1992 Courier vs 2019 Djokovic at Roland Garros.
- Thread starter arvind13
- Start date
N
Navdeep Srivastava
Guest
I will always lean toward a player who won a title. Jim got Goran, Agassi( was previous year finalist but his level was bad)and Korda . Now surprising thing is none of them at that time was slam winners or even clay masters winners, while Novak did face Zverev in QF who was Rome and Madrid winner( granted he is a choker in slam) then previous RG finalist in Semi and then Rafa in final was waiting.
Another point is match between Theim and Novak was five setter in tough condition.
The thing is apart from big booming FH Jim has nothing which can trouble Novak consistently,Novak is just a better version of him everywhere. So if you repeat the match again between them, Novak will end up winning more not because of 2019 RG form but because he is just better than 92 RG Courier .
Another point is match between Theim and Novak was five setter in tough condition.
The thing is apart from big booming FH Jim has nothing which can trouble Novak consistently,Novak is just a better version of him everywhere. So if you repeat the match again between them, Novak will end up winning more not because of 2019 RG form but because he is just better than 92 RG Courier .
N
Navdeep Srivastava
Guest
Another thing most people forget that the Jim BH was quite ugly and it may breakdown if Novak managed to counter Jim FH with his superb movement and attack on Jim bh side, making him hit always extra shot with his BH, actually come to think about it can become very ugly unless Jim is having great BH day like 93 Wimbledon against Edberg
Last edited by a moderator:
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Ugly? McEnroe's serve was ugly, had no effect on how effective it was.
N
Navdeep Srivastava
Guest
Well you have a point and you got me there
But I don't think his BH and movement will survive against Novak , he will keep attacking on Jim BH and make him move more, Sampras did the same, he broke his bh in most of his matches against Courier.
It will all come down to how much courier can run around and hit his big FH and neutralise Novak BH. With Novak it will be difficult because his movement is superior to Courier.
I think Courier of 92 AO has more chance .
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Old Novak keeps getting overrated in this dry steppe of a tour. No way is his current movement superior to Courier's peak, kommon.
NicoMK
Hall of Fame
Mac's serve ugly ??
Former pro (?) player Kartsen Braash's serve was ugly…
(The guy was known to smoke fags during change of ends
!)I wound't say "ugly" for Mac's serve. "Never seen before" or "unorthodox" at a push but ugly, I ain't sure.
arvind13
Professional
good point abmk. i was being generous and giving a lot of leeway to see who would actually think djokovic. but apparently some members of TTW think 1992 courier, a world no 1 and man who won two slams that year, and was the defending champion wouldn't be able to beat a past his prime djokovic
encylopedia
Professional
This is simply not true. Courier's backhand did not break down against Sampras (nor anyone else that I recall offhand - I do recall some bad days, especially later in his career, where nothing was working particularly well), he could hit them all day. Sampras really didn't "break" down anything, he did however use his speed, and running forehand to neutralize Courier's best patterns. Most Courier Sampras matches had brutal, and heavy hitting rallies when Sampras stayed back. It was Sampras' ability to camp in his own BH corner due to his speed and running forehand, and his willingness to go out to Courier's forehand with his serve that really gave him the strategic advantage even from the backcourt. Courier won slams and became #1 from the backcourt against all manner of baseliners - you don't do that with a backhand that breaks down lol! Ridiculous.
The problem Djokovic will have in trying to neutralize Courier is that he has the court coverage to make life miserable, but he plays further back than Agassi or Sampras did. He would probably try a more Bruguera-like strategy to wear Courier down, and it's certainly possible he can do it at times. He also is good enough to play up and potentially beat Courier at times doing that as well. Both will win their share of matches but the nod should go to Courier for his record and dominance (short lived as it was).
Also very misleading. Actually Agassi was playing quite well - he had just beaten the tar out of Emilio Sanchez and straight-setted Sampras, but wasn't able to pull himself together to face a dominant Courier. He would of course win Wimbledon in a few weeks.
Courier had also come through - among others, Muster, Mancini, and Medvedev - in previous rounds. He faced a varied and talented group in his draw - clay court monsters, an all-court player with firepower like Goran, talented players like Agassi and Korda - it's not his fault he was at the top of the game. To suggest his draw was somehow weak is not valid in my opinion.
