Nole 171 weeks at #1 moves him to fifth all-time

[Gary20]

Nole leads Agassi in these categories
Slams
Wtf
Masters
No.1
H2h against ATGs

Agassi leads in
Career slam ie.RG
Olympic gold

I don't see how Agassi is greater overall. Being mostly the 2nd best player in his prime is a big knock on him.

Winning career golden slam is a significant achievement, but is that really greater than somebody who has the better record in EVERY other department?

Let's have a look at fedal
Fed
Slams
WTF
No.1

Nadal
Olympic gold
H2h
Masters

The difference between Nole agassi is greater than fedal, so is even less debatable.

I think you may need to check your stats. Nadal leads Djokovic in practically everything. Slams, Olympic Gold, CGS, H2H and Masterrs!! So does Federer.

For Djokovic being mostly the no..3 in his prime is worse than being no.2 as Agassi was.

Agassi has CGS, that automatically puts him ahead of Djokovic.

 

[reaper]

Djokovic is greater than Agassi and frankly it's not close. Agassi received considerable good fortune in two of his Australian Open wins. One where he was down two sets to one and a break against Rafter with the match all but over before Rafter was completely immobilized by cramp allowing Agassi to seize the win then play a very soft final against Grosjean or Clemente (I can't remember which).
In the other he played the lowly ranked Schuttler in the final when that side of the draw fell away due to a marathon match between Roddick and El Anoui. Djokovic already has more Slam titles, more weeks at number one, and looks a long way from finished.

 

[PeterHo]

I think you may need to check your stats. Nadal leads Djokovic in practically everything. Slams, Olympic Gold, CGS, H2H and Masterrs!! So does Federer.

For Djokovic being mostly the no..3 in his prime is worse than being no.2 as Agassi was.

Agassi has CGS, that automatically puts him ahead of Djokovic.

I think u need to read more carefully what I wrote, or learn more English.

Nole is 4 years no.1 Agassi just 1. Huge difference.

And so sharapovas CGS automatically puts her above the likes of Venus, henin, hingis, seles??? Really??

 

[mbm0912]

I am successful enough to have a secretary type for me so my typing skills are nowhere near as good as tennis skills. However i cant dictate my replies for her to type as she has other stuff to do.

One day you may get a secretary. Good luck.

I have a secretary. You're good at tennis?

 

[timnz]

He is behind Rafa!!! A long way as well!

Nadal definitely still ahead - but it is getting very close.

If you analyse their mutual achievements at all events that are 500 level and above. Djokovic is basically only about 3% or 4% behind in career achievment.


Everything that in today's terms you can earn 500 points and above per event is counted:

REMEMBER: There is no agreed weighting of events. In this forum I have tried to get an agreed weightings but opinions as to the weighting vary greatly. The best I can do is use the current ATP weightings. Everytime I post these rankings people disagree with the weightings, but what can I do? - there is no agreed standard beyond the ATP weightings. Also note that this table doesn't represent 'Greatness' which is a subjective term. It simply represents an objective list of the achievements of open era players weighted at current ATP weightings.

For ease I have reduced the weighting points down by a factor of 1000 eg Slams are worth 2 instead of their ATP 2000.

Scale is: (SV x 2) + (SEFNL x 1.5) + (SEFOL x 1.3) + (SEFRUNL x 1) + (SRU x 1.2) + (TOP9 x 1) + (TOP9RU x 0.60) + (SEFRUOL x 0.80) + (OSG x 0.75) + (SSF x 0.72) + (SEFSFNL x 0.60) + (500S x 0.50)

Nadal = (14 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (6 x 1.2) + (27 x 1) + (14 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (1 x 0.75) + (3 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (16 x 0.50) = 83.51

Djokovic = (10 x 2) + (3 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (25 x 1) + (12 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (10 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (12 x 0.50) = 80.8

• Slam Victories (SV) 2000 ATP points
• Slam Runner-ups (SRU) 1200 ATP points
• Slam Semi-finals (SSF) 720 ATP points
• Season end final victories with no loss before the final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFNL) 1500 ATP points
• Season end final victories with one loss before the final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFOL) 1300 ATP points
• Season end final runner-ups with no loss before the final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFRUNL) 1000 ATP points
• Season end final runner-ups with one loss before the final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFRUOL) 800 ATP points
• Season end final semi-finals with no loss before the semi-final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFSFNL) ATP 600 points
• Masters 1000 equivalent victories (we will call (Top 9)) ATP 1000 points
• Masters 1000 equivalent runner-ups (TOP9RU) ATP 600 points
• Olympic Gold Metal Singles (OSG) ATP 750 points
• 500 Series equivalents (500S) ATP 500 points

 

[xFedal]

Right! He's different and is going to do things ATGs before him haven't done. Does he have some kind of alien DNA or something? Never get too cocky. Players have ups and downs as they age and Djokovic will be no different. Less than a year ago some of his biggest fans were saying he was done winning non-AO slams. Some of you people are hilarious and so fickle. Predicting what's going to happen six months in tennis is nearly impossible let alone a couple of years.

