Bottom line, Novak came up small

[McEnborg]

Novak missed too many shots, got too irritated with things out of his control and showed a lack of poise in key moments. He didn’t deserve to win.

To me, he’s gone ahead of Laver, Sampras and Borg and is solidly entrenched as third greatest player of all time. He could catch Rafa and still has a shot at Fed, but I doubt it. Roger has like 26 more tournament victories, in addition to 5 more majors. Good thing for Novak is that he probably has 3 great years left. Amazingly lean and flexible guys like him last quite a while.

 

[Centrius]

Open Era:

1.Federer
2.Djokovic
3.Sampras
4.Nadal
5.Borg

 

[GabeT]

Novak missed too many shots, got too irritated with things out of his control and showed a lack of poise in key moments. He didn’t deserve to win.

To me, he’s gone ahead of Laver, Sampras and Borg and is solidly entrenched as third greatest player of all time. He could catch Rafa and still has a shot at Fed, but I doubt it. Roger has like 26 more tournament victories, in addition to 5 more majors. Good thing for Novak is that he probably has 3 great years left. Amazingly lean and flexible guys like him last quite a while.

Fed’s extra tournaments over Nole are fully explained by the number of 500s and 250s Fed plays, much more than Nole. Arguing Fed is better because he has 5 more slams makes sense. Arguing Fed is better because he won 26 more 500s and 250s doesn’t.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Honestly, it is a matter of time. RG meant nothing but CYGS. He will be fav at next 3 slams unless he runs into Querry at Wimbledon.

 

[McEnborg]

Open Era:

1.Federer
2.Djokovic
3.Sampras
4.Nadal
5.Borg

Sorry, Rafa surpassed Pete. Rafa has been in 5 Aussie Open finals, even though he won just the one. He’s been in 5 Wimbledon finals and a couple of semis. He’s won the Us Open 3 times.

Pete played the French Open 13 years. He got to ONE semi, and was blitzed by Kafelnikov. That is a HUGE hole in his resume. Rafa has clearly surpassed him and is firmly entrenched as second greatest ever. He also has 10 more titles than Pete.

 

[Deon Sanders]

Open Era:

1.Federer
2.Djokovic
3.Sampras
4.Nadal
5.Borg

Open era real slam winners

1) Federer - 19
2) Sampras - 14
3) Djokovic - 14
4) Connors - 7
5) Agassi - 7
6) McEnroe - 7
7) Edberg - 6
8) Becker - 6
9) Ned - 6
10) Newcombe - 5

 

[Centrius]

Sorry, Rafa surpassed Pete. Rafa has been in 5 Aussie Open finals, even though he won just the one. He’s been in 5 Wimbledon finals and a couple of semis. He’s won the Us Open 3 times.

Pete played the French Open 13 years. He got to ONE semi, and was blitzed by Kafelnikov. That is a HUGE hole in his resume. Rafa has clearly surpassed him and is firmly entrenched as second greatest ever. He also has 10 more titles than Pete.

Sampras is better in two out of three surfaces.

 

[travlerajm]

Nah. Pete still firmly in number 2 spot. Go watch replay of Djokovic’s volleys in today’s match, and go watch replay of peak 1995 Sampras. Sampras wouldn’t have gotten fat and retired early if he could have feasted on today’s lost-gen and next-gen losers and inflated his resume when he was in his 30s.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Open era real slam winners

1) Federer - 19
2) Sampras - 14
3) Djokovic - 14
4) Connors - 7
5) Agassi - 7
6) McEnroe - 7
7) Edberg - 6
8) Becker - 6
9) Ned - 6
10) Newcombe - 5

Haha, those numbers actually say quite a bit, especially if you did the reverse for both Wimbledon for Fed, and AO for Djoker.

 

[McEnborg]

Nah. Pete still firmly in number 2 spot. Go watch replay of Djokovic’s volleys in today’s match, and go watch replay of peak 1995 Sampras. Sampras wouldn’t have gotten fat and retired early if he could have feasted on today’s lost-gen and next-gen losers and inflated his resume when he was in his 30s.

