Is Djokovic ALREADY greater than Sampras?

[Cavvallini]

While the clay field today isnt exactly super deep I think Sampras would likely have even worse results today on clay with the baseline oriented field. Also clay has not been sped up or anything today. If anything clay was also faster in the 90s than it is today, as they put more topping on the clay in the mid to late 90s (which helped Sampras reach his lone semi in 96).

I dont see Sampras being a real contender at Roland Garros today at all, just as he wasnt really then.

In general I agree BUT if you give Pete the advantages of todays sticks and strings, with strokes built around today's sticks and strings, I'm not so sure. He would consistently hit 130+ 1st serves. His BH, which was his main weakness on clay, would be vastly more stable because of a proper stroke, larger frame and polys-spin strings. It's impossible to compare without taking into consideration the impact of the latest equipment.

 

[Chadillac]

Taking 2010 as an example:

206 aces, 177 double faults.

Subtract the second from the first: 29 free points all year, net, because double faults cancel out aces.

613 service games.

That's about like getting one net free point every 20 games.

That is extremely poor compared to the elite and partially explains why Novak was not yet near the level he is now. Top mph speed is irrelevant.

Thats a lot of double faults. Do you have his stats from this year? Seems to be more confident, not relying on the big serve now a days.

 

[Chadillac]

In general I agree BUT if you give Pete the advantages of todays sticks and strings, with strokes built around today's sticks and strings, I'm not so sure. He would consistently hit 130+ 1st serves. His BH, which was his main weakness on clay, would be vastly more stable because of a proper stroke, larger frame and polys-spin strings. It's impossible to compare without taking into consideration the impact of the latest equipment.

What makes you think pete could play with modern frames? 16oz 85ps? Link me something similar current.

 

[Gary Duane]

Thats a lot of double faults. Do you have his stats from this year? Seems to be more confident, not relying on the big serve now a days.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/novak-djokovic/d643/player-stats?year=2015&surfaceType=hard

He gets a net free point in about 1 out 3 games. But this does not take into effect weak returns that are set up for a one-two punch, so now his efficiency is more Fed-like, and that's why he is winning 89% of his service games this year. His serve has never been better.

He does not return as well as in 2011, but his serve takes up the slack.

In contrast Fed is getting a free point just a bit more often than once every two games. He is at an incredible 93% of all games played on HCs.

Just to give you an idea of the gold standard, Karlovic gets more than 1 free point net per game, quite a bit more, and Isner just a bit more often then once a game, on average.

Sampras got more free points per game over his career than Fed, which is why his serve was so devastating.

Keep in mind that the apparent increase in power today is coming most from height and strings, also bigger racket heads.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

No. Not at all.

 

[Alien]

You have it backwards. Pete would DESTROY Djoker on every surface but clay, IF he was interested. Pete wasn't nearly as consistent as Djoker or many others. But when he was focused his overall game was considerably beyond Djoker's or anyone else's. Djoker is like a slightly stronger and better moving prime Agassi, although he doesn't return as well as Agassi, despite all these claims running around. In 1999, when Agassi was at his peak, Pete DESTROYED him at the Master's after being off for 2 months with a back injury. That match said it all.

If you put Djoker back in the 90s he might have half the Slams he currently has.

LOL. Like 20 years have not passed and tennis has not evolved. Just ask Agassi, he says that they simply could not compete with Federer and Nadal.

 

[Aesthetics_above_all_else]

LOL. Like 20 years have not passed and tennis has not evolved. Just ask Agassi, he says that they simply could not compete with Federer and Nadal.

^ Truth

 

[Praetorian]

LOL. Like 20 years have not passed and tennis has not evolved. Just ask Agassi, he says that they simply could not compete with Federer and Nadal.

I agree. And I also believe is today's players grew up in the same Era as Sampras and Agassi, they wouldn't dominate them. Same logic applies, guys 20+ years from now would crush today's players.

 

[droliver]

I would favour Sampras at 3/5 venues (you know which ones), but I guess Djoker would do better in the venues he loses. Overall I would go Sampras.

Against the field? Probably Djokovic, but I think Sampras would win more tournaments. To put it another way, If they played the 5 events over a few years I could see a scenario where Sampras wins more but Djokovic spends more time at number 1 (assuming you use the current ranking system).