N
Navdeep Srivastava
Guest
May be you are right, may be I am underselling Courier 92 Rg level ,but I was more impressed by his 92 AO or 93 Wimbledon level .
If somebody ask me for between 93 Wimbledon Jim and Novak 2019 Wimbledon, I will take jim courier over Novak because of his level, even Jim finished runner-up.
I still think his RG 92 was more or less untested, I have never said Novak will win all match ,I can see him more match like 6 out of 10 but only against RG 92 one ,not RG 91.
Like Jim Novak also didn't lost a set in 2019 till QF ,then he faced Theim in windy conditions where match went to five set. What I am saying it is very easy to face Korda in finals than Rafa or Goran in QF of RG in compare to Zverev who won two clay master. Agassi point is valid but Agassi didnt played up to full potential like RG 91
Novak won Madrid defeating Theim (it was great physical match) and Tsits.
Then he defeated Shaopalov, Delpo, Diego in great battle before loosing to Rafa in three set in Rome.
You should see his match against Delpo,Theim in (Madrid and RG) and then Diego to realise how good his level was
For me it is nothing new,it is well known fact that Djokovic looses all hypothetical matches,no matter how much he win.
I mean Sampras can hit courier from baseline but Novak can't ,this is basically what you said, nothing more to say.
N
Navdeep Srivastava
Guest
Well Courier did have the better FH but yeah Novak is just the better version of him so people claiming that Jim will run circle around Novak kind a surprise me.
abmk
Bionic Poster
courier had a clearly better fh than djokovic.
and 92 courier was clearly more consistent than 19 djokovic.
abmk
Bionic Poster
yes, 92 RG Courier will run circles around 19 RG djokovic - not prime level djokovic.
a better comparision will be vs 11/13/15/16 RG djokovic.
N
Navdeep Srivastava
Guest
No, he will not, actually I am not sure about 92 clay level of Courier while Novak was tested many time in 2019 Madrid, Rome and he end up winning Ng some really tough matches.
But let agree to disagree ,you have your opinions and I have mine
arvind13
Professional
he had tough matches against pathetic nobodies like thiem and zverev. 92 courier would have dismissed zverev and thiem easily
abmk
Bionic Poster
I was talking about 2019 RG. He was under the pump vs zverev in the 1st set till zverev decided to choke. Also played well below par by prime standards vs Thiem.
But if you want to go back to rest of clay season : lost to Medvedev in Monte Carlo 19 - hardly a sterling CCer.
Rome - was lucky not to be straight-setted by delpo.
got breadsticked and bagelled by rafa though he did win a set 6-4.
Madrid was a good tournament, but IIRC, Thiem dropped his level in the TBs. But then 2014 Federer got close to winning MC playing some good tennis, but was denied by Stan in the end. Doesn't mean 2014 federer would be a match for 92 Courier.
Last edited:
NonP
Legend
The notion that peak Courier would have nothing but his sledgehammer FH on any version of Djokovic at RG is nonsense, of course, but even if that were true a FH advantage alone can be decisive on clay (hello Berasategui!) as long as it allows him to dictate the majority of rallies. And I guarantee you that, equalized for paraphernalia (more or less), Jim would hit a bigger, heavier ball off his FH than Novak.
Now one could counter, not unfairly, that Fed himself has/had a similar FH advantage and arguably as good a BH, but here's the thing: Jim's BH, while not pretty or flashy, was rock solid especially on slower courts, and on clay brilliance and versatility take a back seat to consistency and reliability. I'll quote what @encylopedia told me earlier in a private chat:
And Jim certainly would not yield an inch to Novak on serve as his 89.3% of service games won on clay in '92 (excluding TBs and Kitzbuhel after Wimbledon - see below) would translate to about 90.7% today, Novak's career high in '15. If anything the Courier serve might be a hair better.