Such nonsense. Pete was the greatest server of all time and greatest serve and volleyer of all time...but never had the stamina, passing shots, baseline accuracy and overall movement on court as Rafa. Both Rafa and Novak beat prime Pete 6-7 of ten times. Rafa has bigger groundies and passing shots than even Agassi. And no one returned Sampras’ serve the way Novak would. Not even close.

 

[Backspin1183]

Open Era:

1.Federer
2.Djokovic
3.Sampras
4.Nadal
5.Borg

You're too generous to Nadal. He shouldn't feature in top 10 of your list.

 

[E36BMWM3]

Open Era:

1.Federer
2.Djokovic
3.Sampras
4.Nadal
5.Borg

LOL. Nad haters already smoking peyote... nadal beneath Sampras and Djoko?? Lmaooooo

 

[helterskelter]

Sampras is better in two out of three surfaces.

And that's not even counting carpet.

 

[travlerajm]

Such nonsense. Pete was the greatest server of all time and greatest serve and volleyer of all time...but never had the stamina, passing shots, baseline accuracy and overall movement on court as Rafa. Both Rafa and Novak beat prime Pete 6-7 of ten times. Rafa has bigger groundies and passing shots than even Agassi. And no one returned Sampras’ serve the way Novak would. Not even close.

I find your arguments quite unconvincing.

 

[Centrius]

You're too generous to Nadal. He shouldn't feature in top 10 of your list.

Where do you rank him in the Open Era?

 

[DRII]

Open Era:

1.Federer
2.Djokovic
3.Sampras
4.Nadal
5.Borg

do you like looking foolish?

 

[Centrius]

LOL. Nad haters already smoking peyote... nadal beneath Sampras and Djoko?? Lmaooooo

Do that make me a Nadal hater? Get a grip.Both are ahead of the spaniard in two out of three surfaces and got more weeks at number one spot.Sorry to tell you.

 

[Centrius]

do you like looking foolish?

Why you say so?

 

[E36BMWM3]

Do that make me a Nadal hater? Get a grip.Both are ahead of the spaniard in two out of three surfaces and got more weeks at number one spot.Sorry to tell you.

Your deciding arguments are completely flawed and thin. Sampras lifted the RG trophy when???? Right, never. Djokovic is still two Grandslams beneath him, possibly 3 depending on tomorrow.

 

[JMR]

Sampras is better in two out of three surfaces.

Greatness is measured by total achievements, not by the results of arbitrary, partial comparisons.

 

[Centrius]

Your deciding arguments are completely flawed and thin. Sampras lifted the RG trophy when???? Right, never. Djokovic is still two Grandslams beneath him, possibly 3 depending on tomorrow.

Slam tally is not the end of all things to me.

 

[Centrius]

Greatness is measured by total achievements, not by the results of arbitrary, partial comparisons.

You can't get all the slams in one bag.Remember two are played on hard court and only one on clay/grass.

 

[JMR]

Arguing Fed is better because he won 26 more 500s and 250s doesn’t [make sense].

You may think it's a weak argument, but it does make sense. If the premise is, "All titles have legacy value," then having a lot more of the smaller titles than another player is a plus. You don't have to accept that premise yourself, but there's no a priori basis for rejecting it. It's not self-contradictory or otherwise inherently absurd.

 

[Lleytonstation]

You can't get all the slams in one bag.Remember two are played on hard court and only one on clay/grass.

They are all tennis slams, so they are all in one bag, they are called Grand Slams.

 

[McEnborg]

I find your arguments quite unconvincing.

As I do yours. Rafa is the second greatest player of all time...bar none.

 

[Centrius]

They are all tennis slams, so they are all in one bag, they are called Grand Slams.

Thought winning four slams in a row was the Grand slam.You know very well what I meant.