Djoker wins the h2h quite comfortably I think. Sampras could not make up spotting an expected ZERO wins on clay in this hypothetical of 25 matches at each major. The other surfaces are very competitive, and even if you give Sampras a slight nod at he USO (I don't), it would make the head to head something like 60-40 or 55-45 Novak. If you throw in the field, there's a lot more guys likely to beat Pete then there are likely to beat Novak at any given tournament on hard courts. Novak's consistency just would be too much to overcome.

Sampras still owns a better resume, but you could see Novak pass him by 2017 if he stays healthy.

 

[mightyrick]

What makes you think pete could play with modern frames? 16oz 85ps? Link me something similar current.

Man, you are trolling pretty hard. You can't actually think that any player of the past couldn't play better with a more modern (and/or larger) frame? A frame which reduces vibration, has a larger sweet spot, better pocketing, better access to spin and better strings capable of generating more spin and keeping the ball safe? Federer started with an 85 square inch PS. The same one Sampras used. Then Federer went to a 90 inch racquet. Now, he is at a 97 inch racquet.

And you're questioning if a player moving to a more modern and better technology racquet can help their game? Of course it does. This is a NO BRAINER.

It's like questioning if a computer gamer would be able to adjust to a computer with a better video card with increased FPS rates. Or if a race car driver could adjust from a stiff spring-based suspension and improve by using a modern air/spring hybrid suspension. Or if they couldn't perform better with modern tires. Or if a golfer would not improve by moving from wooden to graphite or titanium shafts.

It's ludicrous.

 

[tennis_commentator]

If Sampras won his 14th slam title this year, can you imagine how pathetic a person would sound if they said Djokovic (on 10 slams) was better....
In other words, don't be a prisoner of the moment.
Djokovic has a horrible record when compared with Sampras.
FOUR WHOLE SLAMS behind, and no Career Grand Slam to make up for it....
Also, this clown only won ONE SLAM PER YEAR in 2012, 2013 and 2014 - all prime years.
So will he even reach 14 slams?

 

[mightyrick]

LOL. Like 20 years have not passed and tennis has not evolved. Just ask Agassi, he says that they simply could not compete with Federer and Nadal.

Well, that's might be Agassi's statement, but it doesn't make much sense. Because prime Agassi was dominated by prime Sampras. That is a given. And past-prime grandpa Agassi was competitive with Federer/Hewitt/Safin -- all of that enabled through better racquet technology and strings.

 

[timnz]

Stats that favor Pete:
GS Titles:
Pete 14
Novak 10 (and rising)

WTF:
Pete 6
Novak 4 (and rising)

Year End #1
Pete 6
Djokovic 4

Dominance of one surface (grass)
Sampras>>>Novak

Intangibles argument:
Sampras was the dominant player of his era. Bar none.



Stats that favor Novak:
Masters 1000 titles
Novak 25
Pete 11

Career win percentage
Novak 82%
Sampras 77%

Consecutive GS SF:
Novak 14
Sampras 3

Consecutive GS QF
Novak 26
Pete 10

Dominant individual seasons:
Novak's 2011, 2015>>>Sampras 1994

Success on all surfaces:
Novak >>>>Sampras

Intangibles argument:
Novak competed in the Golden Era of tennis and won the lion's share of his slams against two players that were greater than or equal to Sampras and far greater than anyone Sampras had to play.


Conclusion:
Novak's resume is ARGUABLY greater already and likely his career totals will equal or surpass Sampras in most of the important areas. However, based on 10/22/15, we have to still conclude that Sampras has the greater overall resume because of his GS totals.

Sampras won 5 WTF not 6. Interested to know where you place his 2 Grand Slam cups though as that tournament isn't available to Novak. The way I have dealt with in my ranking system is to count 1 of the Grand slam cups as in - count 1990 when Pete didn't play all the slams,but not count 1997 he did (to even things things up with current players who tend to play all the slams)

 

[Alien]

Well, that's might be Agassi's statement, but it doesn't make much sense. Because prime Agassi was dominated by prime Sampras. That is a given. And past-prime grandpa Agassi was competitive with Federer/Hewitt/Safin -- all of that enabled through better racquet technology and strings.

