Djokovic vs Federer - hard court summary

[Djokovic2011]

Lol. I didn't mention Australia anywhere...

Which is precisely why I responded to your post in the first place.

 

[Djokovic2011]

See more.

I don't think there's anything wrong in saying Djokovic is the better HC player peak for peak mate.

 

[cc0509]

You can't be the hc GOAT with two USO titles, no matter how many AO titles you have. The USO was and still is today, more historically significant. Djokovic has severely underperformed at the most important hc slam. It is what it is. But, as long as he's still active and motivated, he may be able to change that. Personally, I'd take peak Sampras on hc over peak Djokovic on hc.

 

[Chanwan]

You had byes in IW and Miami but those are 6 matches anyway. Well he tanked one each in 2004 and 2006, might as well have not played The point is Federer had to play more tennis in his era in order to win the same titles. Whether it's a BO5 final or an extra round it's not insignificant. Federer played 6 rounds at MC and Rome and a BO5 as well.

I don't see how this is even debatable tbh. @NoleFam

 

[Chanwan]

Federer as you said was injured at the back end of 2004 and 2005 which impacted his participation in those masters - but I don't think we discount the extra few tennis matches and BO5. Of course playing those other tournaments has an impact as well but if you look at the fields in those events often they were quite strong. I don't think you're looking at the context. Doha and Halle are hardly strange scheduling choices right? In 2004 Thailand had a good field with Safin and Roddick in the draw.

Djokovic puts more emphasis on masters than Federer did that's true but he didn't have near the strike rate in majors, so who scheduling was better






On a serious note Gstaad is an event in his home country. It's like Djokovic playing Belgrade in 2011. More likely that those guys were trying to raise the profile of the tournament. What tournaments did Federer vulture in 2006? He played Doha, Dubai, Halle, Tokyo and Basel, most of those have good fields and are at times of the year most top players are doing something. You could say Tokyo was an extra event he didn't need to play beyond that it's pretty standard scheduling e.g. a tune up before the AO, Dubai, Halle and Basel.

In 2004 he played in Bangkok as well but Roddick and Safin were there too - so hardly a vultured tournament. In 2005 the field was worse but he was defending his title...so which events did he vulture exactly? Rottadam in 2005? The final against Ljubicic was a high quality and the field included multiple top 10 players.

Fed didn't play Gstaad in 2005, did he?
Also, was the Canadian Masters different than the rest back then?
He beat Roddick 63 75 in 04 and 75 63 again in 05.

Federer did play more tennis, which included the extra match in Canada and Cincinnati or a BO5 final in IW, Miami, Shanghai and Paris, but he was skipping Shanghai and Paris in his most dominant years anyway. From 2004-2006 he only played Paris 2006 between them. So he skipped 5 of them in that time frame which is a lot. If Federer had arranged his year differently, he could have played more Masters and less of those minor tournaments like he was doing. In a year like 2005, he played three 250 tournaments and two 500 and he did the same in 2006. He was playing Thailand in the fall of 2004 and 2005, which is a 250, instead of Shanghai or Paris. You would never see Djokovic play minor tournaments like that and he wins more points by preserving himself and saving it for the bigger tournaments. So when you look at it, Federer could have actually played about 12 or 13 matches less at the 250 and 500 level and still ended up with more points by picking up Shanghai and Paris. So it may have been a bit tougher to win at the Masters level back then, but that still is not why he has less of them. Djokovic is just better at scheduling his year around those tournaments and wants to win every of them that he can.

Haha, I honestly don't understand why you find what I'm saying so objectionable. It doesn't take anything away from his greatness, just explains why he won as many titles as he did in that period.

LOL. I was putting it in a nicer, more acceptable way though. Yea he was definitely vulturing which is why he had to end up skipping more important tournaments.

What seems to be lost in translation is that a Bo5 final at the end of it could be the very reason he skipped more Masters than Djoko and went 'vulturing' instead (which wasn't vulturing as NatF shows you above).

 

[Chanwan]

Did you see NatF's responses to my posts? I swear, Federer fans have gotta be the touchiest fanbase ever!

