Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by timnz, May 18, 2009.
I again agree.
djokovic did play really well in hamburg 2008 vs nadal and in the 2009 CC masters (rome and madrid) , but he played quite a bit below that level in 2008 RG ....
in 2012 RG, he was very inconsistent ......
panatta also took borg to 5 sets in 78 in a CC match IIRC ...
at RG, I would say there clearly is and the matches/stats clearly point to that ......
Abmk is (as usual) quite correct in his opinions here.
Lendl is easily top-10 on clay. Fed is second-10. It is not close.
As for CC GOAT: Nadal is no. 1, Borg is no. 2. It is very, very close.
Orantes has a far greater record on cc than Djokovic;Gerulaitis a better one and Pecci has an equivalent record.If Djokovic beat Nadal, Victor did beat Borg.
You are a true lost cause.
Panatta won the FO ( beat Borg twice at RG, though you may not know who Borg was), Vilas won the FO and many other major cc events and Lendl won 3 RG titles, that is 2 more than Fed/Djoker combined.
Kodes won 2 FO to Fed 1 and Djokovic 0.
You are lowering your country´s inteligence average which each passing post...and you´re country is huge.
dumbo kiki, learn to read ...
here again , bolded for you :
you fail again, as usual .......bah !
what exactly do you know btw ? you can't read, have near zero knowledge of tennis, can't compose sentences in English properly, make the same spelling mistakes time and again, even though many post the correct spellings ......... are you really that thick or just pretend to be ?
and finally federer > kodes on clay and by some distance ......
federer has 1 RG, 4 other RG finals ( losing only to nadal in them ) and 5 CC masters and a total of 10 clay court titles, which is 2 more than the the total number of titles that Kodes won in his entire career .......
Djokovic better than Vilas on clay ? I can't believe it. Vilas won 45 tournaments on clay (this is the record), won 2 Grand Slams on clay (FO and USO) and all major tournaments on this surface (Rome, Madrid, Monte-Carlo, Hamburg ...). I don't think FO 77 was a joke. Vilas beated Fibak, Ramirez, and Gottfried, who were top ten players (+ Stan Smith, a Grand Slam winner). Gottfried was n°4 at that time, and beated Borg in the beginning of the year. In USO, on clay, Vilas beated Higueras, Solomon and Connors. I think Vilas is much much better than Djoko on clay.
At this moment Vilas is officialy "greater" than Djokovic on clay because of the numbers. However Djokovic is only halfway through his career, Vilas's career is long over. Lets wait until Djokovic's career is nearly over then compare. If Djokovic wins a French, and he should win one, he will rank over Vilas on clay probably. His French Open record would be better by then, I already mentioned how Vilas only had 3 decent French Opens ever, and he is likely to end up winning atleast as many Masters type events than Vilas in his career too. I dont care how many tiny events in some remote part of the World Vilas won while purposely ducking Borg, Vilas was the Muster of the mid 90s in that sense, except unlike Muster who was by far the Worlds best clay courter for 2 years (despite his 96 RG flop), Vilas was never considered the best, not even in 1977 did people consider him better than Borg on red clay anyway, so someone like Muster is even clearly superior to Vilas on clay due to his decisive 2 year reign, even if his RG record is even worse. I actually expect Djokovic will end up being considered over Federer on clay by the time his career is over, although this is less certain.
As for who is the better or tougher to face, I would say Djokovic hands down. Just look at Vilas's scores over the years vs Borg on clay, absolutely pathetic. Contrast that to Djokovic vs Nadal over the years on clay, often winning a set, winning 2 matches in straight sets, having match points in another, all vs prime Nadal. I also cant see Djokovic being as hopeless year after year vs Borg on clay as Vilas was, and no way would Vilas push Nadal as hard on clay as Djokovic has. I also dont see Djokovic if he is playing well enough to reach a final losing to a 17 year old nowhere near his prime Wilander in his debut slam final. I could go on forever basically.
I agree and yet completely irrelevant to my point as well. Borg only played a far from prime Lendl once at the French (and barely won, taking 5 sets), then retired, this was his only brush with Lendl as opposition there. Nadal played a prime Federer atleast 3 times, and a slam winning caliber Federer on 5 occasions at the French. The latter is much more opposition to face than the former, and their respective overall clay careers and places in history on the surface are irrelevant to that. Even for a rare individual who thinks 1981 version of Lendl 3 years away from winning a slam is already better than Federer on clay, it still wouldnt matter, facing 5 times is worth more than facing only 1 time.
Also for what it is worth I would be surprised if abmk concurs with you Federer is only in the second 10 in history on clay.
Vilas is a long way in front of Djokovic on clay.