Well he played both generations and was up there. If he is not entitled to give his opinion and if you consider yours is more valid than his — while it is really 100 times less valid-, lets simply close this forum, pack and go home...

 

[mightyrick]

Well he played both generations and was up there. If he is not entitled to give his opinion and if you consider yours is more valid than his — while it is really 100 times less valid-, lets simply close this forum, pack and go home...

I'm not saying either is invalid or valid or that he isn't entitled to his opinion.

I'm just saying that his statement doesn't make much sense considering that he himself had success against the older and newer generation. To say that Sampras (who was more athletic and more skilled than Agassi) would not have had the same (or more) success doesn't make sense. If it does make sense, please enlighten me. I'm more than willing to learn.

 

[xFedal]

hi

If Sampras won his 14th slam title this year, can you imagine how pathetic a person would sound if they said Djokovic (on 10 slams) was better....
In other words, don't be a prisoner of the moment.
Djokovic has a horrible record when compared with Sampras.
FOUR WHOLE SLAMS behind, and no Career Grand Slam to make up for it....
Also, this clown only won ONE SLAM PER YEAR in 2012, 2013 and 2014 - all prime years.
So will he even reach 14 slams?

He is 2 slams away from encompassing the career of both Sampras and Nadal.

 

[Alien]

I'm not saying either is invalid or valid or that he isn't entitled to his opinion.

I'm just saying that his statement doesn't make much sense considering that he himself had success against the older and newer generation. To say that Sampras (who was more athletic and more skilled than Agassi) would not have had the same (or more) success doesn't make sense. If it does make sense, please enlighten me. I'm more than willing to learn.

He considered himself at the same level of Sampras, but at a lower level than Federer and Nadal. Or he could feel he simply could not win against Fedal whereas Pete was quite close. Then he retired and saw Fed, Nadal and eventually Nole push the level of the game even more to a higher level than 2005.

 

[5555]

Insecure about what, again?

"There is growing evidence that he can get even better, make minor modifications that could make a significant difference, and keep dominating tennis for a good long while." http://tennischannel.com/steve-flink-djokovic-splendid-in-shanghai/

 

[timnz]

Agassi doesn't seem to remember that at the age of 34 he pushed Federer to a close 5 sets at the US open in 2004 (a tournament Federer went onto win). So what actually went on on the court (post peak Agassi pushing peak Federer hard) contradicts what he said about him being so far behind.

 

[Alien]

Certainly. We dismiss what Agassi said, because you old armchair warrior know much better. Then we dismiss Federer saying he is a better player today. Then we dismiss all players or experts are saying. You know better.

Curiously I haven't read a pro or former pro saying Roger is old or playing under his normal level...

 

[Chadillac]

Agassi doesn't seem to remember that at the age of 34 he pushed Federer to a close 5 sets at the US open in 2004 (a tournament Federer went onto win). So what actually went on on the court (post peak Agassi pushing peak Federer hard) contradicts what he said about him being so far behind.

Agassi does well in the wind, fed not so much. Hurricane katrina left overs were in new york. It was like 20-30mph winds

 

[djokerer]

No

 

[uliks]

Sampras won 5 WTF not 6. Interested to know where you place his 2 Grand Slam cups though as that tournament isn't available to Novak. The way I have dealt with in my ranking system is to count 1 of the Grand slam cups as in - count 1990 when Pete didn't play all the slams,but not count 1997 he did (to even things things up with current players who tend to play all the slams)

Grand slam cup was just an exhibition iirc

 

[Doflamingo]

If Sampras won his 14th slam title this year, can you imagine how pathetic a person would sound if they said Djokovic (on 10 slams) was better....
In other words, don't be a prisoner of the moment.
Djokovic has a horrible record when compared with Sampras.
FOUR WHOLE SLAMS behind, and no Career Grand Slam to make up for it....
Also, this clown only won ONE SLAM PER YEAR in 2012, 2013 and 2014 - all prime years.
So will he even reach 14 slams?

There is nothing wrong with winning one slam per year, I don't know why Novak gets called out for this when various other ATGs in the past have also been winning 1 slam per year AND keeping the #1 year-end ranking. You do know your boy Nadal also has 7 years where he's been winning one slam per year too, right?