He's definitely one of the better RF fans on here but even he can be pretty thin-skinned at times.

I'm lost for words here mate. Surely, it's not lost on you that you're regarded as one of if not the touchiest poster on here by most?

Maybe they offered him good money? Who knows. It's like playing Being, seems like a strange choice knowing how much Federer had already played that year but otherwise not so much. Guy was an iron man in terms of playing lots of matches in his peak periods.

97 matches in 2006 iirc.

 

[Djokovic2011]

I'm lost for words here mate. Surely, it's not lost on you that you're regarded as one of if not the touchiest poster on here by most?

I disagree. I was when I first started posting on here but the hardcore trolling these past couple of years has definitely helped toughen me up. I wouldn't have survived this place for so long otherwise.

 

[NoleFam]

Fed didn't play Gstaad in 2005, did he?
Also, was the Canadian Masters different than the rest back then?
He beat Roddick 63 75 in 04 and 75 63 again in 05.




What seems to be lost in translation is that a Bo5 final at the end of it could be the very reason he skipped more Masters than Djoko and went 'vulturing' instead (which wasn't vulturing as NatF shows you above).

It could be but my rebuttal was that he could have been skipping Rotterdam, Gstaad and Thailand and placed an extra Masters or two instead. However, metsman pointed out that he was injured in fall of 2004 or 2005 so he wouldn't have played those tournaments anyway. I'm saying the extra match or BO5 at the Masters level isn't the sole reason why he has less of them, because he could have played less 250/500 tournaments and substituted them with a Masters instead.

 

[Chanwan]

I disagree. I was when I first started posting on here but the hardcore trolling these past couple of years has definitely helped toughen me up. I wouldn't have survived this place for so long otherwise.

you're still fishing for approval of Djokovic from other fanbases to a degree I personally don't see in any other poster.
Respect from fellow posters for Djoko ain't enough for you. We must like him, enjoy his tennis, wish him to win more etc., etc.
At least that's how I see it and I'm fairly certain I'm not alone in that.

 

[Chanwan]

It could be but my rebuttal was that he could have been skipping Rotterdam, Gstaad and Thailand and placed an extra Masters or two instead. However, metsman pointed out that he was injured in fall of 2004 or 2005 so he wouldn't have played those tournaments anyway. I'm saying the extra match or BO5 at the Masters level isn't the sole reason why he has less of them, because he could have played less 250/500 tournaments and substituted them with a Masters instead.

fair enough, Gstaad is selfexplanatory imo. Rotterdam is early in the year and indoor hard at a time with no Masters, nothing strange there either. Bangkok is the odd one out, but again - Safin and Roddick went too and there probably was a hefty appearance fee involved.

I think the post below is very illuminating to the conversation. There wasn't the same hunt for Masters-titles. And Fed's ranking was very secure without playing every single Masters year after year.

To me it seems you both guys forgot how the tour changed since 2004-6. At that time there was no obligatory Masters 1000 and differences between the categories were much more shallow then today. You are comparing Masters and 250 from today view, not from then point of view.

To put it into perspective, there are every players who reached #1 since 2000 to 2006 (and in case Federer is #1 I also use ye #2):
Sampras 2000 - 2 ATP 250 (played just 12 tournaments whole year)
Safin 2000 - 8 ATP 250, 7 ATP 500
Kuerten 2000 - 5 ATP 250, 3 ATP 500
Safin 2001 - 9 ATP 250, 3 ATP 500
Kuerten 2001 - 5 ATP 250, 3 ATP 500
Hewitt 2001 - 6 ATP 250, 2 ATP 500
Hewitt 2002 - 3 ATP 250, 3 ATP 500
Hewitt 2003 - 3 ATP 250 (played just 10 tournaments)
Agassi 2003 - 5 ATP 250
Ferrero 2003 - 4 ATP 250, 3 ATP 500
Roddick 2003 - 8 ATP 250, 1 ATP 500
Federer 2004 - 3 ATP 250, 2 ATP 500
Roddick 2004 - 7 ATP 250, 1 ATP 500
Federer 2005 - 3 ATP 250, 2 ATP 500
Nadal 2005 - 8 ATP 250, 3 ATP 500
Federer 2006 - 3 ATP 250, 2 ATP 500
Nadal 2006 - 5 ATP 250, 2 ATP 500

All of them played a lot of non-Masters/GS/WTF tournaments. Actually if we count only full seasons Federer is the one who played least of such tournaments. At that time it was normal and expected to play 6-10 such a tournaments a year.