The movement does go to Novak peak for peak, but as I've pointed out the reason why such giraffes as Gomez, A. Medvedev, Norman, Verkerk and Soderling have had their best results at RG is because speed and explosiveness matter less than balance and sliding on dirt, and Jim's footwork (since '92 at any rate) was as textbook as they come. And while you could argue that post-gluten Djoko was just as fit as Courier not even peak Novak could match Jim's virtually bottomless shot tolerance, perhaps the most underrated "weapon" on dirt. cyclo touched on this area earlier:
All in all I see (peak) Courier in 4, with the occasional 5-setter going his way all the same. Of course Novak would get his share of matches, but if they both brought their very best Jim would come out ahead.
One more thing (or several):
As you might have noticed Thiem is simply not the King (of Clay) slayer he's been hyped as. The guy struggles to clear even 30% in RGW and they say he'd do much better vs. elite dirtballers of the past? Puh-lease.
And even as a fan I say Novak's CC credentials are inflated, too. Here are his %s of games won on clay (TBs included from here on, yes even from smaller events, but DC stats are excluded for apples-to-apples comparisons) since '04, his 1st season with a tour-level win:
2004 - 44.9%
2005 - 54.5%
2006 - 58.0%
2007 - 54.4%
2008 - 61.4%
2009 - 60.3%
2010 - 58.7%
2011 - 63.0%
2012 - 57.6%
2013 - 59.2%
2014 - 60.6%
2015 - 62.2%
2016 - 60.0%
2017 - 56.8%
2018 - 56.8%
2019 - 59.6%
Career - 58.8%
A very impressive career average for sure, one that anyone not named Rafael Nadal or Bjorn Borg (I suspect Lendl, too) would be glad to have - any member of the 60% Club is in elite company and he's broken the ceiling a whopping five times, seven if you round up the '16 and '19 %s - but except for '11 and perhaps '15 it's fairly run-of-the-mill stuff for FO champs. Compare that to Courier's eye-popping 66.1% in the '92 CC swing (his losses at Kitzbuhel, the Olympics and the DC SF came after Wimbledon), easily the most dominant since '91 save a few from you-know-who. But we're being told that the guy who struggles vs. Thiem would somehow get the better of this certified CC great at his absolute peak. Dunno about you but that sounds like a reach to me.
Ah, but all these #s don't mean a thing unless you can continue that run into RG, right? OK, then let's look at Novak's GW%s from his most successful FO runs (SF or higher):
2007 - 54.9%
2008 - 58.7%
2011 - 60.1%
2012 - 59.5%
2013 - 59.0%
2014 - 60.7%
2015 - 60.9%
2016 - 64.9%
2019 - 63.0%
As you can see Djoko usually failed to improve his season % or even worse at RG except in '16 and '19, so what did his draws in those two years look like? Apart from Murray and Thiem I can't think of a big-name opponent from those editions, and turns out that's not a memory lapse:
2016
F - Murray
SF - Thiem
QF - Berdych
4R - Bautista Agut
3R - Bedene
2R - Darcis
1R - Lu
2019
SF - Thiem
QF - Zverev
4R - Struff
3R - Caruso
2R - Laaksonen
1R - Hurkacz
Now Andy did win 58.8% of his games on clay in '16, but that's usually not enough to get you over the last hump vs. a quality opponent. Thiem for his part won an underwhelming 56.1% in '19 and a middling 55.4% in '17 despite entering a bunch of 3rd-rate events (Buenos Aires and Rio before IW and Kitzbuhel after Wimby in both years plus Hamburg after Wimby in '19) - to put this in perspective even Pete won 60.8% and 60.1% in the '93 and '94 CC swings (sans Atlanta on green clay in '93 and the WTC in both years which was an exo in all but name), back when he was still trying to win RG - and while '16 was one of Berd's better CC seasons he still won a paltry 53.0%.
And despite this lackluster opposition Novak's career-best 64.9% in '16 falls well short of Jim's historic 67.5% in '92 against these big names:
F - Korda
SF - Agassi
QF - Ivanisevic
4R - Medvedev, A.
3R - Mancini
2R - Muster
1R - Kroon
Only Kroon in the 1st round could be described as an unknown quantity. Even if you take into account the actual performance of these guys I don't see how anyone even remotely familiar with the '90s could say this draw isn't tougher than Novak's in 16. At the very least it's comparable, and Courier still outdid Djokovic by almost 3% in GW which could well mean the difference between champion and runner-up.