 

[NoleFam]

It's not like Djokovic was the favorite in this Slam. This is Rafa territory and it always was going to be an uphill battle. I don't see how the result here changes much since most of us knew this was the most likely result. Djokovic has three other Slams that he is better at and will have much more chances at those. Let's see how things stand a year from now and see.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Thought winning four slams in a row was the Grand slam.You know very well what I meant.

What is better? 15 FO and 1 WC and 1 USO and 1 AO, or 1 FO and 5 WC and 5 USO and 5 AO?

I ask because one is clearly better overall, but the other has more but is top heavy.

 

[JMR]

You can't get all the slams in one bag.Remember two are played on hard court and only one on clay/grass.

The best argument for Sampras over Nadal is not based on slam surfaces, but rather an edge in No.1 stats and a huge advantage in YECs. But those are not enough to overcome Pete's three- (or perhaps four-) slam deficit and no CGS.

 

[Sport]

Sampras is better in two out of three surfaces.

So? You need to consider the 3 surfaces as a whole, not only 2 of the 3. Nadal is more complete as he has 17/18 Majors plus the Career Grand Slam, while Sampras has 14 Majors without Roland-Garros. So Nadal is obviously better overall.

 

[Lleytonstation]

It's not like Djokovic was the favorite in this Slam. This is Rafa territory and it always was going to be an uphill battle. I don't see how the result here changes much since most of us knew this was the most likely result. Djokovic has three other Slams that he is better at and will have much more chances at those. Let's see how things stand a year from now and see.

I have been thinking that for like 5 plus years now, but all three keep one upping each other. When will the madness stop?

 

[Ray Mercer]

Don’t like Djokovic’s play style but in today’s slow homogenized surfaces he is the best in the world. He laid an absolute beating on Nadal in Australia. He is a far more well rounded player than Nadal who dominates a niche surface.

 

[NoleFam]

I have been thinking that for like 5 plus years now, but all three keep one upping each other. When will the madness stop?

I think after this year. Federer is playing well still but the man will be 38 soon. This cannot go on forever. His count will have to halt at some point and Djokodal will try to outduel each other for as long as they can before they get too old, or the younger ones catch up.

 

[Lleytonstation]

I think after this year. Federer is playing well still but the man will be 38 soon. This cannot go on forever. His count will have to halt at some point and Djokodal will try to outduel each other for as long as they can before they get too old, or the younger ones catch up.

I see an 18 month window from here on out to catch 20. Fed has maybe this and next Wimbledon and one more shot at Aussie. But if Rafa and Djoker do not take advantage of this window, Tsits, Thiem, and possibly a few others will shut their chances down eventually.

 

[NoleFam]

I see an 18 month window from here on out to catch 20. Fed has maybe this and next Wimbledon and one more shot at Aussie. But if Rafa and Djoker do not take advantage of this window, Tsits, Thiem, and possibly a few others will shut their chances down eventually.

I give Federer a chance at one more Wimbledon and a smaller window for AO. Next year he will be 38 and Tsitsipas and Thiem are coming on strong. They could be road blocks from now on out. It will be interesting to see how the rest of the year plays out.

 

[Sport]

Don’t like Djokovic’s play style but in today’s slow homogenized surfaces he is the best in the world. He laid an absolute beating on Nadal in Australia. He is a far more well rounded player than Nadal who dominates a niche surface.

And Nadal laid an absolute beating of Djokovic in Rome. Your point?

Djokovic is not more complete than Nadal. Nadal is more complete than Djokovic in outdoor conditions.

Nadal has his Grand Slam titles more evenly distributed by surface than Djokovic. In effect, Nadal has won at least 2 Grand Slams on each surface (hard, grass and clay). Djokovic only has 1 Grand Slam on clay. 2 Grand Slams on each surface >>> 1 Grand Slam on each surface.

Djokovic is only more complete than Nadal on indoor conditions. For Djokovic to be more complete than Nadal, he needs to be more complete both on indoor and outdoor conditions (not only on indoor). In other words, he needs to win another Roland-Garros title at least.

