Is Djokovic ALREADY better than Agassi, Connors, and McEnroe?

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
It's not nitpicky at all. He hasn't passed Agassi until he wins RG or a 9th slam (without a RG) IMO.
So the YE #1s, WTF titles, Masters 1000s titles, and weeks ranked #1 mean nothing to you even discounting the era considerations?

Thats essentially what you are saying if you contend, them being equal in slams would result in Agassi still being ahead.

The Career Grand Slam is important (as you can see I give it about 2 slams worth of value), but having double the amount of YE #1s + triple the amount of WTF wins and being ahead in both masters titles and weeks ranked #1 override that if the slam count is even.

All Nole needs to pass Agassi is 1 more slam. If he gets that at USO and is able to do a few more things this year (add another couple of masters, maybe another WTF, and finish YE #1 again) then he can pass McEnroe too.

He needs a bit more longevity than that or a 9th slam only to pass Connors IMO.
 
Last edited:

Xavier G

Hall of Fame
Djokovic is a great player and is closing on these players fast, but he's not yet markedly greater than Agassi, Connors and McEnroe in career achievements. As a player, he might be technically better in some ways and physically stronger, more athletic... he is certainly on their level and at the age of 27, he has time to surpass them all. I believe he WILL surpass them as a Majors winner. Tennis finals seem more intense these days than the 70's. I'm judging on comparative achievements right this moment. It's a different tennis era now from the 70's and 80's in particular, with advancements in racket tech, sports training, structure of the game, etc. Nole hasn't won more Slams than any of them right now and is significantly behind Connors and McEnroe in overall titles. Djokovic is 7-7 in GS finals so that's not convincing proof in the very biggest matches. He scored a much needed win yesterday. Federer had his chance in the final set to win that Wimbledon final. Agassi won all the Slams while Novak has failed in Paris so far, admittedly against two of the biggest GS winners ever. Connors has legendary longevity and consistency, was 5 years ATP year end number 1 from 1974-78 and won a Major on clay while Mac was four years ATP no.1 in succession...Novak will surely win more Slams, so in time he will probably be thought of as greater, which is kind of strange. All these modern-era guys displacing my childhood heroes in the roll call of great champions...



:)
 

BHud

Hall of Fame
I don't know. Winning 7 Grand Slam titles was a bigger thing in the 80s and 90s though. There weren't a lot of 10+ Slam winners then. We now live in am era of 14/17 Grand Slam winners. Still, winning 7 Grand Slam titles is an amazing achievement. And Novak isn't done winning Slams yet.
Part of that is because many players skipped a few slams (especially the French and Wimby if the surface didn't suit their games) and the AO was no where near as prestigious as it is today.

Had Laver been allowed to play, he would have recorded a big ol' slam count. It may have made the stupid GOAT debate on this forum irrelevant...
 

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
Djokovic is a great player and is closing on these players fast, but he's not yet markedly greater than Agassi, Connors and McEnroe in career achievements. As a player, he might be technically better in some ways and physically stronger, more athletic... he is certainly on their level and at the age of 27, he has time to surpass them all. I believe he WILL surpass them as a Majors winner. Tennis finals seem more intense these days than the 70's. I'm judging on comparative achievements right this moment. It's a different tennis era now from the 70's and 80's in particular, with advancements in racket tech, sports training, structure of the game, etc. Nole hasn't won more Slams than any of them right now and is significantly behind Connors and McEnroe in overall titles. Djokovic is 7-7 in GS finals so that's not convincing proof in the very biggest matches. He scored a much needed win yesterday. Federer had his chance in the final set to win that Wimbledon final. Agassi won all the Slams while Novak has failed in Paris so far, admittedly against two of the biggest GS winners ever. Connors has legendary longevity and consistency, was 5 years ATP year end number 1 from 1974-78 and won a Major on clay while Mac was four years ATP no.1 in succession...Novak will surely win more Slams, so in time he will probably be thought of as greater, which is kind of strange. All these modern-era guys displacing my childhood heroes in the roll call of great champions...



:)
Why does any of that matter. The ATP computer #1 was a joke award back then due to flawed systems.

