet and Emerson before Open era too

romismak
12-16-2011, 04:53 PM
Right now if he retire, his career is somewhere between those with 2-3slams like Hewitt, Safin, Kuerten and 6 slams Becker, Edberg on other hand. I am now comparing just during open era achievements. But definetely i can see him historically better than Becker or Edberg with 6 slams, if he will have 6, because he simply with the same slam numbers would have great 2011 season, and being No.1 with Nadal and Federer arround. Also if he ended with 6 slams but with RG, i would consider him greater than Wilander too. Also he has many non-slam achievements like multiple Masters titles, already had won at least 1 in his career WTF. Top 10 player for many years, top 3 player for 5 years in row-with YE ranking. Also he is youngest SF at all slams in open era.

TennisOnWood
12-16-2011, 04:57 PM
Right now if he retire, his career is somewhere between those with 2-3slams like Hewitt, Safin, Kuerten and 6 slams Becker, Edberg on other hand. I am now comparing just during open era achievements. But definetely i can see him historically better than Becker or Edberg with 6 slams, if he will have 6, because he simply with the same slam numbers would have great 2011 season, and being No.1 with Nadal and Federer arround. Also if he ended with 6 slams but with RG, i would consider him greater than Wilander too. Also he has many non-slam achievements like multiple Masters titles, already had won at least 1 in his career WTF. Top 10 player for many years, top 3 player for 5 years in row-with YE ranking. Also he is youngest SF at all slams in open era.

From 1984 or 85 Boris and Stefan played against many great players until the end of carrer

Today's field is very poor behind Top 4

MatchFederer
12-16-2011, 05:05 PM
You just added another Murray. Do you think you're being funny? :scratch:


My bad, honest mistake. Will rectify but for the moment need to sleep.

helvet empire
12-16-2011, 05:19 PM
federer's dog. That's his rank

Lucilla
12-16-2011, 05:31 PM
the GOAT :worship:

maki925
12-16-2011, 07:55 PM
federer's dog. That's his rank
:no:

alter ego
12-16-2011, 08:06 PM
Has he retired?

tektonac
12-16-2011, 08:32 PM
this is just the current snapshot. i'm sure by the time he retires he'll move closer to the top. Murray trolls (and other as well) please abstain from commenting :wavey:

stewietennis
12-16-2011, 09:18 PM
I got Agassi at #20 thereabouts..

Not a lot of love for one of two men who has a career golden slam?

SetSampras
12-16-2011, 09:35 PM
Not a lot of love for one of two men who has a career golden slam?

Well Agassi was owned by Pete most of his career and he had too many MIA sessions where he underachieved in his prime and he didn't really have any longevity of dominance.. That hurts him IMO.

BigJohn
12-16-2011, 10:28 PM
federer's dog. That's his rank

Do you mean female dog?

Fedex
12-16-2011, 11:41 PM
Well Agassi was owned by Pete most of his career and he had too many MIA sessions where he underachieved in his prime and he didn't really have any longevity of dominance.. That hurts him IMO.

That's why Andre is clearly below the other players with 8 slams (Rosewall, Lendl, Connors).

Benny_Maths
12-17-2011, 12:26 AM
Novak Djokovic is (apparently) going to appear in The Expendables 2. That in itself already makes him the GOAT. :D

Seriously though, it'll be fun to see him in it.

Yolita
12-17-2011, 12:39 AM
At the moment I think he's at the level of Edberg & Wilander, behind the likes of Agassi and Lendl, but better than Courier, Kuerten, et al. He still has a few years in him, I think, so let's wait. :)

Mountaindewslave
12-17-2011, 12:46 AM
That's why Andre is clearly below the other players with 8 slams (Rosewall, Lendl, Connors).

please, Agassi accomplished more and is much more respected than Lendl. Agassi was a way better ballstriker.

I could understand POSSIBLY putting Rosewall and Connors over Andre, but Ivan is just not a better player nor accomplished more

Fedex
12-17-2011, 12:49 AM
please, Agassi accomplished more and is much more respected than Lendl. Agassi was a way better ballstriker.

