There no doubt Nole is the best ever in Australia now

[90's Clay]

Has taken Fed to the woodshed twice, taken Murray countless times, taken Nadal last year.

While Andre has an argument as well, Andre's last two AO titles came vs. HORRIBLE fields in 2001-2003

[zam88]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Has taken Fed to the woodshed twice, taken Murray countless times, taken Nadal last year.

While Andre has an argument as well, Andre's last two AO titles came vs. HORRIBLE fields in 2001-2003

If he gets one more and he should, i agree. Currently just equal to fed to me

[Warmaster]

Going by the results, Federer still has the edge with an extra final, but Djokovic will no doubt surpass him.

[kishnabe]

Andre beat Pete at his peak in 95 Aussie.....that alone makes him better than Nole who had to face slow fake tennis.

[augustobt]

Best ever in this slow court***

[Tropikal_Knights]

well have to agree here......Lance is just too strong down under.......

[Mainad]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Has taken Fed to the woodshed twice, taken Murray countless times, taken Nadal last year.

Countless? It is 3 times, 1 more than Fed (if you wish to include 5 set matches as being taken to the woodshed)!

[Dark Magician]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Has taken Fed to the woodshed twice, taken Murray countless times, taken Nadal last year.

While Andre has an argument as well, Andre's last two AO titles came vs. HORRIBLE fields in 2001-2003

He sure is the best on plexicushion. He can be called arguably the best IMO.

[djokovic2008]

Originally Posted by kishnabe

Andre beat Pete at his peak in 95 Aussie.....that alone makes him better than Nole who had to face slow fake tennis.

I'm sorry but that is the kind of sentence I'd expect from a twelve year old.

[tudwell]

He has the same number of titles as Federer, but Federer - due in part mostly to his greater age and therefore longer career - has more consistency. Djokovic has four titles and his next best result is two quarterfinals. Federer's been in, what, like 10 straight semifinals? Along with a runner-up. I'm sure Djokovic will overtake Federer and Agassi by winning a fifth title, but at the moment, I don't think there's a clear choice between the three.

[Amelie Mauresmo]

Yes, Novak proved it by winning three Australian Open titles and having four overall he's definitely the king of Melbourne. No disputing this fact.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by tudwell

He has the same number of titles as Federer, but Federer - due in part mostly to his greater age and therefore longer career - has more consistency. Djokovic has four titles and his next best result is two quarterfinals. Federer's been in, what, like 10 straight semifinals? Along with a runner-up. I'm sure Djokovic will overtake Federer and Agassi by winning a fifth title, but at the moment, I don't think there's a clear choice between the three.

Sure, you can still make an argument for any of the 3.

However, Novak won 3 in a row which for me personally puts him at #1 regarding AO.

[tennis_pro]

Originally Posted by zagor

Sure, you can still make an argument for any of the 3.

However, Novak won 3 in a row which for me personally puts him at #1 regarding AO.

So is Federer the best at Wimbledon and the US Open since he won almost all of his titles in succession?

[NadalAgassi]

Definitely is, and only ****s would disagree, but everyone knows it. He has won 3 in a row which neither Federer or Agassi could do, although Agassi did win 3 in a row he played atleast, and he has beaten the crap out of Federer twice in a row there. Agassi would be my choice for 2nd, it is too bad he missed so many Australians or he would probably be first for now (I say for now as Djokovic will likely end up with about 6). Federer is third best in the Open Era.

[kragster]

At the moment he is tied with fed and Andre and you can take your pick based on what additional criteria you value - more finals vs 3 consecutive slams etc etc . However I expect him to win 1 more at least and then he will be the clear leader. For now he is a cogoat.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by tennis_pro

So is Federer the best at Wimbledon and the US Open since he won almost all of his titles in succession?

Sure, Fed winning both 5 Wimbledons and 5 USOs in a row is one of the most impressive feats in his career for me, It's very hard to dominate a slam year after year.

[tudwell]

Originally Posted by zagor

Sure, you can still make an argument for any of the 3.

However, Novak won 3 in a row which for me personally puts him at #1 regarding AO.

I agree that's phenomenal.

On the other hand, people like NadalAgassi will make this argument for why Federer is not the best Australian Open player but then use the opposite argument to prove why Sampras, for example, is better than Federer at the U.S. Open. "Only ****s" indeed.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by zagor

Sure, Fed winning both 5 Wimbledons and 5 USOs in a row is one of the most impressive feats in his career for me, It's very hard to dominate a slam year after year.

Federers 5 U.S Open wins I concede is amazing, especialy as these days the mens field mostly focuses on hard courts. His 5 Wimbledons also is but here I am more impressed with Borg the clay courter winning 5 in a row there vs a deeper grass field on true grass, and Sampras winning 7 of 8 there vs a much deeper grass field on true grass.

Originally Posted by tudwell

I agree that's phenomenal.

On the other hand, people like NadalAgassi will make this argument for why Federer is not the best Australian Open player but then use the opposite argument to prove why Sampras, for example, is better than Federer at the U.S. Open. "Only ****s" indeed.

Nice try but I dont say Sampras is the best ever at the U.S Open. I have said IMO his pure level of play is the best ever on any medium to fast court, but that is different than saying he is the greatest. One could say Safins best tennis is the best ever on slow Australian hard courts (already proved it was better than Federers by beating Federers very best at the 2005 Aussie) but that doesnt mean he is close to the best ever there. I picked Connors as the Open Era best ever at the U.S Open since he won it on grass, clay, and hard courts, an incredible feat, and winning it once and reaching 3 straight finals in its only three years on clay, by far his worst surface, was a particularly amazing feat. However all time best ever at the U.S Open is probably Bill Tilden, with his 7 titles.

[kragster]

Originally Posted by zagor

Sure, you can still make an argument for any of the 3.

However, Novak won 3 in a row which for me personally puts him at #1 regarding AO.

Just curious, why do you value consecutive slams so much? If the total number of slams won is the same, you could make the case that winning slams over a longer stretch is also impressive as it shows longevity and an ability to compete against likely different competition. In theory, shouldn't it be just as impressive to win a slam across your preprime prime and post prime as it is to win it consecutively during your prime?

Personally I value the sum total of achievements more than I value whether it was done all in one bunch or spread across .

[Pistol Pete]

I wouldn't say he has taken FED to the woodshed. Tight straight sets.
But yes he is doing well in Australia. Still has a ways to go as being an all time best ever. He only has 2 more slams than courier now. Jim had 4.