 

[Djokovic2011]

you're still fishing for approval of Djokovic from other fanbases to a degree I personally don't see in any other poster.
Respect from fellow posters for Djoko ain't enough for you. We must like him, enjoy his tennis, wish him to win more etc., etc.
At least that's how I see it and I'm fairly certain I'm not alone in that.

Yeah, I used to be like that but it really doesn't bother me as much now. These days if a poster keeps talking him down all the time I just stick them on ignore.

 

[Chanwan]

Yeah, I used to be like that but it really doesn't bother me as much now. These days if a poster keeps talking him down all the time I just stick them on ignore.

well pardon me for not having noted the change yet
I personally couldn't be on this forum without the ignore button - too much crap here.

 

[NatF]

Fed didn't play Gstaad in 2005, did he?
Also, was the Canadian Masters different than the rest back then?
He beat Roddick 63 75 in 04 and 75 63 again in 05.

Yeah those masters didn't have BO5 finals even going back to the late 90's. Still 6 rounds though which is significant. And no he didn't play Gstaad in 2005, lost the final in 5 in 2003 and won in 4 in 2004. Guy was playing more matches and more BO5, it's not the only reason for why he hasn't won more masters but it's significant. I doubt Djokovic would have been such a machine in masters in a year like 2015 if the conditions were reversed.

And yeah Djok2011 calling me thin skinned is just lol material, especially when I wasn't being serious with those emoj's

 

[Djokovic2011]

well pardon me for not having noted the change yet
I personally couldn't be on this forum without the ignore button - too much crap here.

You know I like you Chanwan so I'll pardon you each and every time.

 

[Chanwan]

Yeah those masters didn't have BO5 finals even going back to the late 90's. Still 6 rounds though which is significant. And no he didn't play Gstaad in 2005, lost the final in 5 in 2003 and won in 4 in 2004. Guy was playing more matches and more BO5, it's not the only reason for why he hasn't won more masters but it's significant. I doubt Djokovic would have been such a machine in masters in a year like 2015 if the conditions were reversed.

And yeah Djok2011 calling me thin skinned is just lol material, especially when I wasn't being serious with those emoj's

agree and again, I don't see how it's even controversial. Just common sense. Plus the additional factor that @Tornes outlined so well (and you touched upon) with the Masters not quite having the status yet and top players playing a bunch of "strange" tournaments, Fed actually playing fewer of the strange ones than the rest

And yes, it's very, very lol-worthy. Almost signatureworthy ;-)

 

[TMF]

I don't think there's anything wrong in saying Djokovic is the better HC player peak for peak mate.

There's nothing wrong if someone say peak Roddick on grass beat peak Nole on grass, right?

 

[KINGROGER]

Federer:

- more slams/WTF
- more varied wins
- higher peak level

Also I don’t rate all masters that highly. There’s nothing to say some HC masters are above say some of Federer’s Dubai or Basel titles depending on field. Obviously some are.

 

[Djokovic2011]

There's nothing wrong if someone say peak Roddick on grass beat peak Nole on grass, right?

