Could Djokovic hypothetically become a Tier 1 great?

[beast of mallorca]

Murray could sneak his way in and make it 4 beasties.

It's more exciting that way, don't you agree. Murray has to get the upper hand on Djoker tho' to make it more competitive and have more slice of the GS pie. It appears that he has it against Roger now, and Rafa is really questionable if he will ever get back to where he was. There's no other 4th wheel in the near horizon. So, I like Murray to get there too.

 

[Sentinel]

Tier 5: Tsonga, Monfils, Rudeski, Haas, Berdych, all slam finalists or mutlple semifinalists

Tier 6:

Tier 7: Murray

:shock::shock:



..

LMAO you cracked me up with that last one.

 

[Sentinel]

I agree with this... although if Nole wins the calendar slam this year, he has a chance at Tier I

I assure you, Roger will never let him.

... umm ... However, for that they have to meet in a SF, so they have to be drawn in the same half.

 

[SLD76]

Djokovic would be considered the new Emerson because his achievements happened due to no competition from ******* and Oldal.

Emerson won 12 slams but nobody considers him a Tier 1 great. It's not just about winning many slams but facing competition that is not unexisting/washed up/over the hill/etc.

******* and Oldal?

LMAO!

 

[Sentinel]

Tier 1: ROSOL



The rest is subjective.

 

[5555]

Djokovic would be considered the new Emerson because his achievements happened due to no competition from ******* and Oldal.

Emerson won 12 slams but nobody considers him a Tier 1 great. It's not just about winning many slams but facing competition that is not unexisting/washed up/over the hill/etc.

There is no comparison between Emerson and Djokovic. Emerson won all 12 slams before Open Era.

Can you name one player who won 12+ slams in Open Era and is not considered a Tier 1 great?

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

There is no comparison between Emerson and Djokovic. Emerson won all 12 slams before Open Era.

Can you name one player who won 12+ slams in Open Era and is not considered a Tier 1 great?

Sampras

 

[Deleted member 3771]

If he wants to join Sampras in tier 1 he needs to be as dominant as Sampras by winning 175% of the slams as the next best in his era. He will need 30 slams if Fed remains on 17. He only needs to win every slam for the next 6 years. If anyone can do it Cvac can!

 

[Hodgey20]

Tier 1: ROSOL



The rest is subjective.

Haha absolutley Rosol is tier 1 by himself

 

[5555]

Sampras

Can you provide a reliable source which says that most tennis historians do not consider Sampras an Tier 1 great?

 

[xan]

5555 you really a terminator. when you enter the thread you come to terminate all discussion.

 

[veroniquem]

Murray could sneak his way in and make it 4 beasties.

In slams?? Oh sure, only a dozen to go :???:

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

Can you provide a reliable source which says that most tennis historians do not consider Sampras an Tier 1 great?

I can, because people only possibly consider him a Tier 1 great. Very few, if any, would consider him an Tier 1 great.

 

[Mick3391]

Where I define Tier 1 as Federer/Laver/Sampras, Tier 2 as Borg/Nadal and Tier 3 as Agassi/Connors/Lendl etc.

I wanted to create a scenario which is a stretch but still not out of reach (for example 17 slams is completely out of reach). Just for the sake of playing the game, let's say Djokovic ends up with the following record:

12 slams
175 weeks at no 1 (5th best)
4 consecutive year end no 1s (2011-2014)
Only player to win all masters events
Master Titles leader
Career Slam
3-4 WTF
80% + W-L record
Leading H2H vs 3 biggest rivals - Fed/Nadal/Murray

Would Djoker be considered a Tier 1 great in this scenario? When people have their GOAT debates, would his name be in the pool?

I never understand these comparisons. There is a huge difference in being the best FOR YOUR TIME, versus a head to head.

It's like in boxing, no one would think Jack Dempsey could last with anyone in the top ten of the 70's, but that doesn't mean he wasn't GREAT FOR HIS TIME.

Does anyone really think Rod Laver could beat Novak? Laver was great FOR HIS TIME, less competition, less of a player pool, and serving and volleying all night against any of the modern guys? No way.

I believe Fed, Novak, Nadal, would wipe out the Conners, Borgs, Mac's in head to heads, and do it easy.

 

[TMF]

I never understand these comparisons. There is a huge difference in being the best FOR YOUR TIME, versus a head to head.

It's like in boxing, no one would think Jack Dempsey could last with anyone in the top ten of the 70's, but that doesn't mean he wasn't GREAT FOR HIS TIME.