Winning multiple slams in a year is quiet a rarity and Novak's had 2 seasons worth 3 slams each. That's even harder than winning 2 slams in a year and Novak's the only player to do this twice since Federer. ​

 

[AngieB]

#No. Pete Sampras is an All-Time Wimbledon champion. #Djokovic does great at the #Australian Open. Enough said.

....Angie​

 

[timnz]

Grand slam cup was just an exhibition iirc

Not according to the ITF. And I saw a good number of matches - the players were playing to their absolute maximum to win. The ATP doesn't think they were as well - as it has credited Grand Slam Cup wins as tournament wins. If you credit WCT Finals wins of the 1980's as legitimate tournament wins, then you should do the same for the Grand Slam cup - from what I observed they were harder propositions to win that the WCT Finals (best of 5 in semi's and finals forinstance).

 

[Nadalgaenger]

I was just rereading this excellent statistical breakdown of all-time greats.

These guys have applied ELO ratings (used to rank all-time chess greats and their dominance) to tennis and have come to a couple of key conclusions:

1) Djokovic is dominating tennis in a way we have never seen in the Open Era.
2) Djokovic has sustained a level of dominance in recent years that Sampras and several other greats never approached.

I think history will ultimately judge Djokovic the greater player. I also concede that he will need four majors though to solidify his edge over Sampras.

Here is the article by the way:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/djokovic-and-federer-are-vying-to-be-the-greatest-of-all-time/

 

[Nadalgaenger]

I was just rereading this excellent statistical breakdown of all-time greats.

These guys have applied ELO ratings (used to rank all-time chess greats and their dominance) to tennis and have come to a couple of key conclusions:

1) Djokovic is dominating tennis in a way we have never seen in the Open Era.
2) Djokovic has sustained a level of dominance in recent years that Sampras and several other greats never approached.

I think history will ultimately judge Djokovic the greater player. I also concede that he will need four majors though to solidify his edge over Sampras.

Here is the article by the way:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/djokovic-and-federer-are-vying-to-be-the-greatest-of-all-time/

The authors of the article pretty much agree that Djokovic > Sampras:

"If it looks to you like Elo judges Federer’s prime harshly, know that it is kinder to him than it is to the two most recent American greats, Sampras and Agassi. They faced few great rivals other than each other during their peak years in the 1990s, yet both often lost early in tournaments and weren’t as dominant away from Grand Slams as they were in them. Murray, who has won just two Grand Slam titles, peaked higher than either of them did. The closest competitors to today’s current crop of stars were Borg and John McEnroe, when they challenged each other and dominated almost everyone else in the 1980s."

 

[PeterHo]

subjectively yes, if you take into account nole is beating two all time greats, fedal. but this is entirely debatable.

objectively no. he stilll needs at least 14 slams, and probably 6 years no.1 as well.

 

[abmk]

Djokovic puts you under even more pressure than Hewitt does

It would be, djok is like a physcially bigger version of hewitt. More wingspan, bigger serve etc.

people need to realise the subtlities more...hewitt didn't mind being put off-rhythm like djoko does , in fact, he thrived on passing vs the net rushers>> this is a crucial factor ...

also hewitt's RoS vs SnVers is better than djoko's, so are passing shots and lobs ...

overall, djoko does put more pressure and is physically bigger, with more weapons of course, but in a matchup vs sampras, things change/are different ...

 

[PeterHo]

people need to realise the subtlities more...hewitt didn't mind being put off-rhythm like djoko does , in fact, he thrived on passing vs the net rushers>> this is a crucial factor ...

also hewitt's RoS vs SnVers is better than djoko's, so are passing shots and lobs ...

overall, djoko does put more pressure and is physically bigger, with more weapons of course, but in a matchup vs sampras, things change/are different ...

lol funny how djokovic is being compared to hewitt. they're not even in the same calibre.

hewitts return of serve better? did you see how deep the returns nole was putting in play in china???

passing shots? whats the oomph for hewitts fh and bh, and what is noles?

lobs - this one i agree hewitt is pretty good at, but hardly comparable since the players he faced back then were on average a lot shorter than guys nowadays (roddick has mentioned he was one of the biggest guys when he came on tour, and by the time he left he was just average).

while Nole has a great serve now, along with huge forehand and backhand winners, Hewitt doesn't have any offensive weapons. Hewitt is better compared to Murray than Nole. A purely defensive player. and of course, Murray is also a lot bigger, he runs faster, covers more court, serves bigger, has bigger groundstrokes, can defend deeper, etc,etc.


nole vs sampras
AO nole
RG nole
WB sampras
US sampras

pretty straightforward in my book.