Nothing at all.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Federer -

10 HC slams - 5 AO, 5 USO
Has won multiple slams on Rebound Ace, Plexicushion, Decoturf, showing versatility and longevity
Shares Open Era record of most USO titles with Sampras and Connors
Has won 5 straight USO titles
Has played in 13 HC slam finals, strike rate of 10/13 = 76.9%
Played 13 out of the last 14 grand slam semi finals at AO, showing incredible longevity and done over two different HC surfaces
Co record holder for most IW titles - 5
Has completed the sunshine double three times in his career, 2005, 2006, 2017
Record holder for most Cincinnati titles
Record holder for most WTF titles - 6
Has won every single major HC title on the calender, with Paris indoors being the only won not won multiple times
Record breaking 7 titles in Dubai, including 3 straight and 8 titles in Basel indoors
Reached six straight USO finals, record still belongs to Lendl with 8

Djokovic -

8 HC slams - 6 AO, 2 USO
Multiple slams titles on Plexicushion and Decoturf
Open Era record holder of AO with 6 titles
Only player to win AO three straight times
Has played in 13 HC slam finals, strike rate of 8/13 = 61.5%
Played an incredible 10 straight USO semis finals
Played and won all six AO semi finals
Co holder for most IW titles - 5
Co holder for most Miami titles - 6
Has completed the sunshine double four times in his career, 2011 and then three straight years 2014, 2015, 2016
Won 5 WTF titles, including a record 4 straight
Record holder for most titles in Paris Indoors
Record breaking 6 Beijing titles
Four Dubai titles, including 3 straight

Federer is ranked one, Djokovic ranked two...I would like to see anyone say someone else deserves those positions. 10 and 8 slams alone is enough to shut the competition, without looking at their sustained consistency. What is ranking Federer above Djokovic is the higher conversion of USO finals, hence why Federer rightfully deserves to be called HC GOAT, if we are looking at titles won, and Djokovic is number two. Sampras comes in at three.

 

[metsman]

It could be but my rebuttal was that he could have been skipping Rotterdam, Gstaad and Thailand and placed an extra Masters or two instead. However, metsman pointed out that he was injured in fall of 2004 or 2005 so he wouldn't have played those tournaments anyway. I'm saying the extra match or BO5 at the Masters level isn't the sole reason why he has less of them, because he could have played less 250/500 tournaments and substituted them with a Masters instead.

Well in 06 the format was definitely a reason he couldn't compete or compete fully in Cincy and Hamburg, two of his best masters. Rome final being that B05 marathon and Hamburg starting the next day (+ no bye). In canada, 6 matches and then no bye in CIncy either. If you watch the USO semi that year I think Mary Carillo mentions how he semi-tanked Cincy. 04/05, yeah it was the injuries so no use crying over spilled milk there.

 

[duaneeo]

You can't be the hc GOAT with two USO titles, no matter how many AO titles you have.

Exactly, and 6/6 (100%) in AO finals but 2/7 (29%) in USO finals.

 

[Djokovic2011]

@Hitman: Another stat worth mentioning is that almost 69% of Djokovic's HC titles are Masters 1000 and above. His achievements before the age of 30 are truly remarkable when you break them all down.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

@Hitman: Another stat worth mentioning is that almost 69% of Djokovic's HC titles are Masters 1000 and above. His achievements before the age of 30 are truly remarkable when you break them all down.

Yep. You got that right. I only gave a glancing summary, we can go into a lot of details. These two are the top two of all time, who have had to deal with each other to win those titles. Imagine their numbers if the other wasn't around. Without Djokovic, I have no doubt that Federer would be the outright USO and AO record holder. They have played an incredible 10 HC slam matches, including a phenomenal 6 meetings evenly split at the USO.

Remarkable that the two greatest HC players of all time, have not yet played an AO final.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Yep. You got that right. I only gave a glancing summary, we can go into a lot of details. These two are the top two of all time, who have had to deal with each other to win those titles. Imagine their numbers if the other wasn't around. Without Djokovic, I have no doubt that Federer would be the outright USO and AO record holder. They have played an incredible 10 HC slam matches, including a phenomenal 6 meetings evenly split at the USO.

Remarkable that the two greatest HC players of all time, have not yet played an AO final.

Didn't you know according to TMF that Sampras is the second greatest HC player ever? Why is that btw @TMF, you never did give your reasons?

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Didn't you know according to TMF that Sampras is the second greatest HC player ever? Why is that btw @TMF, you never did give your reasons?