The ATP themselves award Ashe 75 player of the year and Borg the 76, 77, and 78 player of the year awards.

The ATP and ITF jointly awarded Connors the 82 Player of the Year despite the rankings saying McEnroe.

Connors and Mac both have about 3 true YE #1s with at most 2 consecutive. If Nole wins YE #1 this year, he would match both.
 

Bukmeikara

Legend
Manny believe that Federer and Nadal are the best players in the history of tennis and Djokovic did what he did during their time, this is not an easy task. People are holding to tight on that extra RG title that Agassi has, yes its cool but did he have to meet someone like Nadal to win it? The level of consistancy that Djokovic shows since 2011 is just amazing and way its going it would be at least 2-3 more solid years from him which would bring him closer even to Borg. The other day I was looking at a thread from 2009 where most people said that Djokovic would win at best 3-4 Majors while Murray will end with 7-8 :)
 

Nadalgaenger

G.O.A.T.
Without even commenting on Connors and McEnroe, he's not better than Agassi AT LEAST until he wins RG. You can say what you like about Nadal, but Djokovic has had some chances and blown them too. 2011 he doesn't even make the final at the time where he would have his best chance against Nadal. 2012 he's in the midst of a comeback and loses the next day after being up 2-0 in the 4th and DF'ing to give the match away. 2013...well we all know what happened there.

Even this year, sick and all, he looked the fresher player towards the end and DF'ed again to give Nadal the title.
How would Agassi have fared against Nadal on the clay of Roland Garros? I'd give him a set on his very best day but no more! Djokovic on clay>>>Agassi on clay.

Really the only surface Agassi would be equal or better than Djokovic on would be a fast HC.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
So the YE #1s, WTF titles, Masters 1000s titles, and weeks ranked #1 mean nothing to you even discounting the era considerations?

Thats essentially what you are saying if you contend, them being equal in slams would result in Agassi still being ahead.

The Career Grand Slam is important (as you can see I give it about 2 slams worth of value), but having double the amount of YE #1s + triple the amount of WTF wins and being ahead in both masters titles and weeks ranked #1 override that if the slam count is even.

All Nole needs to pass Agassi is 1 more slam. If he gets that at USO and is able to do a few more things this year (add another couple of masters, maybe another WTF, and finish YE #1 again) then he can pass McEnroe too.

He needs a bit more longevity than that or a 9th slam only to pass Connors IMO.
If Novak gets the next major at FO, he would surpass Agassi.

If Novak gets a USO, I would put him on par with Agassi, given the clown opponents Agassi faced. His .slam distribution would be 4+0+2+2

If Novak gets the AO or Wimbledon, then the edge will still be with Agassi
 

Nadalgaenger

G.O.A.T.
Djokovic is a great player and is closing on these players fast, but he's not yet markedly greater than Agassi, Connors and McEnroe in career achievements. As a player, he might be technically better in some ways and physically stronger, more athletic... he is certainly on their level and at the age of 27, he has time to surpass them all. I believe he WILL surpass them as a Majors winner. Tennis finals seem more intense these days than the 70's. I'm judging on comparative achievements right this moment. It's a different tennis era now from the 70's and 80's in particular, with advancements in racket tech, sports training, structure of the game, etc. Nole hasn't won more Slams than any of them right now and is significantly behind Connors and McEnroe in overall titles. Djokovic is 7-7 in GS finals so that's not convincing proof in the very biggest matches. He scored a much needed win yesterday. Federer had his chance in the final set to win that Wimbledon final. Agassi won all the Slams while Novak has failed in Paris so far, admittedly against two of the biggest GS winners ever. Connors has legendary longevity and consistency, was 5 years ATP year end number 1 from 1974-78 and won a Major on clay while Mac was four years ATP no.1 in succession...Novak will surely win more Slams, so in time he will probably be thought of as greater, which is kind of strange. All these modern-era guys displacing my childhood heroes in the roll call of great champions...



:)

What makes Djokovic unique in this group is that he faced the two greatest players of tennis history. Agassi really only had Sampras and then Fed at the very end of his career.
 

BGod

Legend
Jesus Christ.

No.