Does anyone really think Rod Laver could beat Novak? Laver was great FOR HIS TIME, less competition, less of a player pool, and serving and volleying all night against any of the modern guys? No way.

I believe Fed, Novak, Nadal, would wipe out the Conners, Borgs, Mac's in head to heads, and do it easy.

Why don't you go to the "former pro player talk" forum and speak your mind to the old-timers. Do it on your own peril.

 

[Gonzo_style]

Why don't you go to the "former pro player talk" forum and speak your mind to the old-timers. Do it on your own peril.

TMF,
I guess you're probably in war with them

 

[TMF]

TMF,
I guess you're probably in war with them

Yep. And I'm being outnumbered.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

Yep. And I'm being outnumbered.

They all know little-man Laver is only about as good as Ferrer, if that, if they were to play each other. They just can't accept it.

 

[Steve0904]

Well considering I rate Nadal as tier 1, I would put Djokovic there if he gets to 10 slams.

 

[borg number one]

He needs to do quite a bit more to be a Tier 1 great, and winning more Wimbledons. His clay results have not been outstanding either. I think a lot of players would trouble Djokovic at Wimbledon and the French Open especially.

 

[veroniquem]

There is no consensus as to what would constitute "tier 1" so those discussions are pointless.

 

[beast of mallorca]

He needs to do quite a bit more to be a Tier 1 great, and winning more Wimbledons. His clay results have not been outstanding either. I think a lot of players would trouble Djokovic at Wimbledon and the French Open especially.

To be honest, do you even doubt that he's not getting there ?

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

To be honest, do you even doubt that he's not getting there ?

I very much doubt it. He's not even halfway there. And if Sampras is tier 1, Federer has to be the undisputed GOAT, there's no two ways about that.

 

[borg number one]

To be honest, do you even doubt that he's not getting there ?

He's in the middle of his best years seemingly, but I do think he's got significant work to do. There have been so many outstanding players in tennis. He's definitely a much improved player, but he'll have some challenges ahead.

 

[beast of mallorca]

I very much doubt it. He's not even halfway there. And if Sampras is tier 1, Federer has to be the undisputed GOAT, there's no two ways about that.

Hey POB, what's this obsession about the Greatest this, Greatest that ? It's is a fact that Federer is the most accomplished male tennis player of all time. Why is there a need on your part to make everybody believe that he is the greatest for this Slam and that Slam. Those things can NEVER be proven, because then you have to put everybody on the same period and play with one another. And not even Clarky can do that.....:twisted:

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

Hey POB, what's this obsession about the Greatest this, Greatest that ? It's is a fact that Federer is the most accomplished male tennis player of all time. Why is there a need on your part to make everybody believe that he is the greatest for this Slam and that Slam. Those things can NEVER be proven, because then you have to put everybody on the same period and play with one another. And not even Clarky can do that.....:twisted:

You call it an obsession. I call it a discussion :twisted: This is a place to discuss, right?

 

[beast of mallorca]

He's in the middle of his best years seemingly, but I do think he's got significant work to do. There have been so many outstanding players in tennis. He's definitely a much improved player, but he'll have some challenges ahead.

I know a lot can change. But with the way he's playing for the past 2 yrs, I can not doubt he's abilities even if I want to. (I really want to, for the sake of Rafa and Murray.) He's scary good.

 

[beast of mallorca]

You call it an obsession. I call it a discussion :twisted: This is a place to discuss, right?

Alright, I'll give you that. Carry on mannn.

 

[sandiegoman]

They all know little-man Laver is only about as good as Ferrer, if that, if they were to play each other. They just can't accept it.

Federer would smoke Laver any day. Laver's racquet would probably break by the time he's finished lol

 

[NadalDramaQueen]

Does anyone really think Rod Laver could beat Novak? Laver was great FOR HIS TIME, less competition, less of a player pool, and serving and volleying all night against any of the modern guys? No way.

I believe Fed, Novak, Nadal, would wipe out the Conners, Borgs, Mac's in head to heads, and do it easy.

Why don't you go to the "former pro player talk" forum and speak your mind to the old-timers. Do it on your own peril.

TMF,
I guess you're probably in war with them

Yep. And I'm being outnumbered.

They all know little-man Laver is only about as good as Ferrer, if that, if they were to play each other. They just can't accept it.

Federer would smoke Laver any day. Laver's racquet would probably break by the time he's finished lol

You guys are in big trouble.

 

[5555]

I can, because people only possibly consider him a Tier 1 great. Very few, if any, would consider him an Tier 1 great.

Can you provide a reliable source which says that most tennis historians do not consider Sampras a Tier 1 great?

