Djokovic greater than Lendl & Emerson?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by LazyNinja19, Apr 8, 2014.

?

Who's greater (as of now)?

  1. Ivan Lendl

    84.0%
  2. Novak Djokovic

    16.0%
  1. helloworld

    helloworld Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,670
    Lendl is greater than Djokovic in just about any record that matters in tennis. There is really no comparison between the two now, but Djokovic has a few more years to improve his career. I believe they will have a similar career when it is all said and done.
     
    #51
  2. Vensai

    Vensai Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2014
    Messages:
    1,195
    Location:
    Mortis
    The first man to win the grand slam of tennis.
     
    #52
  3. JMR

    JMR Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    417
    This is not a matter of "counting" anything. The question is what the so-called "pro slams" have to do with the Tennis Channel's ranking list. Not with your ranking list, or my ranking list, whatever they may be. The answer is almost nothing. Nine of the top 10 players in the TC rankings never even played a "pro slam." There is no reason for those tournaments to be included in this particular list. Why single out a stat that is totally irrelevant to most of the players listed? The pro slams' inclusion is obviously a piece of advocacy by some unnamed editor (like a great deal of the tennis writing in Wikipedia).
     
    #53
  4. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,648
    But let's agree not to give him credit for it until/if he reaches those milestones - agreed? I only judge people on what they have achieved not what they potentially could/maybe achieve. Until then, he is way behind Lendl and any list should reflect that.
     
    #54
  5. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,648
    I think you will agree with me that people shouldn't be ranked on their potential achievements but rather what they have actually achieved.
     
    #55
  6. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    Djokovic is definitely above Emerson, but below Lendl as of now ..
     
    #56
  7. JMR

    JMR Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    417
    Please argue logically. Whether I "trust" the TC or not is irrelevant. The point is that this Wikipedia article is about the TC's rankings. The TC itself did not publish its rankings with a "number of pro slams won" column -- with good reason, since it would be meaningless for the vast majority of the players. Some "pro slam" fanboy just decided to put that stat into Wiki's article, and not to help explain the TC rankings, but merely as misdirected historical advocacy.
     
    #57
  8. President

    President Legend

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Messages:
    7,059
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    Chico must have edited the article.
     
    #58
  9. Tenez101

    Tenez101 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    3,638
    No, Chico would have put him at no. 1 and deleted Nadal from the list.
     
    #59
  10. PMChambers

    PMChambers Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2013
    Messages:
    929
    I don't buy that one bit.

    Lendl

    80 USO lost to Mac in 4, he competed but lost.
    80 Masters lost to Borg in final, he competed, also played connors and Vilas
    80 WCT lost to Connors, he competed.
    81 FO lost to Borg in 5, he competed.
    81 FO beat McEnroe
    81 Masters beat Mac, Vitas, Vilas
    .
    .
    82 lost Connors in USO final, he competed
    84 Mac unbeaten best he was, Lendl won FO - he competed

    Lendl did play and compete with though did not dominate in the early 80's peak Borg, Mac, Connors (not peak but close), Vilas, Vitas (not writting his surname) etc.

    Lendl Ranking
    80 - 6; 81 - 6; 82 - 3; 83 - 2; 84 - 3
    How was he 3rd in 82 not competing. Or in the Top 10 from 1980 not competing?
     
    #60
  11. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,648
    Lendl competition

    I do agree that Lendl reached his peak in the late 80's. However, he was very much in the mix in the early 80's. He did in fact dominate McEnroe from 1981 to May 1983. In all of 1981 and 1982 for instance McEnroe didn't win an official match against Lendl (only winning 1 set against Lendl that entire 2 years!) - including losing the WCT finals and the Masters finals to him. Lendl was only 1 match away from the 1982 year end number 1 ranking (if he had beaten Connors in the US open final he would have been recognized universally as 1982's number 1). He had 3 times the titles of McEnroe in 1982 and twice the titles of Connors in 1982.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2014
    #61
  12. Vensai

    Vensai Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2014
    Messages:
    1,195
    Location:
    Mortis
    Emerson was definitely a better doubles player than Djokovic though.
     
    #62
  13. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,156
    Ahaha you are amazing.

    Lendl best years go from 1981 to 1991, from his first to his last final.