He's better than McEnroe without a doubt because McEnroe was done by 26. He had a relatively short period of contention and his achievements have largely been surpassed by Novak.


As for the era argument, Jimmy Connors played in a very tough era himself and guys like Edberg and Lendl played in the MOST crowded era of men's tennis. This is a discussion for others threads by the last 4 years have been arguably the weakest in men's tennis in quite some time.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
So the YE #1s, WTF titles, Masters 1000s titles, and weeks ranked #1 mean nothing to you even discounting the era considerations?

Thats essentially what you are saying if you contend, them being equal in slams would result in Agassi still being ahead.

The Career Grand Slam is important (as you can see I give it about 2 slams worth of value), but having double the amount of YE #1s + triple the amount of WTF wins and being ahead in both masters titles and weeks ranked #1 override that if the slam count is even.

All Nole needs to pass Agassi is 1 more slam. If he gets that at USO and is able to do a few more things this year (add another couple of masters, maybe another WTF, and finish YE #1 again) then he can pass McEnroe too.

He needs a bit more longevity than that or a 9th slam only to pass Connors IMO.
Oh yes, because this era is so strong. 32 year old, past his prime Federer nearly took out Djokovic. I'm sure if he faced the 2004-2007 versions it'd be a 4 sets beating at the most from the Federer side.

Edit: Have you forgotten that Federer's competiton (Hewitt, Roddick, Safin) are the ones that have pushed Djokovic/Nadal the most outside of Federer and Murray? That's telling, isn't it?
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
I say yes to all three.

It may be a moot point, since Novak's imminent GS titles in the next 2-3 years will likely put him in the echelon of Borg.

But if his career ended today, I think he is still better than these three.

Here's why:

Djokovic has accomplished what he has in the GOLDEN AGE of tennis. He has played GS finals against the top two players in the history of the game.

He has beaten the GOAT on his greatest surface and nearly toppled Nadal at the French last year.

He has dominated the field and won more ATP Master's Shields than anyone except Federer and Nadal (in an era where all the top players play these events).

He has a GS winning percentage that is FOURTH in the Open Era behind only Borg, Nadal, and Federer (yes, he is even ahead of Sampras in this category).
He played TWO finals against Fed, one when Roger was 33. He's got more history with Andy Murray in GS finals.
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
Oh yes, because this era is so strong. 32 year old, past his prime Federer nearly took out Djokovic. I'm sure if he faced the 2004-2007 versions it'd be a 4 sets beating at the most from the Federer side.

Edit: Have you forgotten that Federer's competiton (Hewitt, Roddick, Safin) are the ones that have pushed Djokovic/Nadal the most outside of Federer and Murray? That's telling, isn't it?
Not necessarily. It's true that Novak's weakest surface is grass but you can't just extrapolate this performance and say Fed would beat him in 04. I'd definitely favor Fed but it's not a foregone conclusion. Novak is still a big step up from almost all the players that Fed beat in a GS final. Aside, don't try to push the idea that Hewitt, Roddick or Safin legitimize that weak era. You are overselling their success against Nadal certainly and a young Novak just wasn't mentally right, even if the talent was there.
 

Tshooter

G.O.A.T.
Well, Connors might be the most disruptive force in the history of tennis, especially in big matches. His gamesmanship was legendary, but he also could get the crowd on his side. McEnroe wasn't above holding a match hostage until he got what he wanted. Agassi was a crybaby his whole career and a pure jackass in matches as a youngster.

But no. Even those guys wouldn't stoop to taking a MTO to disrupt the momentum of a match. Maybe they would, but I can't recall seeing them do that.
I'm not sure there is anything Connors or Jmac wouldn't do to win a match. A pair of DBs. The reason they might not stoop to a MTO is there wasn't a medical timeout. There weren't much of any hard rules on time when Connors started out and him and Nastase (who completes the trifecta of tennis DBs) were the prime reasons for the development of time violations. But I don't think it was until much later that they fully developed the auto-MTO rule. If you could stop a match at your whim with a MTO, Connors and Jmac would have done so for strategic reasons in my view. Agassi was as you describe him but not so blatant at cheating as Jimmy or John.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Not necessarily. It's true that Novak's weakest surface is grass but you can't just extrapolate this performance and say Fed would beat him in 04. I'd definitely favor Fed but it's not a foregone conclusion. Novak is still a big step up from almost all the players that Fed beat in a GS final. Aside, don't try to push the idea that Hewitt, Roddick or Safin legitimize that weak era. You are overselling their success against Nadal certainly and a young Novak just wasn't mentally right, even if the talent was there.
Novak is not that much better than either Roddick or Hewitt, and he's lost to Safin on grass after he won his first slam.

