Djokovic is in the Top 10 on Hard Courts?
- Thread starter KG1965
- Start date
swordtennis
G.O.A.T.
Not a bad list. Djokovic would be higher if he did not have that 1-4 uso finals record. If he can bag another uso title he goes up imo. If he can bag a cincy title on top of that he Def shoots up.
eldanger25
Hall of Fame
A good list - I might even vault him over a few guys ahead of him. It'll take some time still to sink in, and will be made clearer after his career is finished, but even if his career ended tomorrow Novak's the greatest champion (Open Era) at one of the four majors, and has done more on slow hard courts overall than anybody else, including Federer.
Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
Lol at Gonzales at the top over Federer and Sampras. The guy had a big serve for his era but not comparable to the movement and shotmaking of those two. And yes I respect that you can identify a lineage from Gonzalez' serve to Sampras' (and ultimately to Federer's), but you have no numbers to put him ahead of Fed and Pete.
Nadal at 9 is way too high. How can you put him ahead of Agassi on HC? Are you joking? My top 5:
1) Fed
2) Sampras
3) Lendl
4) Connors
5) Djokovic (rising). Djokovic needs 2-3 more USO titles to be in the conversation for top 3. His winning percentage on HC is the best in history BTW and he has more HC titles than McEnroe, Lendl, and even Sampras!
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Performance-Zone/Performance-Hard-Career-List.aspx
Last edited:
Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
Look at Gonzalez' returns here in this clip (from 2:00-2:30) and compare those to Djokovic or Agassi.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMEIiFzGDG8
Also look at how unambitious his motion is compared to Sampras or Fed. Minimal knee bend, minimal shoulder alignment, and consequently significantly less power and spin. You can argue all you want about the limitations of a wooden racket but let's face the obvious fact--the sport and its technique evolved greatly from the time of Gonzalez to that of Sampras.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMEIiFzGDG8
Also look at how unambitious his motion is compared to Sampras or Fed. Minimal knee bend, minimal shoulder alignment, and consequently significantly less power and spin. You can argue all you want about the limitations of a wooden racket but let's face the obvious fact--the sport and its technique evolved greatly from the time of Gonzalez to that of Sampras.
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Off the top of my head he did win the Howard Hughes on hard court in 1969 and 1970 defeating players like Rosewall, Newcombe, Ashe, Laver among others. May be an indicator of how great he was on hard court when he was younger.
If you consider wood to be a hard court and perhaps it is, Gonzalez won a lot of hard court majors on the Old Pro Tour.
el sergento
Hall of Fame
Lendl above Agassi? Agassi has 6 HC slams to Lendl's 5.
el sergento
Hall of Fame
Gonzales at #1 makes no sense and you should really elaborate on that.
Agassi at #10 and below Nadal makes no sense. Agassi has 6 HC slams to Nadal's 3.
Lendl and McEnroe above Agassi makes little sense either, Agassi won more HC slams than both. JMac excelled on grass and carpet, and Lendl was also a real claydog.
Even Connors has less HC slams than Agassi.
Djokovic is way better than 8. Top three in my book, he has 6 slams and 4 finals, what more do you want from him?
el sergento
Hall of Fame
Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
All very sensible. I basically agree with this. You can indeed argue for Djokovic in the top 3, right behind Fed and Pete. I think his poor record in USO finals hurts him. If he can add to that total, he will vault into the top echelon.
el sergento
Hall of Fame
With his return of serve, you don't think he'd be successful even on a fast hard court? Look at what Hewitt and Safin did to Sampras at the USO (I know he was well passed his prime, but still). Even Agassi could hurt Sampras on a fast hard court.
I see Djokovic as a ++ version of Agassi. He's taller, serves bigger, moves better, hits just as hard but with more margins and plays similarly, controlling the middle of the court and changing directions, running his opponents around.
I could not see Gonzales , Connors and Lendl have seen them many, many years
X Timnz - Gonzales dominated the tennis for 15 years, especially on indoor courts and hard and won on hard courts still era open to 40 years vs Laver, Connors and Ashe.
X Nadalgaenger – Gonzales won much more than Sampras (Pete won a few titles) and dominated even more than Federer maybe just Laver him better.
Ok for your first 5 (mmh.. Lendl won only old-Connors).
Sampras much stronger than Connors & Lendl only at the top, but Connors & Lendl won a mountain of titles on hard in more (a little more even Federer!!).
X El Sergento Lendl (& Connors) were twice more winners of Agassi on hard!!!!!!!!! .... Agassi equal with Connors in 37 years !!!! (5 sets to Flushing M.)