But Nadal renders all this moot, you say? I've already looked at Rafa's '05 and '06 seasons and explained why even that hopping wunderkind with pirate pants wouldn't be a sure bet vs. Courier, Bruguera or Kuerten at his best, but let's turn to his '13 CC swing as that year's FO SF tends to get all the attention as Novak's claim to clay GOAThood. So that Rafa posted an overall 62.9% in GW - an impressive # for almost anyone, but not by his own sky-high standards or even those of peak Courier who won 66.1% and 63.8% at Rome and RG in '92 and '93 respectively while '13 Rafa padded his % a bit by skipping the AO and playing Vina del Mar, Sao Paulo, Acapulco before IW. And their %s at RG diverge even further with Rafa's 60.9% falling well short of Jim's 67.5% in '92 or even 61.2% in '93, the latter despite facing in Bruguera one of the most dominant dirtballers in FO history. Again it's quite debatable whether '13 Rafa prevails over this Courier or Bruguera at RG, but somehow Novak would be able to handle these guys just fine? Sorry but I don't see it. (To be continued.)
Now one could counter, not unfairly, that Fed himself has/had a similar FH advantage and arguably as good a BH, but here's the thing: Jim's BH, while not pretty or flashy, was rock solid especially on slower courts, and on clay brilliance and versatility take a back seat to consistency and reliability. I'll quote what @encylopedia told me earlier in a private chat:
And Jim certainly would not yield an inch to Novak on serve as his 89.3% of service games won on clay in '92 (excluding TBs and Kitzbuhel after Wimbledon - see below) would translate to about 90.7% today, Novak's career high in '15. If anything the Courier serve might be a hair better.
The movement does go to Novak peak for peak, but as I've pointed out the reason why such giraffes as Gomez, A. Medvedev, Norman, Verkerk and Soderling have had their best results at RG is because speed and explosiveness matter less than balance and sliding on dirt, and Jim's footwork (since '92 at any rate) was as textbook as they come. And while you could argue that post-gluten Djoko was just as fit as Courier not even peak Novak could match Jim's virtually bottomless shot tolerance, perhaps the most underrated "weapon" on dirt. cyclo touched on this area earlier:
All in all I see (peak) Courier in 4, with the occasional 5-setter going his way all the same. Of course Novak would get his share of matches, but if they both brought their very best Jim would come out ahead.
One more thing (or several):
As you might have noticed Thiem is simply not the King (of Clay) slayer he's been hyped as. The guy struggles to clear even 30% in RGW and they say he'd do much better vs. elite dirtballers of the past? Puh-lease.
And even as a fan I say Novak's CC credentials are inflated, too. Here are his %s of games won on clay (TBs included from here on, yes even from smaller events, but DC stats are excluded for apples-to-apples comparisons) since '04, his 1st season with a tour-level win:
2004 - 44.9%
2005 - 54.5%
2006 - 58.0%
2007 - 54.4%
2008 - 61.4%
2009 - 60.3%
2010 - 58.7%
2011 - 63.0%
2012 - 57.6%
2013 - 59.2%
2014 - 60.6%
2015 - 62.2%
2016 - 60.0%
2017 - 56.8%
2018 - 56.8%
2019 - 59.6%
Career - 58.8%
A very impressive career average for sure, one that anyone not named Rafael Nadal or Bjorn Borg (I suspect Lendl, too) would be glad to have - any member of the 60% Club is in elite company and he's broken the ceiling a whopping five times, seven if you round up the '16 and '19 %s - but except for '11 and perhaps '15 it's fairly run-of-the-mill stuff for FO champs. Compare that to Courier's eye-popping 66.1% in the '92 CC swing (his losses at Kitzbuhel, the Olympics and the DC SF came after Wimbledon), easily the most dominant since '91 save a few from you-know-who. But we're being told that the guy who struggles vs. Thiem would somehow get the better of this certified CC great at his absolute peak. Dunno about you but that sounds like a reach to me.