In the last 6 years Fed has won 2 slams, I don't expect Novak to have such a downfall like Fed did winning 2 slams in 6 Years. Nadal hasn't done anything worthy of note since turning 29 so I its less likely he will do much at Feds age.

 

[xFedal]

you mean you expect him not to be affected by the reality of ageing? Unlike every other human being?

I do expect the reality of ageing to hit him, but not like it hit Fed who only won 2 slams in last 6 years. I don't think Novak will perform worse than that. Age will hit him gracefully.

 

[cc0509]

In the last 6 years Fed has won 2 slams, I don't expect Novak to have such a downfall like Fed did winning 2 slams in 6 Years. Nadal hasn't done anything worthy of note since turning 29 so I its less likely he will do much at Feds age.

What you "expect" and what will probably happen could be very different things.

 

[PeterHo]

At the moment, I don't think novAK is close.

He is 4 slams behind nadal. Now that is already 2 years behind, if noLe wins 2 slams in each of next two years.

He is also down in Olympic gold and FO.

That is a significant gap.

The only plus for Nole ATM is WTF and no.1. No.1 he is 4 and nadal on 3. Combine these two stats might be worth 1 slam.

When he gets to 13, then the debate can begin.

 

[timnz]

What about Djokovic's 4 WTF's compared to zero for Nadal and Djokovic's 2 extra slam runner-ups? Yes, Djokovic is behind but the gap is a lot smaller than you are indicating. If you use the ATP POINTS - Djokovic's 4 WTF wins total 5800 points vs 750 points for Nadal's Olympic gold. See 5 postings earlier in this thread to get the full breakdown

 

[jm1980]

Borg and Sampras have no Career Slam, but nobody in their right minds would put them behind Agassi in the ATG list

Also OSG, really? Great achievement this one, won by the likes of Nicolas Massu and Marc Rosset

 

[PeterHo]

What about Djokovic's 4 WTF's compared to zero for Nadal and Djokovic's 2 extra slam runner-ups? Yes, Djokovic is behind but the gap is a lot smaller than you are indicating. If you use the ATP POINTS - Djokovic's 4 WTF wins total 5800 points vs 750 points for Nadal's Olympic gold. See 5 postings earlier in this thread to get the full breakdown

I know points wise Olympic gold is worth 750, but that doesn't really mean its a lesser tournament than a masters 1000.

The debate is how much specific achievements are worth? Prestige and difficulty wise?

In my view, the Olympic gold is probably as important as a grand slam, and arguably even more. It is a much more prestigious tournament than the WTF. Given that it runs only once every 4 years, it is extremely difficult to get. See federer and Djokovic, two ATGs who haven't been able to win it once.

While 4 WTFs are great, how many of these are required to be as worthy as a single grand slam? 2,3 or 4??

Combined with the fact nadal is still leading total masters 1000, the WTFs are canceled out against the gold.

As to the extra ye no.1, that's cancelled out by the CGS. One can argue the CGS is worth even more than that.

So with everything else more or less cancelled out, Nole is still behind by 4 slams.
Atm it is not close.

But things can chanGe quickly.

If Nole wins FO and gold next year, then he will be very close. If he also wins WTF this yr, another slam next yr and finish 2016 no.1, then he will be on par with Rafa. Anything more will give him the edge.

 

[BlueB]

While 4 WTFs are great, how many of these are required to be as worthy as a single grand slam? 2,3 or 4??

4 WTFs = 3 slams. It's a pretty simple math.
So when you cancel those out, Nole is 1 slam behind.

 

[Noleberic123]

Yep, lets see. 200 is probably sealed already, but he needs to fight for other 102.

I would say 102 after that is possible.

 

[timnz]

I know points wise Olympic gold is worth 750, but that doesn't really mean its a lesser tournament than a masters 1000.