I could understand POSSIBLY putting Rosewall and Connors over Andre, but Ivan is just not a better player nor accomplished more

Yeah, Lendl only won way more titles, more slam finals, way more weeks at number one, and was way more dominant in his prime than Agassi.

Other than that, Andre was better.

EliSter
12-17-2011, 02:01 AM
Pathetic Fedtards...it hurts doesn it ...the USO loss...:wavey:

TennisOnWood
12-17-2011, 08:09 AM
please, Agassi accomplished more and is much more respected than Lendl. Agassi was a way better ballstriker.

I could understand POSSIBLY putting Rosewall and Connors over Andre, but Ivan is just not a better player nor accomplished more

What the hell you are talking about?? Ivan was best player of Golden tennis era, mighty consistent and great on 3 different surfaces

Agassi was down many times (stupid wife and other things) but Ivan was in Top 5 for almost 600 weeks in a row

You don't now to much about history with that POSSIBLY word in comparing Ken and Andre

!VamosRafa!
12-17-2011, 11:09 AM
Top 15 for sure, but by the time he ends his career, he'll have around 12 Slams, putting him at #3 after Federer and Sampras.

TennisOnWood
12-17-2011, 11:54 AM
Top 15 for sure, but by the time he ends his career, he'll have around 12 Slams, putting him at #3 after Federer and Sampras.

And Slams are the only important thing?? You can dream about that 12 Slams but even then.. don't you think Borg is arround too with 11 Majors from 27 tournaments played?

MatchFederer
12-17-2011, 12:12 PM
What the hell you are talking about?? Ivan was best player of Golden tennis era, mighty consistent and great on 3 different surfaces

Agassi was down many times (stupid wife and other things) but Ivan was in Top 5 for almost 600 weeks in a row

You don't now to much about history with that POSSIBLY word in comparing Ken and Andre

I agree.

Mountain is either trolling or lacks a sense of awareness and knowledge, because to assert what they did in such a declamatory manner is, in short, ludicrous.

Vida
12-17-2011, 12:14 PM
well, greatness isnt exactly something there is an exact criteria, so, at least to me, novak is bit greater than what a pure number of slams hes won indicates. thats cause of the manner in which he won them, and yes, against whom hes won them.

Nole Rules
12-17-2011, 12:15 PM
Are you the one who made those vidoes, MatchFederer?

Nole Rules
12-17-2011, 12:17 PM
well, greatness isnt exactly something there is an exact criteria, so, at least to me, novak is bit greater than what a pure number of slams hes won indicates. thats cause of the manner in which he won them, and yes, against whom hes won them.

Well said mate.

MatchFederer
12-17-2011, 12:47 PM
Are you the one who made those vidoes, MatchFederer?

Yep.

Shinoj
12-17-2011, 01:20 PM
But why is there a need to Classify Djokovic right now?

Nole Rules
12-17-2011, 02:34 PM
Yep.

One of the best Nole videos i've ever seen. Loved the music also. :yeah:

Johnny Groove
12-17-2011, 03:04 PM
Open Era

1. Federer- 16 slams among other records, Open Era GOAT
2. Sampras- 14 slams, etc.
3. Borg- 11 slams, etc.
4. Lendl- 8 slams, longer time as #1 than Nadal
5. Nadal- 10 slams, vulnerable outside clay, but Career Golden Grand Slam.
6. Connors- 8 slams, Open Era longevity GOAT
7. Agassi- 8 slams, etc.
8. Laver- Only 5 slams in Open Era, but was top 10 staple in 70's, well past prime and CYGS in '69
9. McEnroe- 7 slams, etc.
10. Becker- 6 slams, Masters Cup King
11. Edberg- 6 slams, etc.
12. Wilander- 7 slams, but burnt out after '88 and not as good as Edberg and Becker
13. Newcombe- 5 slams in Open Era, 2 prior
14. Rosewall- Even past his prime, Rosewall managed 4 slams and 4 finals (and 5 semis) in slams in the Open Era, among other titles
15. Vilas- 4 slams, 4 finals, 4 semis, incredible year in '77, robbed of #1, won a shitload of other events as well.
16. Courier- 4 slams, 3 finals, 3 semis, had a good run in the early 90's, but burnt out too soon. Djoko will soon overtake.
17. Djokovic- 4 slams, 2 finals, 7 semis, just finished almost best year of Open Era. Can he back it up in 2012?