Ah, but all these #s don't mean a thing unless you can continue that run into RG, right? OK, then let's look at Novak's GW%s from his most successful FO runs (SF or higher):
2007 - 54.9%
2008 - 58.7%
2011 - 60.1%
2012 - 59.5%
2013 - 59.0%
2014 - 60.7%
2015 - 60.9%
2016 - 64.9%
2019 - 63.0%
As you can see Djoko usually failed to improve his season % or even worse at RG except in '16 and '19, so what did his draws in those two years look like? Apart from Murray and Thiem I can't think of a big-name opponent from those editions, and turns out that's not a memory lapse:
2016
F - Murray
SF - Thiem
QF - Berdych
4R - Bautista Agut
3R - Bedene
2R - Darcis
1R - Lu
2019
SF - Thiem
QF - Zverev
4R - Struff
3R - Caruso
2R - Laaksonen
1R - Hurkacz
Now Andy did win 58.8% of his games on clay in '16, but that's usually not enough to get you over the last hump vs. a quality opponent. Thiem for his part won an underwhelming 56.1% in '19 and a middling 55.4% in '17 despite entering a bunch of 3rd-rate events (Buenos Aires and Rio before IW and Kitzbuhel after Wimby in both years plus Hamburg after Wimby in '19) - to put this in perspective even Pete won 60.8% and 60.1% in the '93 and '94 CC swings (sans Atlanta on green clay in '93 and the WTC in both years which was an exo in all but name), back when he was still trying to win RG - and while '16 was one of Berd's better CC seasons he still won a paltry 53.0%.
And despite this lackluster opposition Novak's career-best 64.9% in '16 falls well short of Jim's historic 67.5% in '92 against these big names:
F - Korda
SF - Agassi
QF - Ivanisevic
4R - Medvedev, A.
3R - Mancini
2R - Muster
1R - Kroon
Only Kroon in the 1st round could be described as an unknown quantity. Even if you take into account the actual performance of these guys I don't see how anyone even remotely familiar with the '90s could say this draw isn't tougher than Novak's in 16. At the very least it's comparable, and Courier still outdid Djokovic by almost 3% in GW which could well mean the difference between champion and runner-up.
But Nadal renders all this moot, you say? I've already looked at Rafa's '05 and '06 seasons and explained why even that hopping wunderkind with pirate pants wouldn't be a sure bet vs. Courier, Bruguera or Kuerten at his best, but let's turn to his '13 CC swing as that year's FO SF tends to get all the attention as Novak's claim to clay GOAThood. So that Rafa posted an overall 62.9% in GW - an impressive # for almost anyone, but not by his own sky-high standards or even those of peak Courier who won 66.1% and 63.8% at Rome and RG in '92 and '93 respectively while '13 Rafa padded his % a bit by skipping the AO and playing Vina del Mar, Sao Paulo, Acapulco before IW. And their %s at RG diverge even further with Rafa's 60.9% falling well short of Jim's 67.5% in '92 or even 61.2% in '93, the latter despite facing in Bruguera one of the most dominant dirtballers in FO history. Again it's quite debatable whether '13 Rafa prevails over this Courier or Bruguera at RG, but somehow Novak would be able to handle these guys just fine? Sorry but I don't see it. (To be continued.)
NonP
Legend
In fact forget about Nadal, it's not even sure Novak would be a safe bet against any of the 1-time FO champs of the 90s. Here are their respective draws followed by their GW% for the tourney as well as for the year proper (including the WTC except for Agassi this time, alas):
1995 Muster
F - Chang
SF - Kafelnikov
QF - Costa, A.
4R - Medvedev, A. (the guy just couldn't catch a break, eh?)
3R - Costa, C.
2R - Pioline
1R - Solves
Event GW% - 64.5% | Year - 62.2%
1996 Kafelnikov
F - Stich
SF - Sampras
QF - Krajicek
4R - Clavet
3R - Mantilla
2R - Johansson, T.
1R - Blanco
Event - 64.3% | Year - 57.9%
1998 Moya
F - Corretja
SF - Mantilla
QF - Rios
4R - Knippschild
3R - Ilie
2R - Imaz
1R - Grosjean
Event - 61.0% | Year - 56.9%
1999 Agassi
F - Medvedev, A. (again!)
