Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
Need to be careful going too far down this path because it ends with people using the logic against Laver - claiming his two calendar slams don't have as much value...
Is Djokovic now in the tier with Becker, Wilander, Edberg?
- Thread starter 5555
- Start date
kiki
Banned
Only for iliterate, ignorant people.1969 AO was the best until 1985.All the greats competed there.If you had watched tennis in that era, you´d know that my statement about WCT and Masters is true and you also would know that 1969 AO was as big as any other slam.
kiki
Banned
The other great default on Vilas, and I think this is to blame to Tiriac, is how much effort and spin he put in shots...that landed half of the court, letting others either blast them away (Lendl,Clerc) or just approach and come in (Connors,Mc Enroe,Gerulaitis).He was losing inches after inches.He could beat msot players with that, but that was a boomerang against the real top ones.That is why he had a poor record against the top 5 or 6 players.
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
Ignorance and illiteracy are not hand in hand. Ignorance can come from simply not being present regardless of education or literacy.
I took what you said earlier clearly as meaning in some periods of time the WCT Finals and masters were more valued than the AO. If that is the case then it also goes also that AO's achieved in that period should be valued less than when it has been regarded as equal to other slams. Anyone who has those particular AOs included in their career achievements should have the fact noted. Not doing so would be deliberate perpetuation of ignorance.
The question remains is: when was this period? Is it a clear-cut, finite period or does it have grey edges to it? If 1985 is the cut-off year, why? When did it become a top tier slam again?
Not being argumentative as I totally see your point about eras etc putting varying importance on different events. But the brush should be applied when it suits and when it doesn't equally.
On the light-hearted side.... It is a small irony that you spelt illiterate incorrectly.
Last edited:
kiki
Banned
Ignorance and illiteracy are not hand in hand. Ignorance can come from simply not being present regardless of education or literacy.
I took what you said earlier clearly as meaning in some periods of time the WCT Finals and masters were more valued than the AO. If that is the case then it also goes also that AO's achieved in that period should be valued less than when it has been regarded as equal to other slams. Anyone who has those particular AOs included in their career achievements should have the fact noted. Not doing so would be deliberate perpetuation of ignorance.
The question remains is: when was this period? Is it a clear-cut, finite period or does it have grey edges to it? If 1985 is the cut-off year, why? When did it become a top tier slam again?
Not being argumentative as I totally see your point about eras etc putting varying importance on different events. But the brush should be applied when it suits and when it doesn't equally.
On the light-hearted side.... It is a small irony that you spelt illiterate incorrectly.
You seem to enjoy being things plainly explained, right.
WCT ( and Masters, too) were, in the context of the 1970´s and 80´s almost as great as the Slams, and field wise, possibly more prestigious that winning the AO.There were very competitive Australians, like 1969,1971,1975,1977 and may be 1980.From 1983 onwards, they attracted all or many of the top players, and regained its status ( not as a GS title, which they never lost) among the pros.
It is very important to consider how big and exciting the 2 indoor, season ending events were.If that era instead of 4 had 6 big events, clearly above the rest ( although Rome,Phily and Johannesburg for a while were as highly regarded as the AO), then it has to be always considered like that.
Things keep changing and, if you want to be true and honest, you have to go by what is the best in that particular time.If the fact that we use 6 and not 4 events to determine who was great and who wasn´t in the 70´s and 80´s, then go by abide.It is not their fault if there were 6 and not 4 events of comparable importance.If newtards feel uncomfortable ( because there is 4 now, not 6) it is their problem.Completely, their own problem.
Ignorance and illiteracy are not hand in hand. Ignorance can come from simply not being present regardless of education or literacy.
I took what you said earlier clearly as meaning in some periods of time the WCT Finals and masters were more valued than the AO. If that is the case then it also goes also that AO's achieved in that period should be valued less than when it has been regarded as equal to other slams. Anyone who has those particular AOs included in their career achievements should have the fact noted. Not doing so would be deliberate perpetuation of ignorance.
The question remains is: when was this period? Is it a clear-cut, finite period or does it have grey edges to it? If 1985 is the cut-off year, why? When did it become a top tier slam again?
Not being argumentative as I totally see your point about eras etc putting varying importance on different events. But the brush should be applied when it suits and when it doesn't equally.
On the light-hearted side.... It is a small irony that you spelt illiterate incorrectly.
The draw size was increased from 64 to 96 players in 1982. Many of the top players began to attend in 1983, when the top 3 (Lendl, McEnroe and Wilander) and several other top 20 players were present. Not a full-fledged slam yet but not far either. By 1987-88 all the top players were attending and the draw size was the same as the other majors.