 

[GabeT]

You may think it's a weak argument, but it does make sense. If the premise is, "All titles have legacy value," then having a lot more of the smaller titles than another player is a plus. You don't have to accept that premise yourself, but there's no a priori basis for rejecting it. It's not self-contradictory or otherwise inherently absurd.

If Nole had decided a few years ago to simply play as many 250s and 500s as he could he could easily have added dozens of tournaments to his total. Of course he would be playing mostly low ranked players and no one would think that advanced his standing among ATGs.

Fed had many personal and professional reasons to play more 250s than Nole. No one holds it against him. But neither is winning a bunch of small tournaments of any relevance when comparing ATGs.

 

[oldmanfan]

If Nole had decided a few years ago to simply play as many 250s and 500s as he could he could easily have added dozens of tournaments to his total. Of course he would be playing mostly low ranked players and no one would think that advanced his standing among ATGs.

Fed had many personal and professional reasons to play more 250s than Nole. No one holds it against him. But neither is winning a bunch of small tournaments of any relevance when comparing ATGs.

Firstly, Halle is now a 500, but some of Fedr's Halle wins will register as 250s as they were won before it was converted. It's still Halle, the same place, and similar draws (and finals used to be Bo5 even when it was a 250). Now, we don't even have Bo5 finals in masters. As a result, that wipes out a good chunk of Fedr's 250s after Halle's conversion.

But it's not that simple. If any of Fedalovic wins more of the 250/500s, then afterwards, they may be too tired to win bigger titles, or it may wear on them mentally for the following titles (i.e. mid-season burnout). The physical/mental tolls are cumulative. The burnout of overplaying is real (see Djokr's 2011 fall season, or MuryGOAT's post-fall-2016 run). Yes, 250/500s 'can' be easy to win, but it's not a given. Matches still have to be played (see this year's Doha19, RBA d. Djokr). Dubai/Halle/Basel/Queens have always been tough, almost masters level, and some were won with more difficult draw-paths than some masters wins. Don't look down on them too much. How about that Eastborne title that kept Djokr from a title drought for about a year in 2017-2018? How come he didn't have other 500's if they were so easy to win? Even if he was slumping, but they were easy to win, so no need for a well-playing Djokr, right?

Fedr plays the 500s partly (or mainly) bc 4 are required every year for top players (he usually played Rotterdam, Dubai, Halle, Basel). It was his job to play 4. The fact that he won many of them can't be held against him if Djokodal won less, and as top players, they TOO are required to play 4x 500s per year. If they don't play them, then it's on them, and it's their loss on the stat sheet.

More importantly, Fedr's 250/500s are not titles to 'fill' gaps that are not even there. Fedr still leads the titles at slams, is very close in masters titles, and still leads in WTF titles over Djokr (Nadl has zero). Perhaps if Fedr was behind in slam titles, had half Djokodal's masters, and half their WTFs, THEN perhaps we can dismiss/downgrade Fedr's 250/500s wins. But that's not the case, and never was, and likely never will be, bc at this juncture, it's impossible for Djokodal to each double Fedr's slams/masters/WTF going forward.

So... Fedr's 250/500s are legacy enhancing.
I hope he wins more.

 

[GabeT]

Firstly, Halle is now a 500, but some of Fedr's Halle wins will register as 250s as they were won before it was converted. It's still Halle, the same place, and similar draws (and finals used to be Bo5 even when it was a 250). Now, we don't even have Bo5 finals in masters. As a result, that wipes out a good chunk of Fedr's 250s after Halle's conversion.

But it's not that simple. If any of Fedalovic wins more of the 250/500s, then afterwards, they may be too tired to win bigger titles, or it may wear on them mentally for the following titles (i.e. mid-season burnout). The physical/mental tolls are cumulative. The burnout of overplaying is real (see Djokr's 2011 fall season, or MuryGOAT's post-fall-2016 run). Yes, 250/500s 'can' be easy to win, but it's not a given. Matches still have to be played (see this year's Doha19, RBA d. Djokr). Dubai/Halle/Basel/Queens have always been tough, almost masters level, and some were won with more difficult draw-paths than some masters wins. Don't look down on them too much. How about that Eastborne title that kept Djokr from a title drought for about a year in 2017-2018? How come he didn't have other 500's if they were so easy to win? Even if he was slumping, but they were easy to win, so no need for a well-playing Djokr, right?