If Djokovic wins 1 slam next season, and keeps #1 the whole year, he'll be up to #13 of the Open Era.
If Djokovic wins 2 slams next season, and keeps #1 rank the whole year, he'll be up to #10 of the Open Era.
If Djokovic wins 3 slams next season, and keeps #1, he'll be still #10, but a better argument could be made vs. Mac for #9.
If Djokovic wins all 4 slams next season, arguments could be made all the way up to #4 all time.

Saberq
12-17-2011, 03:08 PM
Open Era

1. Federer- 16 slams among other records, Open Era GOAT
2. Sampras- 14 slams, etc.
3. Borg- 11 slams, etc.
4. Lendl- 8 slams, longer time as #1 than Nadal
5. Nadal- 10 slams, vulnerable outside clay, but Career Golden Grand Slam.
6. Connors- 8 slams, Open Era longevity GOAT
7. Agassi- 8 slams, etc.
8. Laver- Only 5 slams in Open Era, but was top 10 staple in 70's, well past prime and CYGS in '69
9. McEnroe- 7 slams, etc.
10. Becker- 6 slams, Masters Cup King
11. Edberg- 6 slams, etc.
12. Wilander- 7 slams, but burnt out after '88 and not as good as Edberg and Becker
13. Newcombe- 5 slams in Open Era, 2 prior
14. Rosewall- Even past his prime, Rosewall managed 4 slams and 4 finals (and 5 semis) in slams in the Open Era, among other titles
15. Vilas- 4 slams, 4 finals, 4 semis, incredible year in '77, robbed of #1, won a shitload of other events as well.
16. Courier- 4 slams, 3 finals, 3 semis, had a good run in the early 90's, but burnt out too soon. Djoko will soon overtake.
17. Djokovic- 4 slams, 2 finals, 7 semis, just finished almost best year of Open Era. Can he back it up in 2012?

If Djokovic wins 1 slam next season, and keeps #1 the whole year, he'll be up to #13 of the Open Era.
If Djokovic wins 2 slams next season, and keeps #1 rank the whole year, he'll be up to #10 of the Open Era.
If Djokovic wins 3 slams next season, and keeps #1, he'll be still #10, but a better argument could be made vs. Mac for #9.
If Djokovic wins all 4 slams next season, arguments could be made all the way up to #4 all time.

Novak should be in front of Courier...how the hell is Courier in front of Novak....and also he is better than Vilas.....Rosewall and Newcombe are so so ...others I agree

Naudio Spanlatine
12-17-2011, 03:13 PM
Novak should be in front of Courier...how the hell is Courier in front of Novak....and also he is better than Vilas.....Rosewall and Newcombe are so so ...others I agree

this:yeah:

Johnny Groove
12-17-2011, 03:22 PM
Courier, Vilas, and Djokovic all have 4 slams. So we must use other methods to distinguish.

Slam Finals:

Vilas- 4
Courier- 3
Djokovic- 2

Djokovic has the least amount of additional slam finals. He does, however, have more SF (7), than either Vilas or Courier (4)

Weeks at #1:

Courier- 58
Djokovic- 24
Vilas- Robbed of #1 due to ATP corruption in 1977

This is the big one. Courier has a huge lead on Djokovic, but if Nole can defend until around the USO, he'll pass Courier here. Poor Vilas should have ended '77 as #1.

Masters Cups:

Vilas- 1
Djokovic- 1
Courier- 2 finals

Not much here.

Total titles:

Vilas- 68
Djokovic- 28
Courier- 23

Vilas shits on both here. Although Vilas played plenty of MM events.

