Djoker , the most dominant (Open Era)

[KG1965]

I do not consider Nole in Tier 1 , I think he is moving into Tier 2 , I am sure that no one Open Era as Djoker dominated opponents for four years in a row .

Federer has surpassed dominance .

Sampras was dominant only in 2 slam , Mac in the four years from number 1 has only dominated a couple of years , Borg was unstoppable only 78-80 .

 

[dunlop_fort_knox]

i do not consider you a tier 1 tt poster. you are moving into tier 2, however.

 

[Cortana]

Yeah Djokovic is Tier 3.

 

[Anaconda]

I do not consider Nole in Tier 1 , I think it is moving into Tier 2 , I am sure that no one Open Era as Djoker dominated opponents for four years in a row .

Federer has surpassed dominance .

Sampras was dominant only in 2 slam , Mac in the four years from number 1 has only dominated a couple of years , Borg was unstoppable only 78-80 .

I consider you an idiot. How about that?

 

[KG1965]

I consider you an idiot. How about that?

I consider you .. zero.

 

[Frost5541]

IMO... even being a total Djoker... not really. i would say Fed or ON CLAY Nadal or Mr. Bjorn. fed is like an allrounder. good in all surfaces! Nadal and Bjorn are grinders! Novak is more of a machine who has both a human attribute and a no-nonsense Frost5541 attribute! does well generally but is the most hated as he just arrived and killed the vibes of Fedal and their supporters.

 

[Triskadekaphilia]

Don't listen to the haters Kenny G. It all depends on how large your tiers are, but prob still tier 2. Of course on style I think he is a tier 6.

 

[dgold44]

If djoker wins French ...then it would be impossible to deny him tier 1

 

[ultradr]

I do not consider Nole in Tier 1 , I think it is moving into Tier 2 , I am sure that no one Open Era as Djoker dominated opponents for four years in a row .

Federer has surpassed dominance .

Sampras was dominant only in 2 slam , Mac in the four years from number 1 has only dominated a couple of years , Borg was unstoppable only 78-80 .

Don't underestimate guys in 70s - 90s. Not sure if Djokovic or Federer would do same on the surface conditions of 70s - 90s. That's why Borg's record is age-less (era-less I should say?) one.

Djokovic does have chance to reach 6+ years as #1. That would be truely monumental no matter what eras. We are talking guys like Sampras, Laver and Gonzalez.

 

[timnz]

I do not consider Nole in Tier 1 , I think it is moving into Tier 2 , I am sure that no one Open Era as Djoker dominated opponents for four years in a row .

Federer has surpassed dominance .

Sampras was dominant only in 2 slam , Mac in the four years from number 1 has only dominated a couple of years , Borg was unstoppable only 78-80 .

If he is just moving into tier 2, then you consider him to be at the bottom of tier 2. Who are all of the tier 2 players above him in your opinion?

 

[KG1965]

If he is just moving into tier 2, then you consider him to be at the bottom of tier 2. Who are all of the tier 2 players above him in your opinion?

Sorry timniz if I have not answered you before, my ranking ( only Open Era ... so to integrate with Pro champions Tilden , Laver , Pancho .... ) is ...... DOUBLE .

RESULTS
Tier 1 ) FEDERER
Tier 2 ) CONNORS , SAMPRAS , LENDL , DJOKOVIC , NADAL
Tier 3 ) MCENROE , BORG

RESULTS + " EXTRA "
Tier 1 ) FEDERER
Tier 2 ) BORG , CONNORS , SAMPRAS , NADAL , MAC
Tier 3 ) DJOKOVIC , LENDL

 

[KG1965]

2025

RESULTS
Tier 1 ) FEDERER, DJOKOVIC
Tier 2 ) CONNORS , SAMPRAS , LENDL , NADAL
Tier 3 ) MCENROE , BORG

RESULTS + " EXTRA "
Tier 1 ) FEDERER, DJOKOVIC
Tier 2 ) BORG , CONNORS , SAMPRAS , NADAL , MAC,
Tier 3 ) LENDL

 

[jrepac]

2025

RESULTS
Tier 1 ) FEDERER, DJOKOVIC
Tier 2 ) CONNORS , SAMPRAS , LENDL , NADAL
Tier 3 ) MCENROE , BORG

RESULTS + " EXTRA "
Tier 1 ) FEDERER, DJOKOVIC
Tier 2 ) BORG , CONNORS , SAMPRAS , NADAL , MAC,
Tier 3 ) LENDL

What is the extra? I might scoot Borg and Nadal and Sampras up a level. I'm not sure Djoker is at Fed level, just yet. But this is the right group of players in the Top 3 Tiers, I agree. It's hard w/the guys from the 70's as they did not play all the GS events but were dominant or consistent in other ways. part of me says to just exclude the AO titles, but that doesn't seem quite fair either.

 

[rob1984]

Isnt Djokovic a current pro player? I thought this section was former pro player talk.

 

[dgold44]

Sampras was number one for several years in a row but Djoker is doing it on every surface and tourney

 

[Limpinhitter]

Winning the Grand Slam is pretty dominant. So is winning 3 of 4 majors in 3 of 4 years pretty dominant.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Sampras was number one for several years in a row but Djoker is doing it on every surface and tourney

Novak Djokovic has not won the French Open, the greatest clay court tournament in the world, so he is not "doing it in every tourney".

 

[timnz]

I do not consider Nole in Tier 1 , I think he is moving into Tier 2 , I am sure that no one Open Era as Djoker dominated opponents for four years in a row .

Federer has surpassed dominance .

Sampras was dominant only in 2 slam , Mac in the four years from number 1 has only dominated a couple of years , Borg was unstoppable only 78-80 .

If he is just moving into Tier 2 - that means that you think he is at the bottom of tier 2. Who are all of the Tier 2 players you think have achieved more than him?

 

[timnz]

What is the extra? I might scoot Borg and Nadal and Sampras up a level. I'm not sure Djoker is at Fed level, just yet. But this is the right group of players in the Top 3 Tiers, I agree. It's hard w/the guys from the 70's as they did not play all the GS events but were dominant or consistent in other ways. part of me says to just exclude the AO titles, but that doesn't seem quite fair either.

The way I do it, is add in their WCT Finals achievement IF they didn't play all of the slams that year. That way it evens out eg including Lendl's 1982 WCT Finals win because he didn't play all the slams that year but not include his 1985 win because he played all the slams that year. That way it is more of a level playing field. What I see from my analysis is that players like Lendl and Connors won a lot more at the 500 level than present players - whereas present players win more at the Slam and Masters 1000 level (because the tour is setup that way). Hence, Lendl/Connors have 500 totals in the 40's and Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have 500 wins in the 12 to 17 number range.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Novak Djokovic has not won the French Open, the greatest clay court tournament in the world, so he is not "doing it in every tourney".

Novak Djokovic is more dominant than Sampras, who also failed to win the greatest clay court tournament in the world. And you're off your rocker if you expect him to win every single event he enters. Novak Djokovic is incredible, but he's still only human at the end of the day.