And even as a career have won the double titles. There is no comparison .
Not even with binoculars Agassi can observe the Connors & Lendl Palmares
X Timnz - Gonzales dominated the tennis for 15 years, especially on indoor courts and hard and won on hard courts still era open to 40 years vs Laver, Connors and Ashe.
X Nadalgaenger – Gonzales won much more than Sampras (Pete won a few titles) and dominated even more than Federer maybe just Laver him better.
Ok for your first 5 (mmh.. Lendl won only old-Connors).
Sampras much stronger than Connors & Lendl only at the top, but Connors & Lendl won a mountain of titles on hard in more (a little more even Federer!!).
X El Sergento Lendl (& Connors) were twice more winners of Agassi on hard!!!!!!!!! .... Agassi equal with Connors in 37 years !!!! (5 sets to Flushing M.)
And even as a career have won the double titles. There is no comparison .
Not even with binoculars Agassi can observe the Connors & Lendl Palmares
el sergento
Hall of Fame
Giving it more thought, yeah, I'd put Lendl and Connors above Agassi. Lets just say that Agassi could have been better had he been more driven. All three are well above Nadal though.
On hard courts
Connors would win 9 times out of 10 vs Agassi
Lendl 9 times out of 10.
Mac 8 times out of 10.
Connors & Lendl would win 6 times out of 10 vs Djokovic.
Mac 5 times out of 10.
Connors & Lendl would win 4/5 times out of 10 vs Sampras.
but have won many more tournaments. Many more.
Pancho Segura also better than Agassi.
Connors would win 9 times out of 10 vs Agassi
Lendl 9 times out of 10.
Mac 8 times out of 10.
Connors & Lendl would win 6 times out of 10 vs Djokovic.
Mac 5 times out of 10.
Connors & Lendl would win 4/5 times out of 10 vs Sampras.
but have won many more tournaments. Many more.
Pancho Segura also better than Agassi.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Novak at No 8. Unbeleievable underrating here.
What does he have to do to earn the respect of this forum ?
What does he have to do to earn the respect of this forum ?
Inanimate_object
Hall of Fame
Interesting! I have always had the opinion that Jimmy Connors had to be one of the very best players to ever play on hardcourt. But something always held me back from declaring it outright. So Pancho, eh? Hmm, he's before my time but anyone who can be compared to Connors must be a monster indeed.
el sergento
Hall of Fame
By my count Agassi is 8 wins and 11 defeats vs. Sampras on hard court. You might want to revise your numbers unless you think that Connors, Lendl and JMac were way, way way better than Sampras.
Nole the great, Pancho the greatest (?) and Connors the inimitable
x Tennisaddict: i am a fan of. He's a great player. The other are monsters for me, and Nole can get to their level.
xInanimate:
I'm not sure Gonzales was better than Connors on hard, were different times , once played tennis in the 10 , the 70 millions . I put him in first place for the Memory and because I have the impression that it was an alien
x Tennisaddict: i am a fan of. He's a great player. The other are monsters for me, and Nole can get to their level.
xInanimate:
I'm not sure Gonzales was better than Connors on hard, were different times , once played tennis in the 10 , the 70 millions . I put him in first place for the Memory and because I have the impression that it was an alien
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
How come Nole is less than McEnroe ?
I competely agree with you. It's a popular trend to rate the oldies above the more recent legends. It's a very annoying stance to argue against, because you can't prove that Federer would actually beat Gonzales or Laver in their prime.
Many people see this as respectful towards the older generation, who helped build this sport. But I see it as disrespectful to legends like Federer and Nadal to be rated lower than them. Now we can't call Federer the greatest of all time (a title he definitely deserves!) because some guy 40 years ago won 4 grass court slams in a year? That's BS man..
I think we can applaud them for their efforts of building up the sport of tennis, but still observe their "level of play" seperately from that. And you HAVE to conclude that it's just significantly lower than that of the recent legends. Which is perfectly logical.
There is much more prize money nowadays, which makes it much more interesting for players to train day in and day out. More training (also fitness) and better guidance/coaching leads to a higher level of play. There are way more people playing tennis professionally now than back in the days, which leads to a higher chance that a major talent like Federer comes onto the tour. It all adds up. There is no way you can say that the older players are better than the greats of the current generation.
Last edited:
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Federer has 9 HC slams. The most of all time. He should be no.1.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Well laid out post.
It is for the same reason I would be perfectly fine if someone says that the peak level of Djokovic is better than peak of Federer or peak of Borg.
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
^ Indeed.
Fed is clearly #1 on this metric.