Have you forgotten that Hewitt, nearly 10 years past his prime, and on Djokovic's best surface (plexicushion) took a set off him while needing toe surgery? Have you forgotten Roddick used to school Djokovic when they played? You're underselling Federer by a lot. He absolutely tore both Hewitt and Roddick apart at his peak and in my opinion he'd do the same to Djokovic. Nadal is the only one who could beat Federer under any circumstance (peak for peak) IMO.

Hewitt was also the only other player other than Federer, Djokovic and Soderling to push Nadal on clay during his peak on the surface (2005-2010). I also find that quite telling.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
None of the three are in the same class as Novak. Safin isn't even in the conversation.
I didn't say they were in the same class. I said that he isn't that much better than they are. I am sure if Hewitt and Roddick were given a chance at this version of Federer they would/could win. Just like if we put Djokovic against peak Federer he'd lose more often than not and have less slams to his name.
 

Tshooter

G.O.A.T.
I didn't mean to misinterpret your point. Guess we'd have to define the different class levels.

But I think Djoker is a MUCH better player than Roddick (and absolutely Safin who was a great and wasted talent). Hewitt is more interesting to me. But I still think Novak is a much better player. So now that I type it out, I think Novak is a much better player than all three.
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
Novak is not that much better than either Roddick or Hewitt, and he's lost to Safin on grass after he won his first slam.

Have you forgotten that Hewitt, nearly 10 years past his prime, and on Djokovic's best surface (plexicushion) took a set off him while needing toe surgery? Have you forgotten Roddick used to school Djokovic when they played? You're underselling Federer by a lot. He absolutely tore both Hewitt and Roddick apart at his peak and in my opinion he'd do the same to Djokovic. Nadal is the only one who could beat Federer under any circumstance (peak for peak) IMO.

Hewitt was also the only other player other than Federer, Djokovic and Soderling to push Nadal on clay during his peak on the surface (2005-2010). I also find that quite telling.
Novak is quite a bit better than all of them. I'm not underestimating Fed at all honestly, I give him a lot of credit. I just can't agree with Roddick, Hewitt or Safin being nearly on Novak's level.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
I didn't mean to misinterpret your point. Guess we'd have to define the different class levels.

But I think Djoker is a MUCH better player than Roddick (and absolutely Safin who was a great and wasted talent). Hewitt is more interesting to me. But I still think Novak is a much better player. So now that I type it out, I think Novak is a much better player than all three.
I think that peak Roddick would present a great amount of trouble for Novak on grass at least. I actually think peak Hewitt VS peak Djokovic on HC would be close, with Hewitt winning quite a bit of the time. He was a heck of a lot faster than Djokovic and his passing shots would give Djokovic hell whenever he came to the net. Safin was a huge wasted talent, but I think if he played his best tennis against Novak on any surface he could win. All three aren't that far behind Djokoivc in playing level, only in accolades thanks to the tremendous level Federer presented at his peak.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Novak is quite a bit better than all of them. I'm not underestimating Fed at all honestly, I give him a lot of credit. I just can't agree with Roddick, Hewitt or Safin being nearly on Novak's level.
I believe they aren't that far behind him. Djokovic didn't even get to face peak Hewitt, Roddick or Safin and he's played in a different era. Meanwhile, these 3 have pushed/beaten him way after their peak/prime and it shows that they could potentially beat him peak for peak.

Because of that, I think they aren't a huge amount behind Djokovic in playing level.
 