I prefer Sampras over Djokovic, but I cannot put him as second, not now. We talk about Djokovic having poor losses in finals of USO, Sampras got straight setted twice by players of the Murray tier also. He also had very poor loses like USO 94 and 97, he lacked consistency, more prone to early defeats. At AO, his so called slam pigeon Agassi, actually owned him there, he could not figure Agassi out on Rebound Ace. Now, I could give many reasons here and defend Sampras if I want, but I would then also have to defend Djokovic also, which is why I am looking at the numbers straight, as most here are doing.

Also, 8 slams trumps 7, no matter how you slice and dice it. All this USO is more prestigious doesn't give more points to Sampras, they both competed in full fields...dare I say, Pete one the first of two AO titles when Agassi couldn't be bother to turn up down under. We saw what happened when Agassi did turn up.

 

[mike danny]

Yep. You got that right. I only gave a glancing summary, we can go into a lot of details. These two are the top two of all time, who have had to deal with each other to win those titles. Imagine their numbers if the other wasn't around. Without Djokovic, I have no doubt that Federer would be the outright USO and AO record holder. They have played an incredible 10 HC slam matches, including a phenomenal 6 meetings evenly split at the USO.

Remarkable that the two greatest HC players of all time, have not yet played an AO final.

Because the draw makers always made sure they are on opposite sides of the draw.

And in 2012, Nadal happened.

Fun fact, from Wimb 2008 to USO 2011, FO 2010 was the only time they weren't on the same side of the draw.

 

[Djokovic2011]

I prefer Sampras over Djokovic, but I cannot put him as second, not now. We talk about Djokovic having poor losses in finals of USO, Sampras got straight setted twice by players of the Murray tier also. He also had very poor loses like USO 94 and 97, he lacked consistency, more prone to early defeats. At AO, his so called slam pigeon Agassi, actually owned him there, he could not figure Agassi out on Rebound Ace. Now, I could give many reasons here and defend Sampras if I want, but I would then also have to defend Djokovic also, which is why I am looking at the numbers straight, as most here are doing.

Also, 8 slams trumps 7, no matter how you slice and dice it. All this USO is more prestigious doesn't give more points to Sampras, they both competed in full fields...dare I say, Pete one the first of two AO titles when Agassi couldn't be bother to turn up down under. We saw what happened when Agassi did turn up.

Yeah, something tells me TMF won't want to take Federer's AO titles away the next time people start talking about who the GOAT is.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Because the draw makers always made sure they are on opposite sides of the draw.

And in 2012, Nadal happened.

Fun fact, from Wimb 2008 to USO 2011, FO 2010 was the only time they weren't on the same side of the draw.

I know, it is shocking and a reason why we have only got two slam finals between them on HCs.

Speaking of fun fact...here is one for you. The two most historical Fedal finals, Wimbledon 2008 and AO 2017 - Djokovic lost in the second round of both.

 

[metsman]

I prefer Sampras over Djokovic, but I cannot put him as second, not now. We talk about Djokovic having poor losses in finals of USO, Sampras got straight setted twice by players of the Murray tier also. He also had very poor loses like USO 94 and 97, he lacked consistency, more prone to early defeats. At AO, his so called slam pigeon Agassi, actually owned him there, he could not figure Agassi out on Rebound Ace. Now, I could give many reasons here and defend Sampras if I want, but I would then also have to defend Djokovic also, which is why I am looking at the numbers straight, as most here are doing.

Also, 8 slams trumps 7, no matter how you slice and dice it. All this USO is more prestigious doesn't give more points to Sampras, they both competed in full fields...dare I say, Pete one the first of two AO titles when Agassi couldn't be bother to turn up down under. We saw what happened when Agassi did turn up.

Well let me do some of that defending.

Safin of the 00 USO final is Murray tier? Fewer than 10 players in the open era are capable of playing at that level, and Murray sure as hell isn't one. Losing to peak Hewitt post prime after a brutal draw >>>> losing to Nishikori in prime who then got skewered in the final.