Career W/L record:

Djokovic: 394-111 (78.02%)
Vilas: 923-284 (76.5%)
Courier: 506-237 (68.1%)

Djokovic has the best winning %, but the least # of wins.

Bottom line, Djokovic just needs another few years to continue to write his records.

BigJohn
12-17-2011, 03:59 PM
well, greatness isnt exactly something there is an exact criteria, so, at least to me,novak is bit greater than what a pure number of slams hes won indicates. thats cause of the manner in which he won them, and yes, against whom hes won them.

That is why you are an out and proud Noletard. :)

SetSampras
12-17-2011, 06:26 PM
Novak should be in front of Courier...how the hell is Courier in front of Novak....and also he is better than Vilas.....Rosewall and Newcombe are so so ...others I agree

Rosewall is only "so so ?" ROFL.. Hes a viable candidate for the greatest to ever play the game. Only going Open Era is way too biased and subjective. Tennis existed before the open era and produced some of the best players to ever play the game of tennis.

According to posters here.. We are supposed to ignore these greats and pretend they never existed

MatchFederer
12-17-2011, 06:49 PM
Rosewall is only "so so ?" ROFL.. Hes a viable candidate for the greatest to ever play the game. Only going Open Era is way too biased and subjective. Tennis existed before the open era and produced some of the best players to ever play the game of tennis.

According to posters here.. We are supposed to ignore these greats and pretend they never existed

Indeed.

I would go as far as to say that Rosewall doesn't get enough even when he is brought up with more respect. There is actually an argument for him, as you say, for being the greatest of them all. It depends how seriously one judges a Grand Slam. I think it's overstated personally, and that Rosewall has claims over Laver with his incredible longevity and in winning more elite singles titles. What I'm saying is, that as it is reasonable to argue that Laver is the greatest ever, it is also reasonable to argue that actually it is Rosewall.

Johnny Groove
12-17-2011, 06:56 PM
The #1 reason Rosewall is not normally brought up as the #1 GOAT over Laver or Fed is that Ken didn't win Wimbledon. He won more total slams than Laver, pro and amateur, but since Rosewall never won Wimbledon, and thus never won a CYGS, while Laver not only did it, but twice, well, most people see that as Laver #1 evidence :shrug:

Rosewall is still top 5 all time.

Saberq
12-17-2011, 06:56 PM
Rosewall is only "so so ?" ROFL.. Hes a viable candidate for the greatest to ever play the game. Only going Open Era is way too biased and subjective. Tennis existed before the open era and produced some of the best players to ever play the game of tennis.

According to posters here.. We are supposed to ignore these greats and pretend they never existed

I dont count tennis before Borg and Johnny Mac.......I can tell you 100% that Fed would bagel Laver if they played both in their prime today

MatchFederer
12-17-2011, 07:01 PM
please, Agassi accomplished more and is much more respected than Lendl. Agassi was a way better ballstriker.

I could understand POSSIBLY putting Rosewall and Connors over Andre, but Ivan is just not a better player nor accomplished more

Rosewall is almost unquestionably ahead of Agassi. I mean, this is really rather easy, and clear.

I'd certainly put Connors above Agassi due to his longevity and consistency but this one is at least slightly contentious.

To suggest that Lendl is just not a better or more accomplished player when it can be argued that Lendl is greater than Connors is pretty farking funnay.

Let's start with accomplishments...

Lendl 8 Majors and 11 Finals
Agassi 8 Majors and 7 Finals

Lendl 22 Championship Series Titles
Agassi 17 Masters Series Titles

Lendl - failed to win at Wimbledon
Agassi - Career Slam

Lendl - consistent in his excellence, 10 seasons ranked in top 3 in a row, ends 4 years as no.1
Agassi - 6 seasons ranked in top 3, only ever 2 seasons consecutively, ended 1 year as no.1

Lendl - 7 different Year-end Championship titles, at least 5 should be counted.
Agassi - 1 YEC title

Lendl - No olympic gold
Agassi - 1 Olympic gold, for whatever it's worth...