Tshooter

G.O.A.T.
I think that peak Roddick would present a great amount of trouble for Novak on grass at least. I actually think peak Hewitt VS peak Djokovic on HC would be close, with Hewitt winning quite a bit of the time. He was a heck of a lot faster than Djokovic and his passing shots would give Djokovic hell whenever he came to the net. Safin was a huge wasted talent, but I think if he played his best tennis against Novak on any surface he could win. All three aren't that far behind Djokoivc in playing level, only in accolades thanks to the tremendous level Federer presented at his peak.
I was just conjuring an image of Roddick trying to approach the net at W on Djoker. It made me laugh. Anyway, your points seem reasonable when I read them. I'd have to give it some thought. My gut is still Roddick while a total pro, huge heart and fight with a rock solid 1st and 2nd serve doesn't have 1/2 the talent or skills of Djoker who may be getting better still. Safin can beat anyone on a given day -- it's true -- but so can Rosol I guess. Hewitt and Djoker. I think Djoker is an advanced version of Hewitt and the advanced model is always better then the previous, right. So I'm sticking with it. Djoker is much better than those three. If he keeps improving and racking up titles and I don't see why he can't we are talking about him joining the all time greats. Those three aren't even the best of their generations.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
I was just conjuring an image of Roddick trying to approach the net at W on Djoker. It made me laugh. Anyway, your points seem reasonable when I read them. I'd have to give it some thought. My gut is still Roddick while a total pro, huge heart and fight with a rock solid 1st and 2nd serve doesn't have 1/2 the talent or skills of Djoker who may be getting better still. Safin can beat anyone on a given day -- it's true -- but so can Rosol I guess. Hewitt and Djoker. I think Djoker is an advanced version of Hewitt and the advanced model is always better then the previous, right. So I'm sticking with it. Djoker is much better than those three. If he keeps improving and racking up titles and I don't see why he can't we are talking about him joining the all time greats. Those three aren't even the best of their generations.
Neither is Djokovic. Speaking of net-play, Djokovic's horrible approach during the 2013 FO made me laugh. In my opinion he'd always have a chance against him on grass or maybe even HC.

I don't think Rosol can beat anybody on a given day -- he got lucky and fluked a win against Nadal at Wimbledon 2 years ago. Not the same thing as Safin beating Djokovic at Wimbledon.

I don't think Djokovic is an advanced version of Hewitt; I think he plays similar to him but I still hold my opinion that peak for peak, Hewitt was quicker and better at the net than Djokovic. His lobs are also far and away better than Djokovic's. There are some things he does hold above him.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BevelDevil

Hall of Fame
speaking of Agassi, was he a big influence on Djokovic?

In his on-court interview, he mentioned watching Wimbledon for the first time when he was 5 years old. I think that would be the Agassi-Ivanisevic match, right?
 

Tshooter

G.O.A.T.
By Roddick's own admission, 2008 Djoker (which is no where near as good as Peak Djoker whether that is now or to come) stomped him even with all of Roddick's gamesmanship before the match.

"I was talking trash, and he came out and beat the pants off me [in the match], as he would, but then kind of chirped afterward," Roddick said."

https://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blog...ed-fight-djokovic-2008-us-open-092547481.html

Djoker is much better than Roddick on all surfaces. I think Roddick implicitly accepts Djoker's greatness over him with his recent W tweets. Djoker is one for the ages. Roddick was a very nice top 10 player. Very consistent too.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
By Roddick's own admission, 2008 Djoker (which is no where near as good as Peak Djoker whether that is now or to come) stomped him even with all of Roddick's gamesmanship before the match.

"I was talking trash, and he came out and beat the pants off me [in the match], as he would, but then kind of chirped afterward," Roddick said."

https://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blog...ed-fight-djokovic-2008-us-open-092547481.html

Djoker is much better than Roddick on all surfaces. I think Roddick implicitly accepts Djoker's greatness over him with his recent W tweets. Djoker is one for the ages. Roddick was a very nice top 10 player. Very consistent too.
And then Roddick stomped Djokovic throughtout 2009. So how does that point make?
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
Neither is Djokovic. Speaking of net-play, Djokovic's horrible approach during the 2013 FO made me laugh. In my opinion he'd always have a chance against him on grass or maybe even HC.