The debate is how much specific achievements are worth? Prestige and difficulty wise?

In my view, the Olympic gold is probably as important as a grand slam, and arguably even more. It is a much more prestigious tournament than the WTF. Given that it runs only once every 4 years, it is extremely difficult to get. See federer and Djokovic, two ATGs who haven't been able to win it once.

While 4 WTFs are great, how many of these are required to be as worthy as a single grand slam? 2,3 or 4??

Combined with the fact nadal is still leading total masters 1000, the WTFs are canceled out against the gold.

As to the extra ye no.1, that's cancelled out by the CGS. One can argue the CGS is worth even more than that.

So with everything else more or less cancelled out, Nole is still behind by 4 slams.
Atm it is not close.

But things can chanGe quickly.

If Nole wins FO and gold next year, then he will be very close. If he also wins WTF this yr, another slam next yr and finish 2016 no.1, then he will be on par with Rafa. Anything more will give him the edge.

I think the opposite about the Olympics. Since it is only every 4 years it is just a matter of who is at their peak at the time the Olympics come around. If someone hasn't won the Wtf When they have an opportunity to win it every year....well that lack of a wtf win when you have had so many opportunities is more glaring. If you look at th Olympic event the only thing different from a masters 1000 is that there is a 5 set final. It is a prestigious event - yes, but no where as hard to win as a wtf

 

[PeterHo]

I think the opposite about the Olympics. Since it is only every 4 years it is just a matter of who is at their peak at the time the Olympics come around. If someone hasn't won the Wtf When they have an opportunity to win it every year....well that lack of a wtf win when you have had so many opportunities is more glaring. If you look at th Olympic event the only thing different from a masters 1000 is that there is a 5 set final. It is a prestigious event - yes, but no where as hard to win as a wtf

Yes lack of a WTF is poor. But having an Olympics is also a huge bonus.

The no. Of players who have won Olympics is way less than the no. Of players winning WTF.

Besides, there is a term coined career golden slam. There is no such thing as career WTF slam. This shows the differenCE in prestige.

There is really no way a WTF or a masters is as prestigious as an Olympic. Ask anybody and he would say Olympics is more important. Also, WTF is only competed between 8 players, making the tournament irrelevant to most on tour.

Just ask Murray, who thinks Davis cup is an even more important than WTF this year. Wtf in essence, is just another masters tournament, and arguably easier given that there are less players to contend with, while regular masters 1000 includes many more than just the top 8. The lack of 5set play also takes away the difficulty and prestige. So, there is a good argument that even the Davis cup is more important than the WTF. At least that is out of 5 sets.

The fact that WTF allows a loser (can lose up to TWO matches) to win the whole thing also makes it easier than a regular masters. The only thing which makes it more important than a master is the prestige. But in terms of difficulty, one could easily say a certain master tourny is more difficult to win.

 

[PeterHo]

4 WTFs = 3 slams. It's a pretty simple math.
So when you cancel those out, Nole is 1 slam behind.

If you count WTFs, you can't not count the masters. And rafas lead in masters is worth a couple of slams too.

Obviously Nole has a great chance to overtake him in the next few years, but ATM its too early to compare them.

 

[timnz]

Yes lack of a WTF is poor. But having an Olympics is also a huge bonus.

The no. Of players who have won Olympics is way less than the no. Of players winning WTF.

Besides, there is a term coined career golden slam. There is no such thing as career WTF slam. This shows the differenCE in prestige.

There is really no way a WTF or a masters is as prestigious as an Olympic. Ask anybody and he would say Olympics is more important. Also, WTF is only competed between 8 players, making the tournament irrelevant to most on tour.

Just ask Murray, who thinks Davis cup is an even more important than WTF this year. Wtf in essence, is just another masters tournament, and arguably easier given that there are less players to contend with, while regular masters 1000 includes many more than just the top 8. The lack of 5set play also takes away the difficulty and prestige. So, there is a good argument that even the Davis cup is more important than the WTF. At least that is out of 5 sets.

The fact that WTF allows a loser (can lose up to TWO matches) to win the whole thing also makes it easier than a regular masters. The only thing which makes it more important than a master is the prestige. But in terms of difficulty, one could easily say a certain master tourny is more difficult to win.

See highlighted in Red. The reason for this is that there have been 45 WTF's and only 7 Olympics in the Open era. That doesn't make the event harder to win in itself....it just means that there are less of them.