1969-1971 - 48 players
1972 - 50 players
1973 - 56 players
1974-1981 - 64 players
1982-1987 - 96 players
Since 1988 - 128 players
jean pierre
Professional
His records are not so poor ! Against Borg OK (5-17), but he leads 6/5 agains McEnroe and did 5/5 against Connors !
kiki
Banned
In big events, Connors beats Vilas out.As you may know, Connors won their 1980 Masters RR match, 1976 and 1982 US Open matches, while Vilas won the big one, the 1977 Forest Hills match and, later, the 1977 Masters match.
Against Mac, both have a 2-2 record at DC, but John edges Vilas at the big events, since he beat Guillermo at the 1982 Masters ( not a big deal, but those are facts)
jean pierre
Professional
OK, Connors leads 3/2 in big events, and McEnroe too (he won 2 times at the Masters + only one at Davis Cup ; Vilas won 2 times at Davis Cup).
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
The same thing can be said about draw sizes from earlier years at many tournaments. I read somewhere (here I think) that in many of his bigger titles Laver only had to play 3 or 4 matches. I think it even included some of the WTCs and American hard court champs.
(I'll try to find the post about it - no luck yet).
But, good call on this. I didn't know the AU draw was smaller than the others and only bumped up in size around then.
kiki
Banned
You are right.Mac didn´t play Vilas in the 1981 final since the US team had a 3-1 lead.And I forgot the 1979 rr match at the Masters.Vilas beat Mac at Basel 78, Indianapolis 79 and Montecarlo 80, right?
kiki
Banned
WCT run 16 player draws regular tournaments that led into the dallas final showcase.But, mind you, those draws were star studded, so a first round there could easily be a semifinal in any other event.
jean pierre
Professional
Mac beated Vilas in 81 final (I think it's the only time he beated him in Davis Cup) + 2 Masters + Boca Raton 81 and Forest Hills 83.
Vilas won 2 times in Davis Cup + the three times you said + South Orange 77.
kiki
Banned
Mac also beat Vilas in 1979 Davis Cup, at Memphis.
They also played ( along Nastase and Connors, wow) an exhibitional series in such appealing venues like Frejus,Cap D´Agde and Aix en Provençe, in Cote D´Azur, in the summer of 1979.I don´t know the results of those series.
5555
Hall of Fame
Grand Slams Career Win-Loss Open Era
1. Bjorn Borg .898
2. Rafael Nadal .876
3. Roger Federer .869
4. Rod Laver .857
5. Pete Sampras .842
6. Novak Djokovic .830
7. Ken Rosewall .829
8. Jimmy Connors .826
9. Ivan Lendl .819
10. John McEnroe .815
11. John Newcombe .814
12. Andre Agassi .809
13. Boris Becker .803
14. Mats Wilander .796
15. Stefan Edberg .791
Link http://www.atpworldtour.com/Reliability-Zone/Reliability-Gland-Slams-Career-List.aspx
1. Bjorn Borg .898
2. Rafael Nadal .876
3. Roger Federer .869
4. Rod Laver .857
5. Pete Sampras .842
6. Novak Djokovic .830
7. Ken Rosewall .829
8. Jimmy Connors .826
9. Ivan Lendl .819
10. John McEnroe .815
11. John Newcombe .814
12. Andre Agassi .809
13. Boris Becker .803
14. Mats Wilander .796
15. Stefan Edberg .791
Link http://www.atpworldtour.com/Reliability-Zone/Reliability-Gland-Slams-Career-List.aspx
Nadal_Power
Semi-Pro
First they need to add one more win to Connors and then to calculate something.. stupid ATP
kiki
Banned
Good list.Add Courier,Nasty,Vilas and Kodes or Ashe and here you got the best 20.
jean pierre
Professional
You're right, I forgot this match in Davis Cup.
treblings
Hall of Fame
you think you have the right strategy to achieve that, kiki?
the last thing i can detect in any of the ´era comparison posts´is mutual respect.
you can´t teach respect without showing respect to others in the first place.
not necessarily their opinion but to them as humans.
all i see here is everybody defending his/her opinion against attacks from the ´other side´
i don´t see anybody in the near future saying:´oh kiki, now that you´ve insulted me for the 20th time, i finally agree with you´
kiki
Banned
you think you have the right strategy to achieve that, kiki?
the last thing i can detect in any of the ´era comparison posts´is mutual respect.
you can´t teach respect without showing respect to others in the first place.
not necessarily their opinion but to them as humans.
all i see here is everybody defending his/her opinion against attacks from the ´other side´
i don´t see anybody in the near future saying:´oh kiki, now that you´ve insulted me for the 20th time, i finally agree with you´
I don´t pretend they to agree with me.And I have respect for them as human beings.But they are the ones starting it all with nice words dedicated to me like " Troll,Woman Dinasaure,Moron,Dummie,Hypocrital too say just a few".