    Agassi made his first SF in 1988, his first final in 1990, his first title in 91. He was there, but for a small part of Lendl career.
    Borg retired after 1981. They overlapped one year.
    McEnroe was there until 1985, Edberg and Becker since 1985.
    Wilander was there until 1988.
    Connors best years were all before 1980. He made 6 straight slam finals in 1974-1975, winning 3 in a row.

    Now Djokovic best years are 2007-....

    Nadal was there from the beginning.
    Federer was there from the beginning.

    The only Lendl's opponent who was close at the same level than Federer and Nadal is Borg. Until 1981.
     
    #63
  14. mike danny

    mike danny Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2013
    Messages:
    5,225
    Agree. He had to compete with Federer an Nadal at their best from the beginning.
     
    #64
  15. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,648
    So now

    If you are evaluating a players prime as being from his first slam final year to his last slam final year (my definition of prime is similar but I would also count beginning or final year wins at season end finals), like you have with Lendl from 1981 to 1991, then great players whose prime overlapped with his are as follows (showing prime overlap years):


    Connors (1981-1984)
    McEnroe (1981-1985)
    Wilander (1982-1988)
    Borg (1981)
    Becker (1985-1991)
    Edberg (1985-1991)
    Agassi (1990-1991)
    Sampras (1990-1991)

    Note: connors wasn't done before 1980 - observe 1980 WCT finals and the 1982 wimbledon and US open 1982 and 1983
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2014
    #65
  16. tennisaddict

    tennisaddict G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2009
    Messages:
    15,125
    Before 1984, no one had belief that Lendl will beat Borg at Clay or McEnroe/Connors at hard in the majors.
     
    #66
  17. merlinpinpin

    merlinpinpin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,571
    And Lendl then proved that "no one" was wrong.
     
    #67
  18. Nickzor

    Nickzor Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2013
    Messages:
    482
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    Someone who beat your homeboy in 7 finals in a row, not to mention 3 Slam finals in less then a years time and 4 masters tourneys deserves to be on that list
     
    #68
  19. reaper

    reaper Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,134
    Any assessment of the level of competition would be an opinion.
     
    #69
  20. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Who the hell is RunDatGame???
     
    #70
  21. Chico

    Chico Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2013
    Messages:
    9,197
    Quite deserved I would say. Djokovic is where he should be.

    The things that should be changed on that list are:
    1. Borg over Nadal
    2. Seles needs to be much higher and Graf much lower.
     
    #71
  22. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    JMR, I don't know how you have decided; I have already decided in which category you belong...

    Tennis Channel itself has made a column with Pro Slams if you look exactly!!

    It's not right that 9 of the top 10 have not played a Pro Slam. In fact they were only seven. You can't include the women: they never had such a category at all. It's a stupidity of Tennis Channel to mix men and women!

    Pro Slams are NOT irrelevant to the players. You don't know that ALL very great players from 1934 to 1967 have played and won pro majors!

    If you neglect the pro slams (correct: Pro Grand Slam tournaments) you put Rosewall and Gonzalez, both maybe the GOAT, onto a place where they actually are in your beloved Tennis Channel list: 14 and 24....

    Why do you belittle the term Pro Slam if even your T.C.list is using it (but not considering it)?

    Only a village idiot believes that Roy Emerson was a better player than Rosewall and Gonzalez...
     
    #72
  23. Chanwan

    Chanwan Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2012
    Messages:
    9,433
    Djokovic ahead of Lendl, Rosewall and Seles? Don't see it.
     
    #73
  24. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Chico, No other changes needed???
     
    #74
  25. borg number one

    borg number one Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,668
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    The great Roy Emerson was in attendance at the River Oaks U.S. Clay Court Championships last night, watching the Bryan Brothers win their first round match. It was nice to see him there live. My sense of this is that perhaps you could put Djokovic above Emerson now, yet I'd still put Lendl ahead of Djokovic overall. It depends on how much weight you put on 1-2 years of really off the charts results versus a more extended career. Djokovic is getting up there for sure, but not quite in the same area as Lendl in my opinion so far. He's got some more time though, so he's likely to stay up there for a while longer.
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2014
    #75
  26. Goosehead

    Goosehead Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,597
    Location:
    A bloke in Brighton, England.
    McEnroe beat lendl in the 1983 Wimbledon SF and the 1984 uso final. I know you didn't forget:) but I just wanted to add it.
     
