For me Djokovic is a Tier 1 great - what do you all think?
- Thread starter pds999
- Start date
storypeddler
Semi-Pro
LOL. People love to build tiers to place these players in. I tend to think it's all fairly meaningless. You can't compare a serve-and-volleyer with a baseliner. What if you are a terrific serve-and-volleyer who has the good fortune to be born at a time when courts are fast, but the bad fortune to be born into a generation of the 4 or 5 greatest serve-and-volleyers of all time? You would end up sharing all those slams. The numbers water down the apparent greatness of the individuals. I have always argued---and still believe---that Federer has 17 slams because he came along in the perfect window of time when there were no big talents to challenge him. Look at his slam record for the first half dozen of his titles---a half-dozen different names, none of them great. Now, he added to that over the years, but a big chunk of his total was fortuitous timing.
As far as I am concerned, once you get past a certain number of slam titles, whatever that number might be, we should forget talking about tiers and simply put you in the top group. For me, the number would be maybe 6. In my mind, the top group would include not only Rafa and Roger, but Djokovic, Sampras, Laver, Borg, Wilander, Agassi, Connors, McEnroe, Edberg, Lendl, Becker, Emerson, and maybe one or two more. That doesn't even begin to consider other massively talented players who, for one reason or another, never had the chance to prove they belong there---Tilden, Gonzalez, and the like. I think Courier was very gifted, but was born into the wrong generation. So was Chang.
But people love to form categories and argue about who should be in which. LOL.
Bud
Bionic Poster
If Djoko doesn't win a slam this year, I can't see him reaching 10.
FrontHeadlock
Hall of Fame
Let's suppose for argument sake Nadal wins the AO final tonight.
So then what you are saying here is that Borg, a guy who "padded" his resume with 6 titles at RG is head and shoulders above Nadal, even though Nadal will have 6 majors off clay, with Borg having only 5, and Nadal also having 2 more titles at RG than Borg as well?
poofytail
Banned
Not to mention how is Sampras head and shoulders superior with the same number of slams, but complete incompetence at 1 of them vs Nadal who will have mulitiple titles (and atleast 1 additional final) at all 4 slams.
Not to mention how would Djokovic who has managed a mere 2 slams outside his pet slam vs Nadal who would have 2 slams at every slam, and even excluding Nadals GOAT level untouchable RG titles would still have as many remaining slams as Djokovic has, be on the same tier.
monfed loves his little fantasy World, which must be the only place *******s can preserve any sanity (if it all possible for their cult) these days.
M
monfed
Guest
Never called Sampras a tier 1 great. Fed,Laver and Borg are tier 1 greats and Nadal's resume doesn't matchup to them.
All-rounder
Legend
Djokovic tier 1???? With 6 majors??.....
M
monfed
Guest
Their accomplishments aren't comparable. Borg won his Wimbys having to play a completely different style which shows he was versatile. Nadal can just play his hideous game in all slams without making any adjustments and win, I mean why are even debating here? It's not as if Nadal had to develop a net game to win Wimbledon. If he tried his style in the 90s, he wouldn't have passed the 1st week.
Also remember that Borg didn't play the AO, so that's an avenue where he could've easily picked up 3-4 slams.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
The-Champ
Legend
Okey, but Nadal beat Federer 9 times in majors so I think we should put Federer back in tier 3.
The-Champ
Legend
Don't put Federer's name among those greats. They didn't get stomped 9 times in majors by 1 one guy. Federer is tier 3 at best.
Forehand Of Doom
Banned
Nadal's resume doesn't match up to Fed's because Fed can't kick his own arse.
Manus Domini
Hall of Fame
I was correcting you, saying that if you start counting before '75, Muscles gets placed in the Tier 1 category.
FrontHeadlock
Hall of Fame
I agree with you here. Nadal has more majors, more titles at RG, and major titles at both USO and AO. No comparison.
Bertie B
Hall of Fame
No.
Peak-to-Peak Novak is #3 behind Federer & Nadal. Exactly as the record books show. He's had one great year when his rivals were tired, and even then he was outplayed & outclassed twice in important matches.
Given another chance peak Federer and Nadal would slap him around - again, like they used to. He only gained headway in his H2H after Federer became too old to put up much of a fight. This alone bars him from any top tier tennis category.
Tier 1 greats are dominant men, not guys who take advantage while the real champions are away. Like nadal on clay, season after season you know exactly what the result of a given match was going to be. Or Federer at W or USO, for five years whomever the opponent we know what the result was going to be - a w next to their name.
Djokovic had one great year which consisted of many narrow escapes, three years later he's failed to replicate those results. Hardly Tier 1 behavior.
Tier 3
Peak-to-Peak Novak is #3 behind Federer & Nadal. Exactly as the record books show. He's had one great year when his rivals were tired, and even then he was outplayed & outclassed twice in important matches.
Given another chance peak Federer and Nadal would slap him around - again, like they used to. He only gained headway in his H2H after Federer became too old to put up much of a fight. This alone bars him from any top tier tennis category.
Tier 1 greats are dominant men, not guys who take advantage while the real champions are away. Like nadal on clay, season after season you know exactly what the result of a given match was going to be. Or Federer at W or USO, for five years whomever the opponent we know what the result was going to be - a w next to their name.
Djokovic had one great year which consisted of many narrow escapes, three years later he's failed to replicate those results. Hardly Tier 1 behavior.
Tier 3
kiki
Banned
I was correcting you, saying that if you start counting before '75, Muscles gets placed in the Tier 1 category.
No, he doesn´t if we only count 1968 onwards.He certainly has credentials if we count BEFORE that but no Wimbledon title makes him a liability.
M
monfed
Guest
Correct, apparently Stan can. :lol:
poofytail
Banned
Agreed. Nadal left Borg in his dust long ago. I would still rate Borg above Sampras though.
kiki
Banned
Uncle Toni never told Nadal - and you, of course- what Borg did 5 time sin a row at Wimbledon? 3 of them just a fortnight after winning the French?
Maybe that would hurt his tender nephew¡¡¡
poofytail
Banned
Maybe Borg was never told he could never win a U.S Open, even with it on his beloved clay a period of time (and yes I know the Australian wasnt a big deal then but technically has won only 2 of 4 slams, pretty much unheard of for a GOAT), could never win a major hard court event, and that Borg's previous claim to being the clay GOAT has been shattered to bits by Nadal years ago to boot.
kiki
Banned
yes, Nadal´s indoor majors account looks like Borg.
Yes, Nadal won a WCT ( or WTF) final against somebody of Vilas caliber in 1976? or two back to back Masters against the likes of...wait...hold your breath now...
Ivan Lendl
John Mc Enroe - twice-
James Scott Connors - twice-
Vitas Gerulaitis
Roscoe Tanner
Oh yes, Nadal did¡¡¡¡
kiki
Banned
Borg never bothered to play what you consider a GS, the Australian Open.
You are obviously as clueless as some other posters about what a major was or was not in the 70´s and early to middle 80´s 8 at least).aren´t you?
Borg retired at 25.nadal is 27 now, isn´t it? or maybe 28?
ROFLMAO¡¡¡
Similar threads
- Poll