SF - Hrbaty
QF - Filippini
4R - Moya
3R - Woodruff
2R - Clement
1R - Squillari
Event - 57.4% | Year - 57.5%
As you can see all of these guys except perhaps Dre raised their game in time for the big thing, and they all arguably faced superior opponents than '16 Novak:
- '95 Chang was another member of the 60% Club who dispatched Bruguera at RG in straight sets, and Yevgeny that year won a respectable 55.4% himself, the same rate as '17 Thiem's.
- '96 Stich won a career-best 57.1% at Rome and RG, and I think most would agree that even on clay healthy Krajicek was more dangerous than RBA (who gave '16 Novak his toughest test at RG, limiting him to 57.9% for the match), especially given his sensational Wimby run at SW19 in a month's time.
- Rios won his own career-high 60.8% in '98, and Corretja's 55.5% is at least comparable to Thiem's 55.4% in '17 or 56.1% in '19.
- We all know what a run the other Medvedev was having at '99 RG, his then 100th ranking be damned, and while '99 was by no means Moya's best CC campaign most dirtballers would still rather face Berdych than the previous year's champ.
And despite all this Muster and Kafelnikov were still able to nearly tie Djoko's 64.9% on terre battue. Doesn't necessarily mean Novak would lose to these guys, of course, and in fact I think he and Thomas would be neck and neck while Yevgeny somewhat surprisingly might have a slight advantage due to that DTL BH of his which combined with his height would probably give Novak at least as many fits as Stan's own vaunted weapon. OTOH I do give Novak the edge over Moya and at least '99 Agassi.
All that said... exactly what kind of scenario are we talking about? If we're swapping Sampras and Djokovic '98 or '99 was about 10 years after Pete won his 1st major, which would roughly correspond with '17 or '18 Novak. The former got thumped by Thiem in straights sets, and the latter Djoko couldn't even get past Cecchinato for gawd's sake! Or do prime for prime and he'd be up against '95 Muster and '96 Kafelnikov who as I just explained wouldn't make it easy for him, and at the very least he'd need to bring his absolute best against '92/'93 Courier and '93/'94 Bruguera, let alone Guga in full-wrecking mode.
And that's just the '90s. Swap him with Lendl or Wilander and he'd be dealing with Borg early on and the other Ivan/Mats, along with the likes of Vilas, Noah, Mac, Edberg, Gomez, Chang and probably young Agassi and Courier (again). Very long story short the if-not-for-Nadal (il)logic simply doesn't pass commonsensical muster to begin with. I know I'm already a broken record on this score but no single-digit Slammer is suddenly gonna turn into a (near) ATG just by being transplanted in another era, and this misguided inflation of Djokovic's (or Fed's or Thiem's for that matter) actual CC prowess is yet another reason to be skeptical of the ever-popular fallacy.
1995 Muster
F - Chang
SF - Kafelnikov
QF - Costa, A.
4R - Medvedev, A. (the guy just couldn't catch a break, eh?)
3R - Costa, C.
2R - Pioline
1R - Solves
Event GW% - 64.5% | Year - 62.2%
1996 Kafelnikov
F - Stich
SF - Sampras
QF - Krajicek
4R - Clavet
3R - Mantilla
2R - Johansson, T.
1R - Blanco
Event - 64.3% | Year - 57.9%
1998 Moya
F - Corretja
SF - Mantilla
QF - Rios
4R - Knippschild
3R - Ilie
2R - Imaz
1R - Grosjean
Event - 61.0% | Year - 56.9%
1999 Agassi
F - Medvedev, A. (again!)
SF - Hrbaty
QF - Filippini
4R - Moya
3R - Woodruff
2R - Clement
1R - Squillari
Event - 57.4% | Year - 57.5%
As you can see all of these guys except perhaps Dre raised their game in time for the big thing, and they all arguably faced superior opponents than '16 Novak:
- '95 Chang was another member of the 60% Club who dispatched Bruguera at RG in straight sets, and Yevgeny that year won a respectable 55.4% himself, the same rate as '17 Thiem's.
- '96 Stich won a career-best 57.1% at Rome and RG, and I think most would agree that even on clay healthy Krajicek was more dangerous than RBA (who gave '16 Novak his toughest test at RG, limiting him to 57.9% for the match), especially given his sensational Wimby run at SW19 in a month's time.