Re. WTF - no-one in the entire history of the event has lost more than 1 match and gone on to win the event. It is obviously much harder to win than a Masters 1000 or an Olympics in itself - given the depth of opposition. To illustrate, in the 2008 Olympics Nadal only played one player in the top 10 to win. To win the WTF players play 5 matches against against players in the top 8 (and as I have said, no-one has won the event in 45 years losing more than 1 match).

 

[PeterHo]

See highlighted in Red. The reason for this is that there have been 45 WTF's and only 7 Olympics in the Open era. That doesn't make the event harder to win in itself....it just means that there are less of them.

Re. WTF - no-one in the entire history of the event has lost more than 1 match and gone on to win the event. It is obviously much harder to win than a Masters 1000 or an Olympics in itself - given the depth of opposition.

What depth of opposition?

Do you think WTF is then, harder to win than a grand slam? Do you know the field of a typical masters is similar to a grand slam? The WTf is in group format and allows losses, that more than balances any "depth of field" you talked about. The semis and finals of a WTF is no harder than a masters or a grand slam.

The fact that there are less opportunities to win Olympics ~ makes it harder to win. This is simple mathematical probability.

You ask a guy called murray, he feels a lot more obligated to win at the Olympics of London, than to win the WTF. For him, winning the olympic is more important. It is an individual achievement for the glory of the country.

As to the player who peaks during the Olympics, it is how it is. You don't see athletes in other sports complaining why Olympics is just once every four years. That makes It more prestigious.

 

[timnz]

What depth of opposition?

Do you think WTF is then, harder to win than a grand slam? Do you know the field of a typical masters is similar to a grand slam? The WTf is in group format and allows losses, that more than balances any "depth of field" you talked about. The semis and finals of a WTF is no harder than a masters or a grand slam.

The fact that there are less opportunities to win Olympics ~ makes it harder to win. This is simple mathematical probability.

You ask a guy called murray, he feels a lot more obligated to win at the Olympics of London, than to win the WTF. For him, winning the olympic is more important. It is an individual achievement for the glory of the country.

As to the player who peaks during the Olympics, it is how it is. You don't see athletes in other sports complaining why Olympics is just once every four years. That makes It more prestigious.

So Djokovic who has won 3 WTF's unbeaten and 1 additional WTF with 1 round robin loss - this performance of beating 19 top 8 players is less than Nadal beating 1 top 10 player in the 2008 Olympics? I don't think so.

 

[PeterHo]

So Djokovic who has won 3 WTF's unbeaten and 1 additional WTF with 1 round robin loss - this performance of beating 19 top 8 players is less than Nadal beating 1 top 10 player in the 2008 Olympics? I don't think so.

I wouldnt say its equivalent to 4WTFs, more like 2, in terms of difficulty and prestige.

Rmb WTF is a 3 set tournament, Set at a time where most of the top 8 guys are already tired and worn out. The guys ranked 5~8, are just happy to be there and don't bother trying. See WTF last yr

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I wouldnt say its equivalent to 4WTFs, more like 2, in terms of difficulty and prestige.

Rmb WTF is a 3 set tournament, Set at a time where most of the top 8 guys are already tired and worn out. The guys ranked 5~8, are just happy to be there and don't bother trying. See WTF last yr

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_at_the_1996_Summer_Olympics_–_Men's_singles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_at_the_2000_Summer_Olympics_–_Men's_singles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_at_the_2004_Summer_Olympics_–_Men's_singles

Tell me how these fields are any deeper than the WTF draws of the same years?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_ATP_Tour_World_Championships_–_Singles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Tennis_Masters_Cup_–_Singles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Tennis_Masters_Cup_–_Singles

 

[DerekNoleFam1]

Borg and Sampras have no Career Slam, but nobody in their right minds would put them behind Agassi in the ATG list

Also OSG, really? Great achievement this one, won by the likes of Nicolas Massu and Marc Rosset

You'd really be hard pressed to put Lendl and Connors behind Agassi as well, let alone Borg and Sampras.
Career Grand Slam was not even a word when the likes of Lendl were around, and not some trump card over everything else.
OG similarly is overrated, once every 4 years, and can be on any surface to suit the host country. (actually was surprised Brazil is on hard court and not clay).
And no, I won't retract these statements, even if Djoker wins both of them next year.

 

[DerekNoleFam1]

I think you may need to check your stats. Nadal leads Djokovic in practically everything. Slams, Olympic Gold, CGS, H2H and Masterrs!! So does Federer.