He has 9 HC slams ffs.
No way are Gonzales, Laver etc. beating him, especially on HC.
He is a much fitter and better-trained player.
Connors is being overrated too, some of those USOs were not HC (he's the best at the USO as a tournament IMO, but not on HC).
As in most metrics, Roger is seen to be clearly ahead of the pack.
Fed is clearly #1 on this metric.
He has 9 HC slams ffs.
No way are Gonzales, Laver etc. beating him, especially on HC.
He is a much fitter and better-trained player.
Connors is being overrated too, some of those USOs were not HC (he's the best at the USO as a tournament IMO, but not on HC).
As in most metrics, Roger is seen to be clearly ahead of the pack.
No qualms with Pancho up there. Guy was phenomenal for his time and a couple generations after his. IIRC there was a period of time where organisers changed the rule that you couldn't come in after the serve until you played a groundtroke first, such was his net dominance and coverage. Was competing with a young laver in his 40's. Top 5 greatest player of all time in my book.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Djokovic has the best winning % on hard court in open era (83.3)
and he is #4 in number of titles won on hard:
1- Fed: 58
2- Connors: 49
3- Agassi: 46
4- Djokovic: 40
Djokovic has the most master titles on hard: 17 (tie with Fed)
Next is Agassi with 14.
He has the 2nd most WTF titles on hard: 4 (Fed is 1st with 6)
Slams on hard:
1- Federer: 9
2- Sampras: 7
3- Agassi/Djokovic: 6
Currently, I would place Djoko at #2 on hard court right after Fed but looking at those stats, it is not impossible that he will end up his career as the best player on hard.
ETA: your list is downright wacko. Nadal ABOVE Agassi on HARD COURT???? What on earth are you smoking lol? McEnroe won most of his titles on carpet, not hard court. Lendl above Djokovic? What kind of a joke is that?
Last edited:
RunDatGame
Semi-Pro
If these stats are true, what are the reasons not to put him in top5 ? I really want to know, he has such a strong statistics where it matters the most, i dont get it?
Inanimate_object
Hall of Fame
Jimmy Connors played until he was a 43 year old fart. Lets see Djokovic's win ratio in another 15 years. There were no such things as masters titles in Connors, and Gonzales heyday. Even McEnroe and Lendl had no idea they was winning a masters tournament so much as he was simply collecting more trophies. Old players get so much disrespect here, mostly because I imagine everyone who rates the current generation above the old one has no idea what they're talking about as these players came long before they were born.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Who do you mean by "he"? Djokovic? Of course he is top 5. IMO he is better than that.If these stats are true, what are the reasons not to put him in top5 ? I really want to know, he has such a strong statistics where it matters the most, i dont get it?
The OP seems completely confused and is not making a distinction between carpet and hard court but those are 2 distinct surfaces.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Hurts him in what way? The fact that he wasn't able to translate more of them into titles? Well on that I'd agree with you but let's not kid ourselves here - reaching 5 finals in itself is still a very impressive stat and is rightly considered to be a big accomplishment in timnz' list(anything over 1,000 points) which always adds to a player's greatness.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
You are joking, right? Connors played until 43, so what? Connors won 3 slam titles on hard, Djoko twice as many. Djoko also won more slams on hard than Lendl. You are completely wrong about the masters. The super 9 have existed since 1970. Lendl won 10 masters on hard and Connors 6. And you really don't have a point at all since Lendl and McEnroe won fewer hard court titles than Djoko OVERALL.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
Except 5/6 are on slow HC.
That's damning.
Throughout history, HC has almost always been very fast, until like six years ago, anyway.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
What kind of a bogus excuse is that ha ha? The question is: who are the best players on HARD COURT. That's the surface: HARD COURT. Not: medium paced low bouncing hard court vs medium paced high bouncing hard court and fast paced... you get the gist... Those are not categories acknowledged by anyone. Djoko has 6 HARD COURT slam titles. Deal with it :twisted:
Last edited:
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
HC has multiple types, unlike other surfaces, and you know that.
A player in the running for best HC player should have versatility on different types of the surface, the AO and USO are quite different playing conditions.
These courts vary greatly in speed and bounce, as do the HC Masters and WTF.
Djokovic has proven himself to be the best and most achieved slow HC player ever, and that's great, but a statement of all-round HC greatness needs more than that.
He is not relatively versatile on HC, and that is a fact supported by his relative achievements across fast and slow types of the surface.
He may change this in the future with more USO titles, and that would be great to see.
Neither are "Tier 1" tournaments, then.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Probably by the time he retires.