Lendl - Career record 1071–239 (81.8%)
Agassi - Career record 870–274 (76.05%)

... Both these players are great but to use an argument of accomplishments to say that Lendl is not more accomplished than Agassi is good for an evening larf.

MatchFederer
12-17-2011, 07:05 PM
The #1 reason Rosewall is not normally brought up as the #1 GOAT over Laver or Fed is that Ken didn't win Wimbledon. He won more total slams than Laver, pro and amateur, but since Rosewall never won Wimbledon, and thus never won a CYGS, while Laver not only did it, but twice, well, most people see that as Laver #1 evidence :shrug:

Rosewall is still top 5 all time.

It's a weak argument. Almost all the of Rosewall's best years happen to coincide with the pro-am split. He won 5 Wembley Pro tournaments and shouldn't be marginalised because of this. As I've said, he is a genuine arguable candidate for greatest ever.

Super Djoker
12-17-2011, 07:56 PM
Achievements? Nowhere near the top 10. In the lower top 20. A fluke year like 2011 doesn't make him a legend.
Going by talent? Outside of the top 50.

Also, take out Murray. There's no reason for him being on the list.

You cannot fluke 3 slams and 5 Masters! none of his 6 victory,s over Nadal where Flukes!

Naudio Spanlatine
12-17-2011, 08:00 PM
You cannot fluke 3 slams and 5 Masters! none of his 6 victory,s over Nadal where Flukes!

did he really say that:o

Super Djoker
12-17-2011, 08:02 PM
not to mention he beat your guy to win Australia and that was no fluke! 2 over Nadal where no fluke either! Djokovic won a slam in 2008 and reached his first slam final in 2007! has everyone forgotten that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SetSampras
12-17-2011, 08:03 PM
I dont count tennis before Borg and Johnny Mac.......I can tell you 100% that Fed would bagel Laver if they played both in their prime today

They are product of different eras. Fed would ALSO get bageled if he had to play Laver with a wooden racket under the old conditions.. He couldn't hang with Laver under those conditions.. Why is it players of different eras have to be transportd\ed to TODAY'S GAME.. Why aren't we allowed to take players today and make them play under yesterday's conditions?

Super Djoker
12-17-2011, 08:08 PM
I am sure Nadal will come back stronger next year and no doubt fed will aswell! I remember how bad Djokovic was trying to defend A.O. 09. I hope he at least makes a half decent effort this Year!

Naudio Spanlatine
12-17-2011, 08:13 PM
not to mention he beat your guy to win Australia and that was no fluke! 2 over Nadal where no fluke either! Djokovic won a slam in 2008 and reached his first slam final in 2007! has everyone forgotten that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i jus cant believe that everyone is penalizing rafa and nole for being tennis players and having achievements to become legends of our sport:hysteric:

TennisOnWood
12-17-2011, 08:37 PM
I dont count tennis before Borg and Johnny Mac.......I can tell you 100% that Fed would bagel Laver if they played both in their prime today

Just tell us when tennis started.. in 1973 when Bjorn made Monte Carlo final at the age of 16 or in spring of 1977 when John won Junior Roland Garros and Mixed dobules, with 1/2 of Wimbledon few weeks later?

MatchFederer
12-17-2011, 09:14 PM
Just tell us when tennis started.. in 1973 when Bjorn made Monte Carlo final at the age of 16 or in spring of 1977 when John won Junior Roland Garros and Mixed dobules, with 1/2 of Wimbledon few weeks later?

You need to post more often!

:D

P.s. I'm guessing you have the documentary i've seen advertised on youtube?

Nd0gJzm_EQY

Saberq
12-17-2011, 09:16 PM
They are product of different eras. Fed would ALSO get bageled if he had to play Laver with a wooden racket under the old conditions.. He couldn't hang with Laver under those conditions.. Why is it players of different eras have to be transportd\ed to TODAY'S GAME.. Why aren't we allowed to take players today and make them play under yesterday's conditions?