Fedr plays the 500s partly (or mainly) bc 4 are required every year for top players (he usually played Rotterdam, Dubai, Halle, Basel). It was his job to play 4. The fact that he won many of them can't be held against him if Djokodal won less, and as top players, they TOO are required to play 4x 500s per year. If they don't play them, then it's on them, and it's their loss on the stat sheet.

More importantly, Fedr's 250/500s are not titles to 'fill' gaps that are not even there. Fedr still leads the titles at slams, is very close in masters titles, and still leads in WTF titles over Djokr (Nadl has zero). Perhaps if Fedr was behind in slam titles, had half Djokodal's masters, and half their WTFs, THEN perhaps we can dismiss/downgrade Fedr's 250/500s wins. But that's not the case, and never was, and likely never will be, bc at this juncture, it's impossible for Djokodal to each double Fedr's slams/masters/WTF going forward.

So... Fedr's 250/500s are legacy enhancing.
I hope he wins more.

I can agree with a lot of what you say but not with the conclusion. If Nole decided to focus on 250s and 500s does anyone doubt he’d win a lot of them in a short time? Would that really enhance his legacy? There are plenty of posters here that think that even winning more masters won’t do anything for Nole’s legacy.

Fed has 5 more slams than Nole. He has some 60 weeks at #1 more. Those are real differences between ATGs. Another 20 250s and 500s I don’t think really count.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Nadal and Thiem have cost Djokovic EIGHT FO's lol..... Ouch.

 

[Sudacafan]

Open era real slam winners

1) Federer - 19
2) Sampras - 14
3) Djokovic - 14
4) Connors - 7
5) Agassi - 7
6) McEnroe - 7
7) Edberg - 6
8) Becker - 6
9) Ned - 6
10) Newcombe - 5

You are boring with your core misconception, really.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

..

 

[1990's Graphite]

Nadal and Thiem have cost Djokovic EIGHT FO's lol..... Ouch.

And Fed and Novak cost Nadal other slams in order for him to be something other than the clay goat only lol

 

[Sudacafan]

Nadal and Thiem have cost Djokovic EIGHT FO's lol..... Ouch.

Elephant in the room: how many FO’s was Roger’s tab he had to pick.

 

[oldmanfan]

I can agree with a lot of what you say but not with the conclusion. If Nole decided to focus on 250s and 500s does anyone doubt he’d win a lot of them in a short time? Would that really enhance his legacy? There are plenty of posters here that think that even winning more masters won’t do anything for Nole’s legacy.

Fed has 5 more slams than Nole. He has some 60 weeks at #1 more. Those are real differences between ATGs. Another 20 250s and 500s I don’t think really count.

You missed the part that I implied that if Djokr focused on 250/500s, he'd likely NOT win the last 3 slams plus additional 2 masters (nor would he be as successful at masters/WTF/slams during his dominance since 2011). He could be burnt out for any of them. Maybe Fedr lost many masters bc he won so many 500s, who knows? But the titles are what they are, and they all have value in enhancing one's resume. We fans shouldn't dismiss them so easily, as it takes effort to win them bc players have to prep (traveling/team/hotels/food/practice/media) before a match-ball was even struck. Then they have to win multiple matches in a row.

Sure, 1 or 2 additional 250/500s titles is something, but no big deal. But Fedr isn't 1-2 250/500s titles ahead. He has 28 titles total more than Djokr atm (I'm sure Djokr will close this gap in the future). Let others believe what they will. I think masters are always legacy enhancing. And I think Djokr will likely end up as masters GOAT. Masters/500/250 may not be legacy 'defining', but they certainly are legacy 'enhancing'. These are tennis professionals. They play tennis, and they play to win. More titles will always be better than less titles. Title 'importance' can be debated after they retire, but when active, they play to win. Heck, even in just Monopoly, I play to win. I don't play to lose, do you?