94 USO, Sampras was injured/rusty. 97 was the only poor loss from 92-02.

Agassi owned Sampras at AO based off two close meetings? Also, Agassi's two best forms at the AO? Sampras would have won if they had met in 94 or 97. Heck, he was close to winning both 95 and 00 anyways, especially 00. 94 Sampras vs 95 Agassi would be a tossup, Sampras did not win 94 just because Agassi wasn't there. 95 Sampras wasn't as good and not in a great state emotionally and still had golden chances to go up 2 sets to 1. The fact that Sampras was able to be level with the best slow HC player of his generation in prime for prime AO/IW/Miami meetings is a credit to his versatility.

Djokovic vs Sampras on hard is a matter of preference. Djokovic has the greater consistency but Djoker also got the benefit of more homogenized HC surfaces. If USO/WTF were as fast as they used to be, Djokovic might not have won as many especially at WTF. Djokovic has 7 titles at USO/WTF/Cincy despite the slowdown. Sampras won 7 AO/IW/Miami titles on actual slow hard. Pick em. I would probably slightly go Djokovic assuming he has a few more good years, Sampras had some bad injury luck at the USO, he probably would have won 6-8 titles otherwise. Currently, I might lean Sampras but I also like him more than Djokovic.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Well let me do some of that defending.

Please go ahead. Apologies, but I didn't read the rest.

 

[MeatTornado]

You can't be the hc GOAT with two USO titles, no matter how many AO titles you have. The USO was and still is today, more historically significant. Djokovic has severely underperformed at the most important hc slam. It is what it is. But, as long as he's still active and motivated, he may be able to change that. Personally, I'd take peak Sampras on hc over peak Djokovic on hc.

I just want to say that I can't stand this argument. Valuing the USO over AO (or Wimbledon over RG) because of "historical significance" should have no bearing on a 21st century argument. Sampras might be a better hard court player than Djokovic, but it's definitely not because more of his titles came in New York instead of Melbourne.

All players put equal effort into all 4 slams these days, so they should be treated as equals. They carry the same ranking points, so we don't get to play favorites and pretend one is more important when it helps our case. And this is coming from someone who's favorite player has the all time record for Wimbledon titles.

 

[TheAssassin]

Please go ahead. Apologies, but I didn't read the rest.

LMAO didn't see that coming. You're becoming unpredictable, Hitman.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

LMAO didn't see that coming. You're becoming unpredictable, Hitman.

I was watching Thor Ragnarok, won't spoil it for those that did not see it, but it's that epic scene when he unleashes his true power...

 

[Krish872007]

Realised I voted for the middle option when this thread was created. Now this year Federer has definitely increased the gap with the extra Slam title. Also helps his case that he added IW, Miami and Shanghai Masters to the trophy cabinet. There is no way to be certain that Novak can pass him in achievements so I don't agree with option 2 actually, but it's still a possibility if he comes back strong in 2018 and continues to be a force at the top of the game for a few more years.

 

[cc0509]

I just want to say that I can't stand this argument. Valuing the USO over AO (or Wimbledon over RG) because of "historical significance" should have no bearing on a 21st century argument. Sampras might be a better hard court player than Djokovic, but it's definitely not because more of his titles came in New York instead of Melbourne.

All players put equal effort into all 4 slams these days, so they should be treated as equals. They carry the same ranking points, so we don't get to play favorites and pretend one is more important when it helps our case. And this is coming from someone who's favorite player has the all time record for Wimbledon titles.

I can understand your point of view but I can't agree with it. The USO continues to be more historically significant than the AO despite the fact that the AO has come a long way and is now a fabulous event. You can' t change 50 years or more of tradition so easily. It's like the ridiculous poster who tried to claim that Wimbledon was losing its renown. True tennis fans and tennis players know that Wimbledon continues to be the most historically significant and prestigious slam. IMO, a player who only has two USO titles cannot be the hc GOAT especially a hard court player of Djokovic's caliber. He's underperformed at the most important hc venue.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Personally, I'd take peak Sampras on hc over peak Djokovic on hc.

And so would anyone else who saw Pete play. The AO simply isn't as historically significant as the USO and 5 straight USO's trumps 2. And now, inconceivably, Nadal has more USO titles than Djoker.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Didn't you know according to TMF that Sampras is the second greatest HC player ever?