    #76
  27. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    borg number one, It's nice that Emmo attended River Oaks. I see that he won there in 1964.

    It' a pity that this championship has now a weaker filed than it had decades ago.

    I always hesitate to call Emerson "great" because I dislike that many people compare him with Rosewall, Hoad and Gonzalez even though he was well below them.
     
    #77
  28. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,367
    Why, because he was an amateur and not a pro(lol)? Had he turned pro instead, I don't see how you can say he would have won zero pro major unless you're biased. He won 12 amateur slams, whether the field was weak, you can't discount his chances at the pro majors. He would have won a few. I know you don't want to admit it because it makes the field was depleted/weak in the 60s.

    It's like tennis today have a split fields(amateur & pro), with Nole playing in the amateur while big name players are in the pro. Using your same assumption for Emerson, Nole would have won zero slam had he was playing in the pro.
     
    #78
  29. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,115
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Emerson might have won a pro major. Then again, he might not have. Gimeno never did.
     
    #79
  30. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    We need to go through HtH to predict him at pros
     
    #80
  31. Top Jimmy

    Top Jimmy Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    456
    Poor Ivan is under appreciated.

    Lets see these guys nowadays hit like Lendl did with a 80 sq inch head and gut or syn strings.

    Lendl could hit just as hard and grind out points just like today's kids yet he was competent at the net and would actually go for winners.

    The lack of Wimbledon does not bother me, he played in an era with all-time great fast grass court players: Edberg, Becker, McEnroe, Cash, etc.
     
    #81
  32. 6-1 6-3 6-0

    6-1 6-3 6-0 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2012
    Messages:
    4,657
    Hmm, I could have sworn I saw 5555 post here.

    Oh wait, that's right -- I clicked the lovely triangle to the left of his post, and it magically disappeared.
     
    #82
  33. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,367
    Daniel Gimeno-Traver?:roll:

    Anyway Emerson won 12 amateur slams, at least this is a fact that support him more likely to win a few in the pro, and unlikely zero. That's closer to reality.
     
    #83
  34. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    Mustard means Andres Gimeno, who (at best) was of the standard of Andy Murray: a man who reached many major finals, losing them all, before finally winning late in his career.

    He lost 5 Pro Major/Open Era slam finals, 4 of them to Laver and 1 to Rosewall, before winning the FO at the age of 34 in 1972.

    This is similar to Murray losing 4 Open Era slam finals, 3 of them to Federer and 1 to Djokovic, before beating the latter in the USO final in 2012. Of course, Murray backed this up by winning Wimbledon in 2013.

    The point is that Gimeno is not an all-time giant like some claim he is.

    Emerson is no giant either, but he beat Laver in amateur slam finals and would likely have won around 4 Open Era majors, putting him in the same class as Vilas and Courier.

    To claim otherwise just shows you are a biased fanboy of olden times.
     
    #84
  35. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,367
    Phoenix1983, so you and BobbyOne believe Emerson would win nothing had he was in the pro circuit? I think that's more biased than me saying that he would have won a few.
     
    #85
  36. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    I said he would have won around 4 majors.
     
    #86
  37. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,648
    My view is that Emerson would have done well at the Pro Slams if he had gone Pro at the same time as Laver. I base that on a 33 year old Emerson beating a peak Pro-Hardened Laver 5 times in 1968 - all in straight sets!
     
    #87
  38. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    TheMightyFederer, You make a big mistake: Emerson is not Djokovic. The latter was (and actually also virtually is) No.1 of the world. Emerson was never No.1 or 2 or 3 or 4!!!

    Even if Emerson would have won 40 majors at the amateurs , it's still not likely that he could have broken the barrier of peak Laver, peak and almost peak Rosewall, Gonzalez, Hoad and Gimeno. Only by a fluke.
     
    #88
  39. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Mustard, Yes, in the theory all is possible, even that Bob Hewitt (a fine player) would have won a pro major. But very unlikely...

    Gimeno, even though at least a BIT better than Emerson, never won a pro major. But he won an open major (where Laver and Rosewall were absent, also Okker and Newcombe) whereas Emmo never reached a big SF in open era (Andres did reach four).
     