I consider tennis as a modern game...not playing with wooden rackets you know....tennis is about hitting balls 10x in a rally not SV...the only sport in which you can take a superstar that played 30,60 years ago and put him in todays game and they would still dominate is baseball...In tennis Laver was great in a different era...in a different sport to be honest

Just tell us when tennis started.. in 1973 when Bjorn made Monte Carlo final at the age of 16 or in spring of 1977 when John won Junior Roland Garros and Mixed dobules, with 1/2 of Wimbledon few weeks later?

I think that before them tennis was not a very serious sport....

TennisOnWood
12-17-2011, 09:40 PM
MatchFederer.. sure, I watched it

Saberg.. maybe not organized good enough but serious for sure. Here you can see (for example) crowd in Japan in Davis Cup 1955 matche against Philippines (and now remember empty crowd in Masters 1000 Shanghai event few months back).. not to mantion matches between two of the sport's biggest nations, USA and Australia. That matches watched 25000 people in that years

Saberq
12-17-2011, 09:48 PM
MatchFederer.. sure, I watched it

Saberg.. maybe not organized good enough but serious for sure. Here you can see (for example) crowd in Japan in Davis Cup 1955 matche against Philippines (and now remember empty crowd in Masters 1000 Shanghai event few months back).. not to mantion matches between two of the sport's biggest nations, USA and Australia. That matches watched 25000 people in that years

yes I know I am just saying that people ranked 100 today would be top 10 40 years ago

TennisOnWood
12-17-2011, 09:59 PM
yes I know I am just saying that people ranked 100 today would be top 10 40 years ago

O.k.. put them in shoes like the Kramer's one, give them the old wood racquet and make them serve with one foot on the line so we can see what they can do (not to mantion better training process, medicine and all other stuff of modern time). Also, playing in Indoor tournaments without good lights on Wood or Asphalt (must be great for knees)

MatchFederer
12-17-2011, 10:02 PM
Is the sport more global and deeper today, with a larger talent pool?

Serious question.

TennisOnWood
12-17-2011, 10:07 PM
Is the sport more global and deeper today, with a larger talent pool?

Serious question.

Talent alone can't bring you anything this days m8 and Marin Cilic from 2008 New Haven will, I'm afraid, be the last teenage winner of ATP crown for a long time (maybe Bernard and Ryan can do some magic next year but that won't be easy)

MatchFederer
12-17-2011, 10:13 PM
Talent alone can't bring you anything this days m8 and Marin Cilic from 2008 New Haven will, I'm afraid, be the last teenage winner of ATP crown for a long time (maybe Bernard and Ryan can do some magic next year but that won't be easy)

But are there many more playing the game.

If there are, if the player pool is larger, then it makes sense to say that the game is probably deeper, not that I'm trying to defend Saberq's opinion. I'm just wondering how the player/talent pool has increased/decreased through different times.

I hear that in the USA, the player pool was much larger back in the 70's and 80's and maybe this explains why elite talents such as McEnroe and Sampras were produced, because the size of the player pool gave a much greater chance of producing one or two truly special players.

TennisOnWood
12-17-2011, 10:22 PM
But are there many more playing the game.

If there are, if the player pool is larger, then it makes sense to say that the game is probably deeper, not that I'm trying to defend Saberq's opinion. I'm just wondering how the player/talent pool has increased/decreased through different times.

I hear that in the USA, the player pool was much larger back in the 70's and 80's and maybe this explains why elite talents such as McEnroe and Sampras were produced, because the size of the player pool gave a much greater chance of producing one or two truly special players.

Well, tennis is indeed going in every corner of the Earth today, no doubt about that. Many things are different than 30 or 40 years ago and its impossible to see domination of one or two countries like USA and Australia done in the past.. they can't produce champions any more, Europe is taking everything this days. Field is bigger (I'm not saying better) but I'm not sure how history will remember Ferrer, Soderling or Berdych (just like some not that good players that made Top 10 in the past)

MatchFederer
12-17-2011, 10:26 PM
I think if a field is bigger than on the whole the depth in quality will also be deeper. Retired pros seem to believe the top 100 today is deeper than in the past (sorry I don't have sources to hand). I don't know how true this is but it would be interesting to see a study into playing pool size in tennis over the years.