Lets see if he still is when their careers are over. I somewhat doubt it. Being a Muster fan I know you are perfectly happy to overcredit many extra rinkey dink clay titles, although as I said Muster atleast dominated the whole clay scene in 95 and 96, something Vilas never did.
If Djokvoic wins a French, reaches another 2 French Open finals, and wins atleast another 2 Masters on clay, which is probably atleast 70% likely to happen by the end of his career, will many people rank Vilas over him? The obvious answer is no, and those who do will only have Vilas's record at tiny clay events most couldnt be bothered to play as their argument, and almost all will be partial fans of Vilas.
As I said I wouldnt even be surprised if Djokovic ends up surpassing Federer on clay (although not nearly as sure on this as I am relatively sure of him passing Vilas's clay status eventually), and Federer is obviously above Vilas on clay.
As far as level of play Djokovic at his best is already easily better than Vilas "1 to 3 games per set vs Borg"
Vilas dominated 1977, won both majors on clay and had a 53-match winning streak on the surface.
Was Vilas the undisputed best clay courter in the World in peoples eyes in 1977 the way Muster was in 1995 and 1996? NO. Nearly everyone still considered Borg the best, and Vilas could not beat Borg head to head anywhere even that year, not even his beloved clay, in fact both times they met on clay this year he was drubbed, winning 17 games total in 6 sets of clay court tennis between the two. As a Muster fan you are in fact insulting him to suggest Muster those two years was anything like Vilas in 77. Muster those two years was the man on clay. Vilas in 77 was the man on clay only when Borg didnt play.
I guess you could give Vilas top honor on green clay that year, especialy as Borg was in the draw at the U.S Open even though he did not finish a match with injury. However red clay was still Borg by a landslide, and everyone knew it. By your logic Sue Barker and Virginia Ruzica were the top clay courters in the World the years the won the French during this period, not Chris Evert (who skipped every French from 76-78 due to money making commitments which often took priority over the French around this time). It would be one thing if Vilas won when he met Borg on clay, or even if they hadnt played at all on clay this year, but that is not the case.
Borg chose not to play the 1977 French Open, opting to join the Cleveland Nets for 1977 World TeamTennis. Borg played the 1977 US Open, and had to retire against Stockton in the Round of 16. Vilas won both tournaments.
Muster in 1995, won all the big clay-court titles except Hamburg (which he didn't play), and won 11 titles on the surface. In 1996, he won 7 titles on clay, which included a retaining of all his pre-French Open titles from 1995.
What is your point. Borg skipped the French which Vilas won, both Borg and Vilas were dominant on clay where they each played that year, but the two times they played Borg spanked Vilas like always, and Muster on clay in 95 and 96 was hands down the best clay courter in the World which Vilas never was. That was exactly what I already said. So your post is for what reason exactly?
Like I said you could give green clay to Vilas in 1977, but red clay there is no argument for Vilas being better than Borg except his French Open title with Borg not playing, but by that logic Barker and Ruzica were the best red clay players in the World in the years they won the French, not Chris Evert. Are you willing to make that claim as well, LOL!
I would have thought that was obvious. You have to be in the tournament in order to have any chance of winning it. Borg chose WTT over the French Open in 1977. Vilas chose to play the 1977 French Open and won it in dominant fashion. Along with Vilas, the 1977 French Open had players like Panatta, Nastase, Ramirez, Solomon, Gottfried, Kodes and Dibbs in the draw, so trying to discredit Vilas' win is poor form. Borg knew the consequences of playing WTT, and that meant a banning from that year's French Open, as established by Connors' failed legal action against the French Tennis Federation in 1974.
Vilas' dominant form in 1977 was in the second half of the year, and he didn't meet Borg then. For most of their careers, Borg beat Vilas by one-sided scores, but it always felt closer than the scorelines suggest and you just have to watch the 1978 French Open final to see this. Borg beat Vilas like he did because he was a little bit better in all the strong aspects of Vilas' game. But with Vilas in his peak form in the second half of 1977, who knows what would have happened had he faced Borg then? The point is, Vilas, through his sheer activity that year, and winning both clay-court majors, was the best player.
I don't think Djokovic belongs in the same conversation as players like Vilas on clay.
And how many good quality victories does Djokovic actually have at RG during his career. A 30 year old Federer that played horrendously this year, Del Potro last year maybe and Gonzalez in 2006. It's not like he has particularly difficult draws there over the years.
I think that Djokovic has been a bigger beneficiary of surface homogenisation and hard court tennis being the norm on every surface (the make-up of the current tour is basically completely dominated by hard courters), than either Federer or Nadal.
No Wilding or Cochet?
Aren't they like 100 years ago? I don't know if we should go back that far. In those days they were wearing pant and long sleeves shirt.