 

[abmk]

lol funny how djokovic is being compared to hewitt. they're not even in the same calibre.

hewitts return of serve better? did you see how deep the returns nole was putting in play in china???

passing shots? whats the oomph for hewitts fh and bh, and what is noles?

lobs - this one i agree hewitt is pretty good at, but hardly comparable since the players he faced back then were on average a lot shorter than guys nowadays (roddick has mentioned he was one of the biggest guys when he came on tour, and by the time he left he was just average).

while Nole has a great serve now, along with huge forehand and backhand winners, Hewitt doesn't have any offensive weapons. Hewitt is better compared to Murray than Nole. A purely defensive player. and of course, Murray is also a lot bigger, he runs faster, covers more court, serves bigger, has bigger groundstrokes, can defend deeper, etc,etc.


nole vs sampras
AO nole
RG nole
WB sampras
US sampras

pretty straightforward in my book.

overall RoS between djok and hewitt is debatable, but vs SnVers specifically, hewitt's is easily ahead and its not even debatable ...

and no, the height factor isn't that valid at all ..you had the likes of stich, krajicek, ivanisevic, safin etc. in the 90s and early 2000s

hewitt is more comparable to murray, but point was comparing how djoko would so vs sampras on a fast court vs how hewitt would do vs him on a fast court ..

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

No he is not greater than the great Sampras

 

[Nadalgaenger]

lol funny how djokovic is being compared to hewitt. they're not even in the same calibre.

hewitts return of serve better? did you see how deep the returns nole was putting in play in china???

passing shots? whats the oomph for hewitts fh and bh, and what is noles?

lobs - this one i agree hewitt is pretty good at, but hardly comparable since the players he faced back then were on average a lot shorter than guys nowadays (roddick has mentioned he was one of the biggest guys when he came on tour, and by the time he left he was just average).

while Nole has a great serve now, along with huge forehand and backhand winners, Hewitt doesn't have any offensive weapons. Hewitt is better compared to Murray than Nole. A purely defensive player. and of course, Murray is also a lot bigger, he runs faster, covers more court, serves bigger, has bigger groundstrokes, can defend deeper, etc,etc.


nole vs sampras
AO nole
RG nole
WB sampras
US sampras

pretty straightforward in my book.

Ok, but it would be helpful to quantify your predictions.
Here would be mine in a hypothetical 10-match series:
AO (Nole 7-3)
FO (Nole 10-0)
W (Sampras 7-3)
USO (tough call honestly, since Sampras was beaten down by Hewitt, who as you note is an inferior version of Djokovic). I'd take Nole 6-4!

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Ok, but it would be helpful to quantify your predictions.
Here would be mine in a hypothetical 10-match series:
AO (Nole 7-3)
FO (Nole 10-0)
W (Sampras 7-3)
USO (tough call honestly, since Sampras was beaten down by Hewitt, who as you note is an inferior version of Djokovic). I'd take Nole 6-4!

Seriously?

Also, consider the surface changes.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

lol funny how djokovic is being compared to hewitt. they're not even in the same calibre.

hewitts return of serve better? did you see how deep the returns nole was putting in play in china???

passing shots? whats the oomph for hewitts fh and bh, and what is noles?

lobs - this one i agree hewitt is pretty good at, but hardly comparable since the players he faced back then were on average a lot shorter than guys nowadays (roddick has mentioned he was one of the biggest guys when he came on tour, and by the time he left he was just average).

while Nole has a great serve now, along with huge forehand and backhand winners, Hewitt doesn't have any offensive weapons. Hewitt is better compared to Murray than Nole. A purely defensive player. and of course, Murray is also a lot bigger, he runs faster, covers more court, serves bigger, has bigger groundstrokes, can defend deeper, etc,etc.


nole vs sampras
AO nole
RG nole
WB sampras
US sampras

pretty straightforward in my book.