Not just here, but in the minds of many astute and knowledgeable tennis fans. In fact, I would venture to say in MOST tennis fans minds.

 

[3lite]

Even Federer would tell you Novak is the better HC player, lawl.

 

[metsman]

Please go ahead. Apologies, but I didn't read the rest.

You might want to, the more you know!

 

[zep]

Then put him ahead, don't contradict yourself!

I didn't contradict, you didn't read my post. I said in terms of achievements Federer is clearly ahead but in my view Djokovic is a slightly better player on hard courts overall.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

You might want to, the more you know!

I might read it after my next workout, while I relax with some green tea. Remember, I am fully capable of defending both, but chose not to, since most are just going with blind numbers here. So, yes, I still have not read it, because I already have a very good idea what you will say.

 

[Red Rick]

Right now it's a moot discussion. But it's TTW, where moot discussions are 90% of discussions.

I'd mostly ignore titles under 1000 honestly. If Djoko makes up the 2 HC slams, then I'd lean to Djokovic. AO and USO are equally important, I don't give too much credit for made up records like consecutive SF and what Slam.

There's always an argument to look at competition, but then people of both sides use it in a terrible way and whatnot.

Oh, and Djokovic is 5-0 vs Mury at the AO. Djokovic > Mury Goat

 

[metsman]

I might read it after my next workout, while I relax with some green tea. Remember, I am fully capable of defending both, but chose not to, since most are just going with blind numbers here. So, yes, I still have not read it, because I already have a very good idea what you will say.

But what you said about Sampras was far from going on blind numbers. Blind numbers is 7 HC slams vs 8 and 5 WTF apiece, end of story. There were certain factual/interpretation inaccuracies. (94 USO, supposed "ownage" by Agassi at AO, 00 Safin being in the "Murray tier"), if you had a very good idea about those things you wouldn't have said what you did in the first place, hence my reply.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

But what you said about Sampras was far from going on blind numbers. Blind numbers is 7 HC slams vs 8 and 5 WTF apiece, end of story. There were certain factual/interpretation inaccuracies. (94 USO, supposed "ownage" by Agassi at AO, 00 Safin being in the "Murray tier"), if you had a very good idea about those things you wouldn't have said what you did in the first place, hence my reply.

I am not going to continue this discussion with you or anyone else. With all due respect.

 

[metsman]

I am not going to continue this discussion with you or anyone else. With all due respect.

You'd make a great politician, excellent sidestep.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

You'd make a great politician, excellent sidestep.

Politicians will stumble on their words and make an excuse. I am being very direct with you. I am simply not interested in talking further about it.

 

[aditya123]

Djokovic greater than Sampras on Hardcourt. People who oppose this fact are idiotic zombies who dislike to face the light

 

[KINGROGER]

Right now it's a moot discussion. But it's TTW, where moot discussions are 90% of discussions.

I'd mostly ignore titles under 1000 honestly. If Djoko makes up the 2 HC slams, then I'd lean to Djokovic. AO and USO are equally important, I don't give too much credit for made up records like consecutive SF and what Slam.

There's always an argument to look at competition, but then people of both sides use it in a terrible way and whatnot.

Oh, and Djokovic is 5-0 vs Mury at the AO. Djokovic > Mury Goat

Why should Nole's 2016 Canada title with cakewalk draw be worth more than Fed's 14/15 Dubai titles for example where he took out peak Djokoivc?

 

[TMF]

Djokovic fans are getting defensive just because other fans have different opinion about his placement in all time great on hard court.

 

[mike danny]

Right now it's a moot discussion. But it's TTW, where moot discussions are 90% of discussions.

I'd mostly ignore titles under 1000 honestly. If Djoko makes up the 2 HC slams, then I'd lean to Djokovic. AO and USO are equally important, I don't give too much credit for made up records like consecutive SF and what Slam.

There's always an argument to look at competition, but then people of both sides use it in a terrible way and whatnot.

Oh, and Djokovic is 5-0 vs Mury at the AO. Djokovic > Mury Goat

Even if those smaller titles were won against great competition? Dubai 2012, 2014, 2015, Basel 2010 just to name a few?