Titles won on clay :
Vilas : 45
Djokovic : 7
Grand Slams on clay :
Vilas : 2
Djokovic : 0
End of the match.
Even though I am an Austrian, I cannot understand that you put Muster ahead of Rosewall on clay.
Most experts (even non-admirers of Muscles) rate Rosewall very high regarding clay, f.i. ahead of Laver.
I guess you know that Rosewall won 6 big titles at Roland Garros. Please consider this case once more.
If they were wearing Speedo's would it make them better than today's pros?
I don't think so. IMO, Djokovic would have a winning record against Vilas on clay.
Rosewall had a great record on clay. But, he played in an era when most of the top pros still S&V'd on clay, some on first and second serves. I don't think it's difficult to conclude that Rosewall's style of play, as effective as it was against attacking players of the 50's and 60's on clay, would be as successful against the grinders of the 70's through the present.
Laver and Rosewall as well as Kodes,Emmo and Santana double Fed at Paris, no chance he is top 10 and almost the same for Vilas
and playing awful tennis while not owned by its main rival
Djoko on clay is not an option he lines up with Stich or Edberg at most on clay
I've Fed at #7 and some people have him higher or lower. You always get ticked off when someone is put a player ahead of Laver and Rosewall. They are good players too but that doesn't mean they have to be at the top in every categories. Now try to be open minded.
Never in the history of tennis where you have a pair of most dominant players(Federer/Nadal) ever to play the game. Borg/Connors, Pete/Andre or Laver/Rosewall were good too but they fall short.
C mon how many one timers can claim top ten status, Nasty has far superior record on clay fi
Be serious and mature and fair to others not called Fed
While Federer can claim be a second tier grass and hard and cannot be judged on fast indoors not by his fault, he certainly can be honoured with 4 tier on clay
Obviously this isn't by record but by opinion. You probably could have put Lacoste, Tilden, Nastase, Orantes, Wilding, Cochet somewhere. That's okay since you have guys like Lendl, Wilander and Guga up there. Honestly Laver probably belongs ahead of a few of them and Rosewall should be higher. But considering your feeling about the past, it's remarkably objective of you.
So you decided not to be open minded. Okay, fine. But if you want people to take you seriously, you need to change.
It's only a top 10 and you can throw in many of them on the list. There's no such thing as rigght or wrong list. However, I don't think we should include players way back in the 20s or 100 years ago. None of us are old enough to know them plus there isn't much(if any) information about them.
You can check out the records. Babe Ruth played in the 1910's and he's recognized as perhaps the greatest ever.
Tilden's records are easily available for example. By record for clay I do think he's top ten. He won a ton of clay events and the World Hardcourt which was the equivalent of the French Open today.
Vilas above Laver (and even more ridiculously Rosewall) on clay, ROTFL!!! Laver was typically winning more games vs Borg at nearly 40 as peak Vilas was winning agaisnt Borg on clay. Ranking Vilas above Federer on clay is also the closest thing you will probably ever do to Federer bashing as well.
Rosewall = Bruguera on clay too, that is some joke as well. How on earth can Rosewall be below Laver on clay also. There is no question Rosewall owned clay for many years, even in Laver's prime.
My top 20 would be:
It looks like Tony Wilding won more clay-court titles than anybody else in history, and he didn't lose a match on clay for 4 years up to being drafted into the First World War, which would tragically end his life. Taking a closer look at Wilding's record, it looks like Nadal has a very serious challenger for clay GOAT.
Thanks that you call Laver and Rosewall "good players".......
I'm just stunned that he put them the top ten. Shocked!!
Good list. I only miss Segura and Gimeno. I would rank Laver higher. He was almost as strong as Rosewall...
Going through Wilding's claycourt matches I realized that he had rather weak opponents.
You know why? You should now by now...
Very smart from you.Unfortunately, the irony won´t be appreciated nor used for self improvement
To be open minded, first, you´ll need some experience, some criteria and some knowledge learnt by yourself, in which visual experience is basic.Then, you can choose from the options you created to yourself.Otherwise, you become a parrot or a repeating machine subject to the opinion of other high schoolers, Tennischannelist or even worse specimens
BTW, you forgot somebody else in your otherwiae very accurate list...yeah¡¡ you know who¡¡¡ ( if, as you said, you are based on records)
I like a lot of names here but...Djokovic? never won anything worthy or even being close to on clay.Federer and Muster would be 19 and 20 IMO.I have doubts Muster is even a top 30 cc player, but,as I said, I like the whole rest of names.
If they were taller, maybe TMF would consider using the word " very good"
as I said in another thread, you still gotta come down from Evonne´s tobacco.
Separate names with a comma.