For Djokovic being mostly the no..3 in his prime is worse than being no.2 as Agassi was.

Agassi has CGS, that automatically puts him ahead of Djokovic.

How long was Agassi at Number 2?, without doing any research, I'd say less than Novak has been at that ranking.

 

[PeterHo]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_at_the_1996_Summer_Olympics_–_Men's_singles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_at_the_2000_Summer_Olympics_–_Men's_singles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_at_the_2004_Summer_Olympics_–_Men's_singles

Tell me how these fields are any deeper than the WTF draws of the same years?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_ATP_Tour_World_Championships_–_Singles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Tennis_Masters_Cup_–_Singles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Tennis_Masters_Cup_–_Singles

i have said nothing about the field being "deeper". it was timnz who said WTF field has more "DEPTH", which doesn't make sense given essentially the same top 8 players also participate in most masters, and of course the olympics and the slams.

olympics is pretty much the whole field. WTF is just top 8. the semis and finals should be the same top 4 players competing if they are not upset. while WTF has round robin against top 8 permitting a player to theoretically lose two matches but still alive in the tournament, olympics is actually tougher since there are more rounds and matches to win, in knock out format. one bad day in the WTF round robin does not equal to losing the tourny.
WTF difficulty wise is hardly more challenging than a standard masters 1000. it is more important than say cincinatti just because it is the year end tournament with more prestige to it.

the olympics is more difficult also because there's less opportunities to win the title. once in 4 years. that is tough.

Its the same as "the calendar year grand slam is mathematically 4 times as difficult than the 4 slams in a row" argument.

 

[PeterHo]

You'd really be hard pressed to put Lendl and Connors behind Agassi as well, let alone Borg and Sampras.
Career Grand Slam was not even a word when the likes of Lendl were around, and not some trump card over everything else.
OG similarly is overrated, once every 4 years, and can be on any surface to suit the host country. (actually was surprised Brazil is on hard court and not clay).
And no, I won't retract these statements, even if Djoker wins both of them next year.

yeah, no way borg or sampras is behind agassi.

yes agassi has 8 slams, has career golden slam, but that doesn't mean an extra 3+ slam titles.

sampras is on 14, he's head and shoulders above agassi given hes also dominated the h2h. not even a contest.

borg is on 11, and has been more dominant than agassi during his peak.if he was on 9 or 10 maybe its debatable. and 11 was a very high slam count in the 80s.

 

[StannisTheMannis]

I know points wise Olympic gold is worth 750, but that doesn't really mean its a lesser tournament than a masters 1000.

The debate is how much specific achievements are worth? Prestige and difficulty wise?

In my view, the Olympic gold is probably as important as a grand slam, and arguably even more. It is a much more prestigious tournament than the WTF. Given that it runs only once every 4 years, it is extremely difficult to get. See federer and Djokovic, two ATGs who haven't been able to win it once.

While 4 WTFs are great, how many of these are required to be as worthy as a single grand slam? 2,3 or 4??

Combined with the fact nadal is still leading total masters 1000, the WTFs are canceled out against the gold.

As to the extra ye no.1, that's cancelled out by the CGS. One can argue the CGS is worth even more than that.

So with everything else more or less cancelled out, Nole is still behind by 4 slams.
Atm it is not close.

But things can chanGe quickly.

If Nole wins FO and gold next year, then he will be very close. If he also wins WTF this yr, another slam next yr and finish 2016 no.1, then he will be on par with Rafa. Anything more will give him the edge.

novaks 4 wtfs are. It cancelled by 1

If you count WTFs, you can't not count the masters. And rafas lead in masters is worth a couple of slams too.

Obviously Nole has a great chance to overtake him in the next few years, but ATM its too early to compare them.

wtf. Novak trails Rafa by 2 masters titles? How the heck is that worth a couple of slams. You're delusional. 1 OG and 2 masters titles is not enough to overcome 4 WTF titles.

 

[timnz]

i have said nothing about the field being "deeper". it was timnz who said WTF field has more "DEPTH", which doesn't make sense given essentially the same top 8 players also participate in most masters, and of course the olympics and the slams.

olympics is pretty much the whole field. WTF is just top 8. the semis and finals should be the same top 4 players competing if they are not upset. while WTF has round robin against top 8 permitting a player to theoretically lose two matches but still alive in the tournament, olympics is actually tougher since there are more rounds and matches to win, in knock out format. one bad day in the WTF round robin does not equal to losing the tourny.
WTF difficulty wise is hardly more challenging than a standard masters 1000. it is more important than say cincinatti just because it is the year end tournament with more prestige to it.

the olympics is more difficult also because there's less opportunities to win the title. once in 4 years. that is tough.