    #89
  40. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,648
    And Yet

    And yet Emerson beats Peak Laver in 1968 - 5 times - all in straight sets!
     
    #90
  41. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Phoenix1983, I just admire you. How have you counted or calculated that Emmo would have won around 4 open majors?? Did you use a crystal-ball of a gipsy? Why not 2 or 6 majors?..

    I remember you once reduced your estimation to 2-3 majors. Am I wrong?

    It honours Gimeno when being compared with Andy Murray who is a great player.

    I never heard anybody saying that Gimeno is an all-time giant! You must have good ears...
     
    #91
  42. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    timnz, I contradict. Emerson was already 26 when Laver turned pro. Too old for improving much.

    Emerson was not a Rosewall or Laver, i.e. not a genius on court. He mostly won by power not by finesse, great shots etc.

    Laver lost rather often in open era to weaker players in small events. The great players show their best at big tournaments or Davis Cup. See Laver's 1969 year.

    Laver and Rosewall won all pro majors from 1963 to 1967 (against Gonzalez, Hoad, Gimeno) plus 8 out of the first 10 open majors where they participated even being old men then.

    Emerson lost 1:6 matches against Gimeno in 1968. He never reached an open big SF!!!
     
    #92
  43. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    You forget that in order to win a pro major you have to beat at least three greats. Emerson's wins in 1968 all happened in rather meaningless events. Emerson was not a top ten player in 1968 or later.
     
    #93
  44. Vensai

    Vensai Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2014
    Messages:
    1,195
    Location:
    Mortis
    Hypotheticals are hard to deal with. I feel Emerson would have won a few though.
     
    #94
  45. JMR

    JMR Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    417
    :confused: This is the sort of illogical attitude that leads to so many silly articles on Wikipedia. "I think the TC is stupid for combining men and women on its ranking list, so in an article about the TC's ranking list, I'm going to stick in the 'pro slams' stat even though all of the women, and most of the men, will have big 0 for it. Who cares what the article is about anyway?! Next, I'm going to put a 'pro slams' stat in the article about the Federer-Nadal rivalry! That'll show the world how important the pro slams were! Can't have too many references to the pro slams!"

    Do you understand the difference between these two things:

    1. The general relevance of "pro slams" to the careers of male players in the pre-open era.

    2. The specific relevance, or lack thereof, of "pro slams" to the TC's all-time ranking list of male and female players, most of whom are from the open era?

    Right now, the answer to my question seems be "Hell no, I don't understand," but I haven't given up hope.
     
    #95
  46. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    JMR, Yes, I don't understand your point 1 vs point 2, because I have a normal brain and you have an Einstein brain. That explains your opinion about TC list versus the opinions of all the other people who do know that your beloved TC list is crap...

    As you consider that grandious list (they just forgot Vince Spadea ranking ahead of Rosewall and Gonzalez!) I just cannot help you anymore. Good luck for living in your Einstein land where you surely are the man (or woman) with the highest IQ! It's just the question if you are at IQ 199 plus or minus..........

    I give not up the hope that you one day will understand why it's extremely important to consider the pro majors' achievements at those players who played them. Otherwise you get the nonsense place of 24 for Pancho Gonzalez who in reality is arguably greater than Federer and even Laver!!!!! Maybe you don't know (even though you are Einstein 2) that Gonzalez won only two Grand Slam tournaments but has a better resume of all players with the possible exception of Laver and Rosewall.
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2014
    #96
  47. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,170
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Great question. I can't find a single achievement that elevates Federer over Graf.

    I'm guessing this list was created by a man or the majority votes were men.
     
    #97
  48. Tenez101

    Tenez101 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    3,638
    ATP slams are best of five, WTA slams are best of 3.
     
    #98
  49. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,367
    Sorry Phoenix1983, I read your post too quick.
     
    #99
  50. Chico

    Chico Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2013
    Messages:
    9,197
    I am sorry but this has nothing with math. If it was all about numbers the lists like these would not be necessary, just count the titles. However there are intangibles that need to be taken into account and when you weigh everything Novak is clearly above both Lendl and Emerson.
     

Share This Page