You are an idiot if you believe Nole's lob is better than Hewitt's.

Your height doesn't really matter that much. He's lobbed Roddick to death, and if he's considered "average" today (laughable argument by the way as this is as false as it comes) he could still lob the crap out of guys his height. Perhaps even someone like Djokovic who is terrible at the net.

Forgot to add that height averages don't increase over a 10 year span like that either, and you'd be deluded to believe so. Sure, people in the 60's were on "average" shorter than people today, but it's quite stupid to assume people were shorter in 2005/2006 than they are today.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Great lob from Hewitt here, great placement and disguise.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

And here's a lob from Djokovic, Federer was actually close to smashing it back into play. Remember all Tipsarevic could do is watch it sail over his head, better disguise and placement too.

 

[PeterHo]

You are an idiot if you believe Nole's lob is better than Hewitt's.

Your height doesn't really matter that much. He's lobbed Roddick to death, and if he's considered "average" today (laughable argument by the way as this is as false as it comes) he could still lob the crap out of guys his height. Perhaps even someone like Djokovic who is terrible at the net.

Forgot to add that height averages don't increase over a 10 year span like that either, and you'd be deluded to believe so. Sure, people in the 60's were on "average" shorter than people today, but it's quite stupid to assume people were shorter in 2005/2006 than they are today.

lol you are the one who is naive and deluded.

height of players a couple of centimetres taller than those 10 years ago is FACT.

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sc...rs-dominate-modern-tennis-20140702-zstdq.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/sports/tennis/growth-in-tennis-tape-measure-is-telling.html?_r=0

you look at top 10 in 2005, there are 2 players at a mere 175cm (gaudio/coria shorter than ferrer)
3 players at 180cm (agassi/nalby/hewitt only taller than ferrer and nishikori, and shorter than everybody else in the current top 10).
tallest top 10 back then was safin (3 cm shorter than berdych)

facts show you are indeed deluded.

to think its not harder to lob a guy 3-5 cm taller, means you need to go back to primary school physics class.

 

[PeterHo]

And here's a lob from Djokovic, Federer was actually close to smashing it back into play. Remember all Tipsarevic could do is watch it sail over his head, better disguise and placement too.

well federer is 5cm taller than tipsy right?

thats significant. while tipsy is considered short in today's standard, and federer only average height.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

lol you are the one who is naive and deluded.

height of players a couple of centimetres taller than those 10 years ago is FACT.

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sc...rs-dominate-modern-tennis-20140702-zstdq.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/sports/tennis/growth-in-tennis-tape-measure-is-telling.html?_r=0

you look at top 10 in 2005, there are 2 players at a mere 175cm (gaudio/coria shorter than ferrer)
3 players at 180cm (agassi/nalby/hewitt only taller than ferrer and nishikori, and shorter than everybody else in the current top 10).
tallest top 10 back then was safin (3 cm shorter than berdych)

facts show you are indeed deluded.

to think its not harder to lob a guy 3-5 cm taller, means you need to go back to primary school physics class.

Height doesn't matter as the idea of the lob is to put the shot entirely out of reach. Even if a guy was 10 foot, there's no way he'd get to Hewitt's lob I showed.

Gaudio and Coria aren't shorter than Ferrer. They're the same height and they were considered "short" then.

Tallest top 10 was Safin? How is that even a bad thing, lol? You act like having giants at the top of the game is a good thing. Newsflash: it isn't.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

well federer is 5cm taller than tipsy right?

thats significant. while tipsy is considered short in today's standard, and federer only average height.

LOL, did you really just say that?

Even if Hewitt's opponent was 10 foot, he wouldn't have returned the shot. A few cms isn't going to be do or die when you come up against a shot like that.

 

[PeterHo]

Height doesn't matter as the idea of the lob is to put the shot entirely out of reach. Even if a guy was 10 foot, there's no way he'd get to Hewitt's lob I showed.

Gaudio and Coria aren't shorter than Ferrer. They're the same height and they were considered "short" then.