- Rios won his own career-high 60.8% in '98, and Corretja's 55.5% is at least comparable to Thiem's 55.4% in '17 or 56.1% in '19.
- We all know what a run the other Medvedev was having at '99 RG, his then 100th ranking be damned, and while '99 was by no means Moya's best CC campaign most dirtballers would still rather face Berdych than the previous year's champ.
And despite all this Muster and Kafelnikov were still able to nearly tie Djoko's 64.9% on terre battue. Doesn't necessarily mean Novak would lose to these guys, of course, and in fact I think he and Thomas would be neck and neck while Yevgeny somewhat surprisingly might have a slight advantage due to that DTL BH of his which combined with his height would probably give Novak at least as many fits as Stan's own vaunted weapon. OTOH I do give Novak the edge over Moya and at least '99 Agassi.
All that said... exactly what kind of scenario are we talking about? If we're swapping Sampras and Djokovic '98 or '99 was about 10 years after Pete won his 1st major, which would roughly correspond with '17 or '18 Novak. The former got thumped by Thiem in straights sets, and the latter Djoko couldn't even get past Cecchinato for gawd's sake! Or do prime for prime and he'd be up against '95 Muster and '96 Kafelnikov who as I just explained wouldn't make it easy for him, and at the very least he'd need to bring his absolute best against '92/'93 Courier and '93/'94 Bruguera, let alone Guga in full-wrecking mode.
And that's just the '90s. Swap him with Lendl or Wilander and he'd be dealing with Borg early on and the other Ivan/Mats, along with the likes of Vilas, Noah, Mac, Edberg, Gomez, Chang and probably young Agassi and Courier (again). Very long story short the if-not-for-Nadal (il)logic simply doesn't pass commonsensical muster to begin with. I know I'm already a broken record on this score but no single-digit Slammer is suddenly gonna turn into a (near) ATG just by being transplanted in another era, and this misguided inflation of Djokovic's (or Fed's or Thiem's for that matter) actual CC prowess is yet another reason to be skeptical of the ever-popular fallacy.
abmk
Bionic Poster
@NonP :
Those numbers are informative, but don't really provide the full context.
For example, Fed on clay had 62.5% games won in 2005 and 59.4% games won in 2006. That's about a 3% difference and might give you the impression that 2005 Fed was clearly better than 2006 Fed on clay.
But reality or context ?
Fed got taken out early in Monte Carlo in 05 by Gasquet. Was of course dominant in Hamburg win.
Played well in RG and got taken out by Nadal in the semi.
06 - reached final at Monte Carlo losing to Nadal in a tough 4-setter.
reached Rome final barely losing to nadal (having MPs)
did not play his favorite clay tournament Hamburg - playing which would have probably increased his numbers.
played well in RG and got taken out Nadal in the final
2019 djokovic might have 59.6% games won on clay, but .considering the competition and the below stuff , that's a bit misleading/inflated ->
Those numbers are informative, but don't really provide the full context.
For example, Fed on clay had 62.5% games won in 2005 and 59.4% games won in 2006. That's about a 3% difference and might give you the impression that 2005 Fed was clearly better than 2006 Fed on clay.
But reality or context ?
Fed got taken out early in Monte Carlo in 05 by Gasquet. Was of course dominant in Hamburg win.
Played well in RG and got taken out by Nadal in the semi.
06 - reached final at Monte Carlo losing to Nadal in a tough 4-setter.
reached Rome final barely losing to nadal (having MPs)
did not play his favorite clay tournament Hamburg - playing which would have probably increased his numbers.
played well in RG and got taken out Nadal in the final
2019 djokovic might have 59.6% games won on clay, but .considering the competition and the below stuff , that's a bit misleading/inflated ->
WYK
Legend
Courier's backhand was as booming as his forehand, and many folks claimed he had two forehands because of this. He swung it like a baseball player VS the modern flippy stuff. They are both monsters of their generations. Here's a photo I took of Courier in person in, uh... I wanna say a 2006 Grand Slam Jam they had back in Austin(my home town):
Similar threads
- Poll