Teens need some smacking here and then.I had that medicine when I was a teen and thought that Kramer and Gonzales were dinosaurs, too.I hope, in 20 years, they will show some respect to old timers, without whom Fed,Djokovic and Nadal wouldn´t have, neither the full pockets neither the popular status they enjoy.
But, you are taking it too seriously.this is a tennis forum for fun.If I wanted to increase my knowledge of tennis, I´d go other places.Not that I haven´t, there are seasoned, experienced and tennis history passionated posters, whom I respect, and they are worthy coming here.
treblings
Hall of Fame
i´ve lightened up considerably
when i first came here, i mistook it for a serious talk forum, my bad.in fact i´m looking for my next installment of the ´neverending argument´.
but every effort to make our youngsters more aware of tennis history is greatly appreciated by me. i feel more can be accomplished by calmly pointing to the beauty of a rosewall bh than by quarelling about who is the greatest, jmo
jean pierre
Professional
I think tennis today is so boring ! A strong serve, a strong forehand, and the point is finished. All the players (except maybe Federer) play like that. Very fast, ok, but so boring. Where are volleys ? Where are long points ? And where are charismatic palyers ?
kiki
Banned
i´ve lightened up considerably
in fact i´m looking for my next installment of the ´neverending argument´.
but every effort to make our youngsters more aware of tennis history is greatly appreciated by me. i feel more can be accomplished by calmly pointing to the beauty of a rosewall bh than by quarelling about who is the greatest, jmo
They´ll repeatedly answer that it was sliced, slow speed and he was a very small fella...what education, then?
kiki
Banned
Many are not able to appreciate Vilas craftmanship...
treblings
Hall of Fame
yes, because at this point it is more about defending your own opinion and attacking the opposition. makes it hard to appreciate anything coming from the other side. but by all means keep going
kiki
Banned
yes, because at this point it is more about defending your own opinion and attacking the opposition. makes it hard to appreciate anything coming from the other side. but by all means keep going
Would Laver quit in the middle of a torrid battle? No.Then Kiki won´t either¡¡
Winners or Errors
Legend
To respond to the first post, without having read the entire 11 page thread, even though Djokovic is dominant across more surfaces (largely because there's pretty much one surface right now), I remember a time in his career when Edberg was just unbeatable and you knew he was going to win.
I guess the reason I don't think of Djokovic that way is because of the grinding, defensive, somewhat boring style of play he uses. I know he is a great returner, and I tend to play defense myself, but he just doesn't fill me with the awe I often felt watching Edberg.
As for Wilander, who also tended to grind, albeit more creatively than Djokovic, I think they're closer, with Wilander having a slight edge.
Becker. Wow, such a different style, so hot and cold. I see Djokovic being much more consistent for some reason, but I enjoyed watching Becker much more than Djoker.
So... I guess I'm with the posters who say he's not quite there. For me, even if the achievements pile up, I don't think he'll ever have the magic of any of those three when playing their best, though I suspect he'll match any of them in consistency.
kiki
Banned
His chances would be good on slow hard courts against all 3 of them.But I agree, he is much more boring than Becker and Edberg and quite more boring that Wilander.
You cannot compare old grass and current grass, they are totally different...
Excellent post. I completely agree with everything you've said.
kiki
Banned
People often forgets how Becker won the greatets title at 17 in a field that included multiple slame winners such as Connors,Mac,Lendl,Wilander and a hot hot booming server like Curren.
And many forget how he singlehandedly devastated the Edberg/Wilander great DC team, yes, the very same team that had demolished the US just 2 o 3 years before...
Not to mention he was the first guy in years to consistently overpower Lendl indoors.
I very much doubt Djokovic has gotten even close to it.
And many forget how he singlehandedly devastated the Edberg/Wilander great DC team, yes, the very same team that had demolished the US just 2 o 3 years before...
Not to mention he was the first guy in years to consistently overpower Lendl indoors.
I very much doubt Djokovic has gotten even close to it.
abmk
Bionic Poster
Becker's Davis Cup heroics are well known. That plus his Wimbledon heroics+ indoor level of play were the shining features of his career . But not winning even a single title on clay is a major black mark
He's by some distance better than Djokovic right now ..... But way things are going , he's going to get there and probably surpass Becker
Djoker's 2011 was by some distance superior to any year Becker had ( including 1989 ) ..... He's beaten a prime Nadal so comprehensively multiple times and that's a major plus. He's also beaten federer ( though on the decline ) multiple times ....