I don't think Rosol can beat anybody on a given day -- he got lucky and fluked a win against Nadal at Wimbledon 2 years ago. Not the same thing as Safin beating Djokovic in Wimbledon.

I don't think Djokovic is an advanced version of Hewitt; I think he plays similar to him but I still hold my opinion that peak for peak, Hewitt was quicker and better at the net than Djokovic. His lobs are also far and away better than Djokovic's. There are some things he does hold above him.
Safin and Novak have no real history so I don't think it's fair to use one match to suggest he's on a peak Novak's level. Surely Safin did have some talent but I don't view him with the same regard as you do. I think Novak is a good bit better than Hewitt and Roddick for me is just too limited. I get where you are coming from but you aren't talking about Novak at his best in those matches either. The consistent version of Novak began in 2011 and that guy I find to be quite a bit better.
 

Tshooter

G.O.A.T.
And then Roddick stomped Djokovic throughtout 2009. So how does that point make?
Yeh, I had to look it up. It does look like Roddick owned him in 2009. Djoker was still in his retirement phase though back when he was going for the Grand Slam of retirements (I think he's only missing the USO in that dept). Not until 2011 does he fully mature into the great tennis player we see today. Anyway, my A/C is acting up and consequently I can't sleep so you'll have to cut me a break but I still say Roddick isn't half the tennis talent that Djoker is and Djoker's results already vastly exceed one fluke Major Roddick. Wait until Djokers career is over and people won't mention the two in the same breath.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Safin and Novak have no real history so I don't think it's fair to use one match to suggest he's on a peak Novak's level. Surely Safin did have some talent but I don't view him with the same regard as you do. I think Novak is a good bit better than Hewitt and Roddick for me is just too limited. I get where you are coming from but you aren't talking about Novak at his best in those matches either. The consistent version of Novak began in 2011 and that guy I find to be quite a bit better.
Peak Djokovic (2012) VS Hewitt 10 years removed from his prime went to 4 sets. If he was so limited (which, technically he was since he was getting ready for his 4th or 5th surgery) how come it wasn't a straight sets beatdown like his matches against Ferrer?
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
Peak Djokovic (2012) VS Hewitt 10 years removed from his prime went to 4 sets. If he was so limited (which, technically he was since he was getting ready for his 4th or 5th surgery) how come it wasn't a straight sets beatdown like his matches against Ferrer?
For one, I was saying that Roddick was limited for two, I don't view a match going to 4 sets as legitimate evidence that Hewitt was anywhere near a peak Novak. The available pool of head to head data is limited and as such I will instead compare them by their results and the admittedly subjective interpretation of talent/ability. Even if Hewitt could perform well against Novak peak for peak, that doesn't make him nearly the player overall.
 

Bukmeikara

Legend
Yeh, I had to look it up. It does look like Roddick owned him in 2009. Djoker was still in his retirement phase though back when he was going for the Grand Slam of retirements (I think he's only missing the USO in that dept). Not until 2011 does he fully mature into the great tennis player we see today. Anyway, my A/C is acting up and consequently I can't sleep so you'll have to cut me a break but I still say Roddick isn't half the tennis talent that Djoker is and Djoker's results already vastly exceed one fluke Major Roddick. Wait until Djokers career is over and people won't mention the two in the same breath.
You cant call someone a fluke because he is better than the 99% of the tennis players since 1972 :) Its just plain stupid to say something like that
 

Xavier G

Hall of Fame
Why does any of that matter. The ATP computer #1 was a joke award back then due to flawed systems.

The ATP themselves award Ashe 75 player of the year and Borg the 76, 77, and 78 player of the year awards.

The ATP and ITF jointly awarded Connors the 82 Player of the Year despite the rankings saying McEnroe.

Connors and Mac both have about 3 true YE #1s with at most 2 consecutive. If Nole wins YE #1 this year, he would match both.
I know all that rankings stuff you told me...to make it real simple for you :) ... if and when Djokovic wins more Slams, has more year-end number 1, etc, which I expect him to do, he goes above the players named. He's not really above any of them at all comparatively-speaking if he stopped playing today, in my opinion.