Its the same as "the calendar year grand slam is mathematically 4 times as difficult than the 4 slams in a row" argument.

In the Olympics and most other tournaments the player doesn't play every other player in the field. They end up playing 6 Orr 7 guys - so often, like Nadal in 2008, they don't play that many top 10 players. In the wtf, top players are all they play. Yes the Olympics has become more prestigious since 2008, but as a pure tennis achievement of skill, it is no where close to a wtf

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

I would say 102 after that is possible.

Possible but unlikely.

 

[Nachiket Nolefam]

Possible but unlikely.

Everything is unlikely at the start, except if you are Federer, then getting past 14 slams when having 4 is very likely.

 

[TMF]

What gave you the impression that xFedal doesn't think the FO will be included in Djokovic's resume by the end of his career?

You can't give any slam title to any player in the future. He can assumed that Nole wins 5 FO titles for all I care. Lendl never won Wimbledon, Borg never won the USO and currently Murray hasn't won the AO. It's not a given that Nole will win the FO.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

You can't give any slam title to any player in the future. He can assumed that Nole wins 5 FO titles for all I care. Lendl never won Wimbledon, Borg never won the USO and currently Murray hasn't won the AO. It's not a given that Nole will win the FO.

Yes, but you can't write Djokovic off either because past players failed to complete the collection.

 

[TMF]

I don't count on him going down hill like federer or Nadal did when approaching 30

He could do better in his 30s or he could do worse. You never know because of too many variables - fitness, motivation, injured free, level of competition...

 

[TMF]

So? McEnroe has 7 Majors at W and USO, two of the big 3. Djokovic has 5. McEnroe therefore the greater player.

This thread has nothing to do with grand slam wins but the ranking which is another tennis achievement and important criteria in evaluating the players all time great.

Stay on topic.

 

[xFedal]

He could do better in his 30s or he could do worse. You never know because of too many variables - fitness, motivation, injured free, level of competition...

Is not safe to say he will more majors than both Fedal after the age of 27? Currently Fedal have 5 each after turning 27, Novak has 4.

 

[Gary20]

This thread has nothing to do with grand slam wins but the ranking which is another tennis achievement and important criteria in evaluating the players all time great.

Stay on topic.

Agasi is the greater player by a distance. That on topic enough?

 

[Gary20]

How long was Agassi at Number 2?, without doing any research, I'd say less than Novak has been at that ranking.

Thats the point. Djokovic is the greatest bridesmaid off all time in tennis. Always never quite achieves his goals. Agassi got all his.

 

[DerekNoleFam1]

Thats the point. Djokovic is the greatest bridesmaid off all time in tennis. Always never quite achieves his goals. Agassi got all his.

8/15 is a lower conversion rate than 10/18, (Agassi vs Djoker in Slam finals), so point not valid.
And Agassi was completely dominated by Sampras, nobody has dominated Djoker.

 

[Talker]

i have said nothing about the field being "deeper". it was timnz who said WTF field has more "DEPTH", which doesn't make sense given essentially the same top 8 players also participate in most masters, and of course the olympics and the slams.

olympics is pretty much the whole field. WTF is just top 8. the semis and finals should be the same top 4 players competing if they are not upset. while WTF has round robin against top 8 permitting a player to theoretically lose two matches but still alive in the tournament, olympics is actually tougher since there are more rounds and matches to win, in knock out format. one bad day in the WTF round robin does not equal to losing the tourny.
WTF difficulty wise is hardly more challenging than a standard masters 1000. it is more important than say cincinatti just because it is the year end tournament with more prestige to it.

the olympics is more difficult also because there's less opportunities to win the title. once in 4 years. that is tough.

Its the same as "the calendar year grand slam is mathematically 4 times as difficult than the 4 slams in a row" argument.

With the WTF you can have a lucky day and beat the best player In the RR's, but it could turn out that you have to play that player again.
That makes it harder because you can't eliminate your competition as easy.

 

[GabeT]

I am successful enough to have a secretary type for me so my typing skills are nowhere near as good as tennis skills. However i cant dictate my replies for her to type as she has other stuff to do.