P.S. Lendl overall had the edge on Becker overall indoors. It was the slams where he suffered the most, going 1-5 ( 3 losses on grass, one of deco, 1 on rebound, one and only win for Lendl being on deco ) ...... Of course it also helped Becker that he wasn't good enough to meet Lendl on clay !
pc1
G.O.A.T.
You could argue already that peak Djokovic (and who knows, Djokovic could get better) is already better than peak Boris Becker.
Becker was fun to watch. He really had a presence about him. It was like he was saying by his body language that there is no way you can beat me. At least it seemed that way much of the time.
abmk
Bionic Poster
you could say that , but its not that simple. But I think Becker would blow him away on indoors and grass, just as Djoker would blow him away on clay and slow HC. medium-fast HC is where they'd probably have even contests ....
Djoker has an edge in that he is more consistent than Becker ever was ....
yes, but in the end I think he underachieved quite a bit ...
kiki
Banned
Sure.Germany´s best ever male player is...Tommy Haas¡¡¡ ABMK´s new icon.
abmk
Bionic Poster
and yeah, in kiki land, Solomon , Dibbs etc would be beating peak federer and nadal on grass :roll:
kiki
Banned
i´ve lightened up considerably
in fact i´m looking for my next installment of the ´neverending argument´.
but every effort to make our youngsters more aware of tennis history is greatly appreciated by me. i feel more can be accomplished by calmly pointing to the beauty of a rosewall bh than by quarelling about who is the greatest, jmo
Federals are a vampiric group.They just live on sucking newcomers blood and turning them into vampires, too.
kiki
Banned
treblings
Hall of Fame
kiki
Banned
hey kiki, if i dream of vampires tonight, than it´s your fault
Don´t worry. The aussies wolves herd is there to protect you, led by their Alpha Rod Laver ( a disputed battle for leadership between Laver and Hoad)
jean pierre
Professional
??? If the question is "Who's the real n°1 in 1977", I answered many many many times, and so did many others people.
BauerAlmeida
Hall of Fame
Vilas was the N°1 in 1977. It's just common sense.
PrinceMoron
Legend
But where would he have been without JL Clerc in the big one?
Aah, happy days..........
And this forum has been far too long without a photo of
OMG.................
Last edited:
5555
Hall of Fame
Can provide a reliable source which states that most EXPERTS said that Villas was the real No. 1 in 1977? (I provided a reliable source which states that most experts said Borg was the real No. 1 in 1977).
Nadal_Power
Semi-Pro
Not again.. just not again
PrinceMoron
Legend
Sabatini was and always will be number one. How on earth can they justify giving equal prize money to men? Who cares about men's tennis, Vilas et al when there are better things in life?
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
I probably already answered this, but I think he is. In the tiers thread I put him in the same tier as them. None of these guys had a year like Djokovic's 2011, not even Wilander in 1988 as he wasnt anything dominant outside the slams, hence how he barely got to #1 over Lendl despite 3 slam wins. Djokovic was a better all surface player than any of them really too. I dont think any of them had a 6 year run of performances as consistently strong as Djokovic from 2007-2012 either.
Lots of factors
Djokovic has only been a leading player since 2007 - that is not quite 5 years. Edberg was a leading player from late 1985 (won Australian Open beating Lendl in semi's and Wilander in the final) to late 1994 (qualified for end of year championships) - 9 years. Becker was a leading player for 11 years (Wimbledon 1985 to Season end championship 1996), Wilander (from French Open 1982 to US Open 1988) - more than 6 years. So he is coming up on Wilander but still a fair way behind the others.
He has 5 slams, Becker & Edberg are on 6, Wilander on 7. Becker won many season end finals and made the final match in many others too - so he has a great indoor CV. Djokovic is just won 1 - but it is fair to note that Edberg and Wilander aren't ahead of Djokovic there.
So I think he is still a tad behind them - but not much.
Djokovic has only been a leading player since 2007 - that is not quite 5 years. Edberg was a leading player from late 1985 (won Australian Open beating Lendl in semi's and Wilander in the final) to late 1994 (qualified for end of year championships) - 9 years. Becker was a leading player for 11 years (Wimbledon 1985 to Season end championship 1996), Wilander (from French Open 1982 to US Open 1988) - more than 6 years. So he is coming up on Wilander but still a fair way behind the others.
He has 5 slams, Becker & Edberg are on 6, Wilander on 7. Becker won many season end finals and made the final match in many others too - so he has a great indoor CV. Djokovic is just won 1 - but it is fair to note that Edberg and Wilander aren't ahead of Djokovic there.
So I think he is still a tad behind them - but not much.