Tennis might be going to every corner of the Earth but it matters where it's going to, of course, and the quality of the coaching infrastructure therein, among other things.

Saberq
12-17-2011, 10:41 PM
the fact that there is no teenage winners shows how much more difficult the game of tennis has become......there is a reason nobody won CYGS since Laver....if Fed couldn't do it you know....

SetSampras
12-17-2011, 11:06 PM
Is the sport more global and deeper today, with a larger talent pool?

Serious question.

I dunno.. Considering MANY feel this is the weakest top field we have had in recent history.. Even compared to 6-7 years ago, most will agree the depth today is far worse in terms of the talent pool. The top 5-10 in the world is some of the weakest I can remember for sure. Consider Nalbandian, Safin, Andre, Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko etc.. To Ferrer, Fish, Almagro, Tsonga, etc.

I think its a complete MYTH that mens tennis is stronger then ever in terms of depth. If the talent pool is so large why is there such a limited amount of talent and championship level players in the top 5-20?

With so many more people playing tennis, we can't get a better player then say someone like Almagro or Fish in the top 10? We can't get a better player then say David Ferrer at #5 in the world?

TennisOnWood
12-17-2011, 11:10 PM
That CYGS is disadvantage for players in 70's and 80's cause Australia was much behind other 3 Majors in level and depth

In 1985 started Lipton International Players Championships (future Miami Masters 1000) and it was much better than AO few months before it

Sunset of Age
12-17-2011, 11:52 PM
I dunno.. Considering MANY feel this is the weakest top field we have had in recent history.. Even compared to 6-7 years ago, most will agree the depth today is far worse in terms of the talent pool. The top 5-10 in the world is some of the weakest I can remember for sure. Consider Nalbandian, Safin, Andre, Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko etc.. To Ferrer, Fish, Almagro, Tsonga, etc.

I think its a complete MYTH that mens tennis is stronger then ever in terms of depth. If the talent pool is so large why is there such a limited amount of talent and championship level players in the top 5-20?

With so many more people playing tennis, we can't get a better player then say someone like Almagro or Fish in the top 10? We can't get a better player then say David Ferrer at #5 in the world?

MANY = SetSampy.
SetSampy delivering again. :worship: :o

SetSampras
12-17-2011, 11:55 PM
MANY = SetSampy.
SetSampy delivering again. :worship: :o

ROFL.. Nonsense.. you know I'm not the only one;)

Yolita
12-18-2011, 01:04 AM
Achievements? Nowhere near the top 10. In the lower top 20. A fluke year like 2011 doesn't make him a legend.
Going by talent? Outside of the top 50.

Also, take out Murray. There's no reason for him being on the list.

Fluke year? 10-1 against Fedal a fluke year? Beating Rafa in 6 finals is a fluke? Beating Roger 4 times is a fluke? After getting the year-end #3 for 4 straight years? No fluke. Hard work. Talent. Preparation for his assult on the 2 giants. 2011 was no fluke year, whichever way you want to spin it. :)

One swallow doesn't make a summer. We all know that. Novak may never have another season quite like this. But don't put asterisks on this season. This season Novak became a giant-killer.

If Murray had done what Novak did this year, would you be calling it a fluke?

RafaNadal2012!!!
12-18-2011, 01:21 AM
Novak Djokovic=Jim Courier as of now

3rd in a great generation. Federer tops Sampras's mark by 2, Nadal tops Agassi's mark by 2 (likely more before the end)
Djokovic is tied with Jim but hasn't reached Roland Garros final but did win 3 different slams. Djokovic will likely improve Courier's mark by 2 or 3 maybe more depending on how he handles his current injury setbacks

Naudio Spanlatine
12-18-2011, 01:22 AM
Fluke year? 10-1 against Fedal a fluke year? Beating Rafa in 6 finals is a fluke? Beating Roger 4 times is a fluke? After getting the year-end #3 for 4 straight years? No fluke. Hard work. Talent. Preparation for his assult on the 2 giants. 2011 was no fluke year, whichever way you want to spin it. :)

One swallow doesn't make a summer. We all know that. Novak may never have another season quite like this. But don't put asterisks on this season. This season Novak became a giant-killer.