Tallest top 10 was Safin? How is that even a bad thing, lol? You act like having giants at the top of the game is a good thing. Newsflash: it isn't.

so now you have to admit the guys now are taller, right? LOL.

in fact its about 3-5cm taller, on average.

its rare that lobs get executed that perfectly. against taller players, the margin becomes less...

and there's a lot more mental pressure trying to lob a taller guy...

ask any real tennis player and he will tell you lobbing a taller guy is just tougher...

to say height doesn't matter in terms of lobs, you are indeed deluded. no facts will convince an irrational fan like you.

 

[Djokovic2011]

You are an idiot if you believe Nole's lob is better than Hewitt's.

Your height doesn't really matter that much. He's lobbed Roddick to death, and if he's considered "average" today (laughable argument by the way as this is as false as it comes) he could still lob the crap out of guys his height. Perhaps even someone like Djokovic who is terrible at the net.

Forgot to add that height averages don't increase over a 10 year span like that either, and you'd be deluded to believe so. Sure, people in the 60's were on "average" shorter than people today, but it's quite stupid to assume people were shorter in 2005/2006 than they are today.

Lol, he's really not that bad you know Saby.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

so now you have to admit the guys now are taller, right? LOL.

in fact its about 3-5cm taller, on average.

its rare that lobs get executed that perfectly. against taller players, the margin becomes less...

and there's a lot more mental pressure trying to lob a taller guy...

ask any real tennis player and he will tell you lobbing a taller guy is just tougher...

to say height doesn't matter in terms of lobs, you are indeed deluded. no facts will convince an irrational fan like you.

I don't believe players are taller today. Even Karlovic was on tour 10 years ago, lol.

It's rare that lobs get executed that perfectly because Hewitt is the best at it.. Simple as that. No "deluded" irrational argument based around falsified statistics is going to convince me or anybody sensible who has followed tennis for more than 5 years.

I don't really see how lobbing a taller guy is "tougher" when you put enough pace/enough disguise on the shot to pull it off. Like I've said though, Hewitt's lobbed Roddick to death in their matches (and since he's the 'average' which is kind of laughable, we'll use him). How do you think he went 6-1 against him until injuries ruined his career?

To even suggest Novak's lob is above Hewitt, or even Murray's is highly deluded and shows where your actual argument(s) lie.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Lol, he's really not that bad you know Saby.

Not as bad as Roddick, but still. He's not the greatest at the net.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Not as bad as Roddick, but still. He's not the greatest at the net.

I never said he was the greatest but I certainly wouldn't say he's terrible either. I've actually seen him pull off some sublime volleys over the years but I'm the first to admit that he's not that comfortable at the net and can be very hit and miss.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I never said he was the greatest but I certainly wouldn't say he's terrible either. I've actually seen him pull off some sublime volleys over the years but I'm the first to admit that he's not that comfortable at the net and can be very hit and miss.

Just so you know I was only saying that in response to the silly argument I was presented with.

I can admit Novak has a great lob, one of the best in the game currently and one of the greatest lobs of all time, but I don't think he's better than Hewitt at it. He is better at everything else besides the volley and lob, and I can freely admit that.

 

[PeterHo]

Not as bad as Roddick, but still. He's not the greatest at the net.

lol you just contradicted yourself.

to say roddick is bad at the net, then praise hewitt for lobbing him to death....

haha you are hilarious.

so hewitt kept lobbing a guy who is bad at the net, and he has the best lob ever.

you've got a convincing argument there.

to just show a few clips showing his successful lobs is not that great an argument. you need statistics in quantity. how many lobs he executed, how many failed, etc.

i can easily find clips where his lobs failed miserably.

i've never suggested that nole's lob is better. i said its not comparable. he doesn't even need it given the lack of serve and volleyers. tennis has changed.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Just so you know I was only saying that in response to the silly argument I was presented with.

I can admit Novak has a great lob, one of the best in the game currently and one of the greatest lobs of all time, but I don't think he's better than Hewitt at it. He is better at everything else besides the volley and lob, and I can freely admit that.

Haha, it's funny you know because I actually disagree with you there as I don't think Djokovic's lob is one of the greatest by any stretch of the imagination and isn't even close to being on the same level as Hewitt's. I sure wish it was though!