Novak probably just moved ahead of his coach with his latest win though...


:)
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
By Roddick's own admission, 2008 Djoker (which is no where near as good as Peak Djoker whether that is now or to come) stomped him even with all of Roddick's gamesmanship before the match.

"I was talking trash, and he came out and beat the pants off me [in the match], as he would, but then kind of chirped afterward," Roddick said."

https://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blog...ed-fight-djokovic-2008-us-open-092547481.html

Djoker is much better than Roddick on all surfaces. I think Roddick implicitly accepts Djoker's greatness over him with his recent W tweets. Djoker is one for the ages. Roddick was a very nice top 10 player. Very consistent too.
Djokovic was playing some of his best tennis in that match, and Roddick who was far from his best should have taken that match to 5 when he served for the 4th set and hit a couple of doubles.
 

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
Did anyone say "only until the alarm goes off" yet?

The number of losses - and how he lost - so many major finals would stop me from rating him over those 3. Now if he gets to 10 or more, then I'll put him above them.
 

Tshooter

G.O.A.T.
Djokovic was playing some of his best tennis in that match, and Roddick who was far from his best should have taken that match to 5 when he served for the 4th set and hit a couple of doubles.
Yes, Djoker was playing his best tennis in 2008... and Roddick should have would have could have.

Djoker is a great tennis talent and Champion. He's racking up Majors.

Roddick is a very hard worker, solid top ten player.
 
novak needs to dominate ******* and knee.dal more convincingly to move past lendl and connors.

he is a very good player but he is still losing some matches he should not lose against the top guys. almost never loses to lesser players and is very consistent but in finals he could do better.
 

pjonesy

Professional
I'm not sure there is anything Connors or Jmac wouldn't do to win a match. A pair of DBs. The reason they might not stoop to a MTO is there wasn't a medical timeout. There weren't much of any hard rules on time when Connors started out and him and Nastase (who completes the trifecta of tennis DBs) were the prime reasons for the development of time violations. But I don't think it was until much later that they fully developed the auto-MTO rule. If you could stop a match at your whim with a MTO, Connors and Jmac would have done so for strategic reasons in my view. Agassi was as you describe him but not so blatant at cheating as Jimmy or John.
LOL!! That was great! Spot on. The only reason they didn't use MTOs? Because they didn't exist!!
 

timnz

Legend
djokovic currently 3rd out of those 4

I place them currently - early august 2014

1/ McEnroe
2/ Connors
3/ Djokovic
4/ Agassi

djokovic is only a fraction above agassi though.

Calculations (reduced by a factor of 1000) - Slams wins + Season end final wins + Season end final runner-ups + Slam runner-ups + Top 9:

McEnroe (7 x 2) + ((3 + 4) x 1.4)) + ((1 + 3) x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (19 x 1) = 51.6

Connors = (8 x 2) + ((1 + 2) x 1.4)) + (1 x 1) + (7 x 1.2) + (17 x 1) = 46.6

Djokovic = (7 x 2) + (3 x 1.4) + (0 x 1) + (7 x 1.2) + (19 x 1) = 45.6

Agassi = (8 x 2) + (1 x 1.4) + (2 x 1) + (7 x 1.2) + (17 x 1) = 44.8

For elaboration on calculations, go to:-

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=463381
 
Last edited:

timnz

Legend
Did anyone say "only until the alarm goes off" yet?

The number of losses - and how he lost - so many major finals would stop me from rating him over those 3. Now if he gets to 10 or more, then I'll put him above them.
I don't understand what you mean. Djokovic, Connors and Agassi have exactly the same number of slam runner-ups - 7 each.

Also a question. Is it a better performance to lose or win a semi final at a slam? So if Djokovic had instead lost those 7 tournaments in the semi's which would leave him with a 100% record in Slam finals (7-0) , would that be considered a better record? If in the case of Mcenroe (who lost 4 slam finals) , if he had won 3 more semi final matches eg the 1985 french open semi's, instead of losing them, but went on to lose the final...would that mean he would have a worse record than he does currently?

My point is making the final is an achievement in of itself. There is no shame in being the number 2 guy at a slam tournament. That is why you still get 1200 points (slam winners get 2000).
 