If Murray had done what Novak did this year, would you be calling it a fluke?
there is no point in arguing with dear dani, the guy has gone :cuckoo: lately, well its not a surprise really:haha:

abraxas21
12-18-2011, 01:23 AM
Is the sport more global and deeper today, with a larger talent pool?

Serious question.

i'd answer with a yes to all of those questions but the problem is that the current conditions (namely racquet technology and surfaces' homogenization) have seriously hindered the talent required to make an impact in tennis.

tennis right now is a physical game of endurance where talent is not required or at least it's not as relevant as before. thus, you get to see endless play-station like rallies in 99% of today's matches as opposed to a contrast of different styles and versatility in the shot-selection of 20 years ago. in that regard, most players these days could't be able to serve and volley or make a proper backhand slice to save their lives.

so yes, there are a lot more people willing to play the sport now than there were in, say, the seventies but for the reasons already mentioned the game has certainly decreased in talent-quality.

Naudio Spanlatine
12-18-2011, 01:23 AM
:inlove:RafaNadal2012:inlove:

Edda
12-18-2011, 01:48 AM
I think Djoko has burned himself out. He was the best this year, but Rafa and Roger still have the consistency, David Ferrer, the tenacity and Juanqui, the longevity and one of the best resumes of accomplishment off the court. The best thing that could be said of Djoko is that he at least had more commitment to the sport than Murray or the Federer of 2011. Rafa's year was full of injuries and illness. Hopefully, he will return to form again.

Chirag
12-18-2011, 02:37 AM
They are product of different eras. Fed would ALSO get bageled if he had to play Laver with a wooden racket under the old conditions.. He couldn't hang with Laver under those conditions.. Why is it players of different eras have to be transportd\ed to TODAY'S GAME.. Why aren't we allowed to take players today and make them play under yesterday's conditions?

exactly and which is why I dont think there is such a thing as GOAT ;)

Mae
12-18-2011, 11:28 AM
I think Djoko has burned himself out. He was the best this year, but Rafa and Roger still have the consistency, David Ferrer, the tenacity and Juanqui, the longevity and one of the best resumes of accomplishment off the court. The best thing that could be said of Djoko is that he at least had more commitment to the sport than Murray or the Federer of 2011. Rafa's year was full of injuries and illness. Hopefully, he will return to form again.

You just might be right about the burn out. However, it is much too early I think to be making a judgement about Nole's place in history. He had one awesome year, but now what will he do?

Egreen
12-18-2011, 09:25 PM
In between Edberg et al and Vilas/Năstase/Kuerten/Courier.

He is better than Vilas/Năstase/Kuerten/Courier but not there yet with Edberg/Wilander/Newcombe. He needs to win some more slams to be at the level of Edberg/Wilander/Newcombe.

incognito
12-19-2011, 02:57 PM
In between Edberg et al and Vilas/Năstase/Kuerten/Courier.

He is better than Vilas/Năstase/Kuerten/Courier but not there yet with Edberg/Wilander/Newcombe. He needs to win some more slams to be at the level of Edberg/Wilander/Newcombe.
Currently, this pretty much sums it up...

He is clearly the best among tennis players with less than 5 GS titles, however he needs to win more GS titles in order to join the likes of Edberg/Wilander/Newcombe or greater. Completing a non-calendar year GS and/or a career GS next year would definitely help strengthen his case. He's a strong favorite for the AO title and having defended his title there, he would IMHO be just one RG win away from becoming their equal (a non-calendar year GS and/or a career GS making up for the deficit of 1 slam). So, this could happen within the next few months. It all depends on how strong his performance is at the start of the season.

Purple Rainbow
12-19-2011, 03:54 PM
He's right up there with Wilander.
Decent career, one standout season.

In my post-1990 ranking thread (see stats section) he ranks 5th. Miles and miles behind Federer, Sampras, Nadal and Agassi.