I think it is important to acknowledge that if you want to be truly fair when assessing the older gen against the new, is to look at how they faired against their peers. When you watch Fed play it's obvious that he is playing a different sport to Pancho, many years of professionalism, science and training knowledge have allowed people to do that today. If someone dominates their peers in their time, then that to me is the fairest indication of how they are as a player. Of course there are limitations to that, but it's much better than simply discounting older guys because they couldn't train 6 hours a day like Rafa, or had access to knowledge on fitness and technique. Pancho was a major, dominant player in his time, and was on par with Laver when Pancho was in his 40's. Fed rates Laver..It's important that you don't simply value a player from the past on current metrics, otherwise today's champions that we know are brilliant athletes, will look like subpar athletes another 40 years down the track with even more advances in sport science, and all you are left with is, is praise for the current top player(s).
To me, Novak and Fed are the 2 best hard court players of the last 15 years, but it is pretty clear that Novak is much, much better on slow hard court versus anything remotely fast. I do think he is a little lucky courts slowed down in the last 10 years otherwise his AO record may have looked a little more similar to his US one, not that it's anything to be ashamed of!
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
Woah, we're back!
I thought my wise words were lost to time.
Sitting on the beach again at the moment, and this reminded me of the tide going out and then coming back in again.
We are but small, fragile ships on a sea of discussion, happy to find safe harbour on this fine forum. Occasionally a storm comes and one or two members are dashed on the rocks, but like a well-built vessel, this forum keeps an even keel.
Some members more closely resemble barnacles attached to the underside of a pier visible at low tide, while others resemble dirty seaweed washed up on the beach, but most are clean and well-maintained vessels.
You would think that the mods would be the captain, but I believe they are the tide.
Unstoppable, very fast when they want to be, and overall, great.
This is a very well-kept forum. Thank you to those who provide it for us, and watch over us mere mortals with a firm, yet even hand.
I thought my wise words were lost to time.
Sitting on the beach again at the moment, and this reminded me of the tide going out and then coming back in again.
We are but small, fragile ships on a sea of discussion, happy to find safe harbour on this fine forum. Occasionally a storm comes and one or two members are dashed on the rocks, but like a well-built vessel, this forum keeps an even keel.
Some members more closely resemble barnacles attached to the underside of a pier visible at low tide, while others resemble dirty seaweed washed up on the beach, but most are clean and well-maintained vessels.
You would think that the mods would be the captain, but I believe they are the tide.
Unstoppable, very fast when they want to be, and overall, great.
This is a very well-kept forum. Thank you to those who provide it for us, and watch over us mere mortals with a firm, yet even hand.
Last edited by a moderator:
DerekNoleFam1
Hall of Fame
Needs at least 1 more USO to cement his legacy on HC, even if he wins another 2 or more AO's.
A title at Cincy may help a little as well.
A title at Cincy may help a little as well.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
I agree completely.
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
I think this should be looked at differently. Carpet should be lumped in with hard court.
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
Ha!
Tide goes out, tide comes in.
And the barnacles hang on.
Tide goes out, tide comes in.
And the barnacles hang on.
I think you can get into a terrible mess with these sort of discussions because when you have names from such long periods of time half the posters don't really know anything about them, haven't seen them play, and in any case the changes in the sport make direct comparisons really hard.
Why not split it into three periods
- who were the best 5 hard court players 1950-1974 (the era of Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver, when hard courts could be anything hard. It takes you up to Rosewall's USO appearance and the dawn of modern Hard Courts as we know them now)?
- who were the best 5 1974-1990 (Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl era. Development of Hard Courts towards where we are now)?
- who were the 5 best 1990-now (Agassi, Sampras, Federer, Djokovic era. Modern Hard Courts)?
- then toss in Becker and Edberg because their careers don't quite match these dates. Also any other player in that position.
- THEN compare the top 5 fives from each era and think how they match up.
Just a suggestion.
Why not split it into three periods
- who were the best 5 hard court players 1950-1974 (the era of Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver, when hard courts could be anything hard. It takes you up to Rosewall's USO appearance and the dawn of modern Hard Courts as we know them now)?
- who were the best 5 1974-1990 (Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl era. Development of Hard Courts towards where we are now)?
- who were the 5 best 1990-now (Agassi, Sampras, Federer, Djokovic era. Modern Hard Courts)?
- then toss in Becker and Edberg because their careers don't quite match these dates. Also any other player in that position.
- THEN compare the top 5 fives from each era and think how they match up.
Just a suggestion.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
It must be noted that Federer still remains the only player to win a HC slam 5 times in a row.
Similar threads