 

[Gonzo_style]

Hey POB, what's this obsession about the Greatest this, Greatest that ? It's is a fact that Federer is the most accomplished male tennis player of all time. Why is there a need on your part to make everybody believe that he is the greatest for this Slam and that Slam. Those things can NEVER be proven, because then you have to put everybody on the same period and play with one another. And not even Clarky can do that.....:twisted:

He's obsessed with GOAT discussions and one player

 

[5555]

I can, because people only possibly consider him a Tier 1 great. Very few, if any, would consider him an Tier 1 great.

Can you provide a reliable source which says that most tennis historians do not consider Sampras a Tier 1 great?

 

[Hawkeye7]

Can you provide a reliable source which says that most tennis historians do not consider Sampras a Tier 1 great?

Are you a robot?

 

[Magnus]

Nadal belongs in a "special tier", the one that has Lance Armstrong in there too.

 

[5555]

Prisoner of Birth, I'm going to ask just one more time: can you provide a reliable source which says that most tennis historians do not consider Sampras a Tier 1 great?

If you do not reply, you will lose the argument.

 

[zagor]

Prisoner of Birth, I'm going to ask just one more time: can you provide a reliable source which says that most tennis historians do not consider Sampras a Tier 1 great?

If you do not reply, you will lose the argument.

Not really fair since in that case he loses by default.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Prisoner of Birth, I'm going to ask just one more time: can you provide a reliable source which says that most tennis historians do not consider Sampras a Tier 1 great?

If you do not reply, you will lose the argument.

Why are you so obsessed with winning online arguments?

Most people who post here have more important things to focus on in their lives.

 

[xan]

can you provide reliable source he is obsessed with winning online arguments?
if you don't provide a source you will lose the argument.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Why are you so obsessed with winning online arguments?

Most people who post here have more important things to focus on in their lives.

I will put it in simple words.

Because he NEEDS to be right, in order to be able to feel important.

Apparently, there is no other way for him.

 

[tennis_pro]

Yes but he will get more than 12 slams so what then.

then you wake up

 

[Nickzor]

I think he is already a tier one great, his 2011 season was one of the top 3 best calendar performances ever, his won 3 slams in a row, 13 consecutive semi-finals in grandslams, been world number One, been in top 3 for 4-5 consecutive years, won Aus open 3 consecutive times, beaten 2 Goat contenders (Fed,Nad) in multiple grandslam finals/semi-finals.

He may not have 8,9 or 12 Slams, but his only going to win more and has already accomplished what maybe only 0.1% of all professional tennis have ever accomplished.

 

[cork_screw]

Yes, Djokovic could be a "great." For a simple reason, he's beaten guys who are talked about as GOAT of Fed and a GOAT of clay. Yes, fed's window has been winding down, but he was pretty much challenging him and winning matches during fed's prime and Nadal is pretty much in his age prime, minus his physical ailments. But he's beaten nadal before nadal had all the knee issues. So anyone who can take down these top two tier GOAT's deserve to be a GOAT himself.

I have immense respect for Djokovic, but more so how he handled Nadal last year at Aussie open and beating him at Indian Wells and Sony Erricson as well as those clay court events. Djokovic is the real deal. He is more mentally strong than people give him. If he is down break point or even match point, he plays that same point as if he was up 40-0 and I would have to say with that courage you are mentally strong as any elite athlete can be.

 

[Hodgey20]

Absolutely CAN BE.. the real question is IS HE ALREADY

I agree with Nickzors argument saying that he already is

 

[borg number one]

For the rest of the majors, I would still go with Nadal as of now, but there's a lot of tennis left even before the French Open. As of now, I'd go with Nadal, with Djokovic having his best chance for his next major win at the U.S. Open. I also think that Federer will continue to challenge him at majors in 2013.

 

[Relinquis]

it's hard to see it happening... even hypothetically...

He's a good age. Still has quite a few years before his movement will slow down and flexibility reduces.

At 30+ years old he won't be winning anything, but that's nearly 5 years from now.

 

[TMF]

Why are you so obsessed with winning online arguments?

Most people who post here have more important things to focus on in their lives.

I notice many threads(not just his own) that he's involved with this same old win/lose arguments.

 

[Safinator_1]

Updated. What is realistically physically required now to become a Tier 1 great? Slams/Masters/Finals?? and can he achieve it?

 

[Bud]

Anyone with a double-digit slam total is a tier 1 player, IMO. A FO win would boost his credentials.

 

[5555]

At 30+ years old he won't be winning anything

Is it a fact or an opinion?