Last edited:

Russeljones

G.O.A.T.
My point is making the final is an achievement in of itself. There is no shame in being the number 2 guy at a slam tournament. That is why you still get 1200 points (slam winners get 2000).
Not here. It's better to lose in the QF and protect your h2h.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
I say yes to all three.

It may be a moot point, since Novak's imminent GS titles in the next 2-3 years will likely put him in the echelon of Borg.

But if his career ended today, I think he is still better than these three.

Here's why:

Djokovic has accomplished what he has in the GOLDEN AGE of tennis. He has played GS finals against the top two players in the history of the game.

He has beaten the GOAT on his greatest surface and nearly toppled Nadal at the French last year.

He has dominated the field and won more ATP Master's Shields than anyone except Federer and Nadal (in an era where all the top players play these events).

He has a GS winning percentage that is FOURTH in the Open Era behind only Borg, Nadal, and Federer (yes, he is even ahead of Sampras in this category).
This is the problem with modern fans. They think that current tennis is the only thing and they try to compare past eras with today's standards and you can't do that. You have to use context.

Mac and Connors skipped AO. So they won basically in a 3 slam era. So their slam count has a bit more value, you can't compare with today.

Also Agassi won career slam in more polarized conditions.

Mac and Connors have tons more titles than Nole and tons more weeks nr.1.
And they did it while also playing doubles. Today people focus only on singles so of course they will have better results.

You need to use context here. So, no if Nole retires today, he hasn't surpassed those 3 in my opinion.

But, that doesn't mean it's impossible in the future.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
If he wins another slam and nothing else, then he's tie with McEnroe and Agassi but still below Lendl and Connors.
 

Russeljones

G.O.A.T.
If he wins another slam and nothing else, then he's tie with McEnroe and Agassi but still below Lendl and Connors.
It might seem a little bit unfair to Novak but I think at 8 Slams he'd be still behind McEnroe. He just doesn't have that plethora of titles.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
For me he is still below those three. However he can certainly change the landscpe a bit, if he win the US Open, and possibly win his fourth WTF and third year ending world number one. He is certainly in a good position to make some serious strides in regards to what he can accomplish over the upcoming months.

It is an exciting time for him.
 

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
Djokovic was playing some of his best tennis in that match, and Roddick who was far from his best should have taken that match to 5 when he served for the 4th set and hit a couple of doubles.
Djokovic was playing some of his best pre-2011 tennis sure, but nowhere near his levels on hards in 2011 to be classified as some of his best tennis.

And stop with this he should have BS. A he should have such as Wawrinka getting a bad line call against him in the late stages of the 5th set at AO 13 is fair. A he should have regarding Roddick's OWN mistakes which if he had converted would only have taken the match to a 5th set is pure garbage. Djokovic is the best 2nd serve punisher of all time. Roddick had to go for what he went for on those 2nd serves or he would have lost the points anyways. He missed them and they were double faults. To write it off as "oh he hit a couple doubles he should have won the set" is asinine.


How about acknowledging that pre-prime Djokovic beat post-prime Roddick in 4 sets and moving on? Djokovic has demonstrably far superior results to Roddick on all surfaces. He annihilates Roddick on hards, clay, and indoors and now has surpassed him comfortably even on grass.
 

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
It might seem a little bit unfair to Novak but I think at 8 Slams he'd be still behind McEnroe. He just doesn't have that plethora of titles.
As a Novak fan I will say this is plenty fair. I would myself have him slightly below Mac with an 8th slam due to Mac's equitable performance at the Masters 1000 level and plethora of YECs.

My argument wasn't that Nole at 7 slams should be equally ranked with Mac, just that he is closer to Mac/Agassi than he is to Becker/Wilander at this point and hence he belongs on the same tier as the former as opposed to the later.

I think Nole needs another YEC + an 8th slam + another YE #1 and a couple more Masters titles to pass McEnore or 2 more slams.

I'd rank Nole above Agassi with just 1 more slam though due to his edges everywhere else (YEC, YE #1, Masters titles, Weeks #1 > just the career slam won without having to deal with a clay GOAT).
 
Top