Regardless, people shouldn't dismiss that they play to win titles, large or small, bc they sure as hell don't show up to lose matches (minus some tankers, but if these tankers could choose, they'd also choose win.)

 

[GabeT]

You missed the part that I said that if Djokr focused on 250/500, he'd likely NOT win the last 3 slams plus additional 2 masters. He could be burnt out for any of them. Maybe Fedr lost many masters bc he won so many 500s, who knows? But the titles are what they are, and they all have value in enhancing one's resume. We fans shouldn't dismiss them so easily, as it takes effort to win them bc players have to prep (traveling/team/hotels/food/practice/media) before a match-ball was even struck. Then they have to win multiple matches in a row.

Sure, 1 or 2 additional 250/500s titles is something, but no big deal. But Fedr isn't 1-2 250/500s titles ahead. He has 28 titles total more than Djokr atm (I'm sure Djokr will close this gap in the future). Let others believe what they will. I think masters are always legacy enhancing. And I think Djokr will likely end up as masters GOAT. Masters/500/250 may not be legacy 'defining', but they certainly are legacy 'enhancing'. These are tennis professionals. They play tennis, and they play to win. More titles will always be better than less titles. Title 'importance' can be debated after they retire, but when active, they play to win. Heck, even in just Monopoly, I play to win. I don't play to lose, do you?

Regardless, people shouldn't dismiss that they play to win titles, large or small, bc they sure as hell don't show up to lose matches (minus some tankers, but if these tankers could choose, they'd also choose win.)

Nole wouldn’t need to focus on 250s and 500s all at the same time. All he would have had to do is play 2-3 more per year during all these years. Heck, he could have focused only on 250s during his late 2016/mid 2018 collapse and probably could have won quite a few of them. Again, would anyone think any better of him because of that?

 

[oldmanfan]

Nole wouldn’t need to focus on 250s and 500s all at the same time. All he would have had to do is play 2-3 more per year during all these years. Heck, he could have focused only on 250s during his late 2016/mid 2018 collapse and probably could have won quite a few of them. Again, would anyone think any better of him because of that?

I would. His legacy would too, if he can get close or overtake Connor's 109. It's something, and it's cumulative. If not so, there would only be 14 tournies each year on the tour. During Djokr's slump from 2017/18, that Eastborne title was the only title he held. But it was SOME-thing. At that time, much lesser players had 250/500s, but the Eastborne title saved Djokr from looking even more ridiculous bc he was winning everything just a year prior. That was a rough period for him, but if he had no title at all, the stories would be way worse.

I'm a Fedfan and went through such a period, when Fedr only had a 250 to his name. To me it was nice to know that he has it. And between AO16-AO17, he had none. Many didn't think he'd return after WB16 as the title drought gets further and further away.

 

[Deleted member 733170]

The best argument for Sampras over Nadal is not based on slam surfaces, but rather an edge in No.1 stats and a huge advantage in YECs. But those are not enough to overcome Pete's three- (or perhaps four-) slam deficit and no CGS.

The ‘prima facie’ reality is that tennis achievements are related to the size of your trophy cabinet. As you correctly suggest above the the 26 smaller tournament victories for Federer indeed have some legacy value.

The ranking stats are really a red herring as they are an accrued stat based on the hunt for trophies.

 

[ibbi]

I don't think Laver, Sampras or Borg ever had a meltdown because it was too windy.

 

[RaulRamirez]

The best argument for Sampras over Nadal is not based on slam surfaces, but rather an edge in No.1 stats and a huge advantage in YECs. But those are not enough to overcome Pete's three- (or perhaps four-) slam deficit and no CGS.

Agree. And as great as Pete was, I think that the best "arguments" to rank him over either Djokovic or Nadal are:

a.nostalgia
b. delusion

 

[Tennis_Hands]

..