One day you may get a secretary. Good luck.

I bow before your trolling skills. The Force is strong with you.

 

[CYGS]

I think u need to read more carefully what I wrote, or learn more English.

Nole is 4 years no.1 Agassi just 1. Huge difference.

And so sharapovas CGS automatically puts her above the likes of Venus, henin, hingis, seles??? Really??

That's funny.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

That's funny.

Even funnier is how hard it seems to be for some players to get a career slam.

 

[xFedal]

Even funnier is how hard it seems to be for some players to get a career slam.

Feds last year end No.1 was at the same age Novak is at now.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Feds last year end No.1 was at the same age Novak is at now.

Thus historical precedent will be Novak's next big opponent.

 

[timnz]

8/15 is a lower conversion rate than 10/18, (Agassi vs Djoker in Slam finals), so point not valid.
And Agassi was completely dominated by Sampras, nobody has dominated Djoker.

How much did Sampras dominate Agassi at the Australian open? Even overall how is 20-14 complete domination?

 

[PeterHo]

In the Olympics and most other tournaments the player doesn't play every other player in the field. They end up playing 6 Orr 7 guys - so often, like Nadal in 2008, they don't play that many top 10 players. In the wtf, top players are all they play. Yes the Olympics has become more prestigious since 2008, but as a pure tennis achievement of skill, it is no where close to a wtf

by your statement, you could argue WTF is harder to win than a grand slam, because you won't be playing that many top players.

which obviously isn't.

The pressure is different.

Look at Murray of 2012 olympics, with the whole crowd behind him, the pressure of winning that thing, is greater than anybody has had at the O2.

novaks 4 wtfs are. It cancelled by 1

wtf. Novak trails Rafa by 2 masters titles? How the heck is that worth a couple of slams. You're delusional. 1 OG and 2 masters titles is not enough to overcome 4 WTF titles.

right, i have not been up to date with nole's masters wins this year. Still, Nole is very far away without FO. Thats a big hole in his resume, just like Federer having a poor H2h against rafa. Add to that a difference of 4 slams, that's like comparing Jim Courier vs a non-slammer.

Nole needs to get to 13 slams first to make it "close". and by that time he might have 2 more years no.1, in that case he will be more or less on par with nadal.

i'm confident he will surpass Nadal overall, but to say he is "close" at this moment in time, i disagree. He will need to have another great year.

 

[Druss]

I'd like to piggyback off this thread and add the corrected weeks at #1 (courtesy of @Slasher1985)

So Novak is actually 92 weeks behind Connors instead of 97.

He probably won't catch Connors regardless, but 200+ weeks is amazing considering people didn't expect him to even make it #1

It's amazing how over a five year period from 1998 to 2003 (which IMO 1996-2002 is the weakest period of the Open Era) there were 9 World No 1s. In comparison over a 12 year period (possibly longer) from 2004 to 2016 there are only 3 World No 1s.

Fedalovic will go down as 3 of the best 5 in Open Era, I have no doubt.

 

[Druss]

I think you may need to check your stats. Nadal leads Djokovic in practically everything. Slams, Olympic Gold, CGS, H2H and Masterrs!! So does Federer.

For Djokovic being mostly the no..3 in his prime is worse than being no.2 as Agassi was.

Agassi has CGS, that automatically puts him ahead of Djokovic.

You're wrong there, I'm no Djokovic fan, and was a bigtime Agassi fan. Just because Agassi has the CGS does not automatically put him ahead of Djokovic who passes Agassi in pretty much every other stat.

 

[Druss]

This week Nole has reached a total of 171 weeks at #1 that puts him ahead of McEnroe for 5th place.


Most Weeks at #1
1. Roger Federer 302
2. Pete Sampras 286
3. Ivan Lendl 270
4. Jimmy Connors 268
5. Novak Djokovic 171*
6. John McEnroe 170
7. Rafael Nadal 141
8. Björn Borg 109
9. Andre Agassi 101
10. Lleyton Hewitt 80

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/news/djokovic-171-weeks-no-1-emirates-atp-rankings

Djokovic has to do two more years at the top to reach Connors. It's challenging but realistic.

 

[Druss]

I do expect the reality of ageing to hit him, but not like it hit Fed who only won 2 slams in last 6 years. I don't think Novak will perform worse than that. Age will hit him gracefully.

At least Djokovic won't have to deal with 2 other ATGs in their prime while he's ageing gracefully.