Novak fans, do you think there has been a player you have watched that is superior to him ? If yes why ?

What say you Nolefam

  • No, he is the best player I have seen

    Votes: 36 50.0%
  • Yes, Fraud is slightly better

    Votes: 17 23.6%
  • No, but he might be tied with another

    Votes: 3 4.2%
  • Yes, Ralph is slightly better.

    Votes: 9 12.5%
  • All the big 3 are tied

    Votes: 5 6.9%
  • Xyz is slightly better (specify)

    Votes: 2 2.8%

  • Total voters
    72

chimneysweep

Semi-Pro
Depends on the surface. Taking into account everything it's between him and Fed for the modern era for me. Second tier would be Nadal/Sampras/Lendl/Borg etc...
You put Lendl on par with Nadal, Sampras, and Borg? I would think he is more third tier with Connors, McEnroe, and Agassi. I probably have Connors over him actually (and Mcenroe is certainly more talented).
 

chimneysweep

Semi-Pro
I think Lendl would do as well as Djokovic and Nadal on the new grass. On clay and HC he's obviously on the level of Djokovic overall imo.
I think he might do as well as Nadal on the new grass, although even that is iffy IMO. No way he does as well as Djokovic, 5 Wimbledon titles and counting IMO. If anything I think Connors is the one who might do as well as Djokovic on the new grass, not Lendl. He returns much better than Lendl, and came to the net a lot for a baseliner, and also had those flat strokes which are more effective on grass.

His record at the U.S Open is already similar to Djokovic for now , but in no way would he ever do as well at the Australian Open which he got lucky to even win twice (only won in 1990 since Edberg was injured in final).
 

Ann

Hall of Fame
OMG will you people go to YouTube and watch about 150 complete matches from 2004 to 2015.

Then and only then will you realize how ridiculous this thread is.
 

chimneysweep

Semi-Pro
Watch this. Wimbledon '19 is lightning fast in comparison.
and while on fast grass he got drubbed in straight sets by Pat Cash of all people in a Wimbledon final at his absolute peak. I think he could definitely win a Wimbledon title today at some point, but I would not exagerrate how well he could do on modern grass either. He does not return like Agassi, Djojkovic, or even Murray, and he isnt the athlete Nadal or Djokovic is. Not really a good volleyer, or that natural even moving let alone adapting on grass.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
I think Lendl would do as well as Djokovic and Nadal on the new grass. On clay and HC he's obviously on the level of Djokovic overall imo.
But we've already seen how he would do on the new grass. Look at the matches with him and Wilander, Cash and Edberg at AO. Look at how the kooyong grass played there and compare it to Wimbledon in this era. Pretty similar but AO actually looked a bit slower.
 

chimneysweep

Semi-Pro
How confident is the general Nolefam members with Sampras vs Djokovic at the USO? Say out of 5 matches.

@NoleFam

I think Sampras might be Djokovic's worst match up at the U.S Open including Federer (and he didnt even beat or meet prime Federer that much there). He rushes you and doesnt give you rythym which are the two things Djokovic hates most. His serve is also great enough to fully negate the amazing Djokovic return. As Sampras vs Agassi proves the best servers > the best returners.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ann

KG1965

Legend
Only Open Era:

Red clay
Nadal and Borg

Grass
Federer, Sampras, McEnroe, Laver

HC
Federer

Indoor
Laver and McEnroe

All surfaces: only Federer
All surfaces peak: Laver 1969-70, Borg 1979-80, McEnroe 1984
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Only Open Era:

Red clay
Nadal and Borg

Grass
Federer, Sampras, McEnroe, Laver

HC
Federer

Indoor
Laver and McEnroe

All surfaces: only Federer
All surfaces peak: Laver 1969-70, Borg 1979-80, McEnroe 1984
What is this crap? Why do all of your lists be so far off from the truth? McEnroe was great on grass but he was no Borg, and Federer is not alone on hardcourt. Djokovic is nipping his heels and with a strong chance to surpass every hardcourt record ever.
 

KG1965

Legend
What is this crap? Why do all of your lists be so far off from the truth? McEnroe was great on grass but he was no Borg, and Federer is not alone on hardcourt. Djokovic is nipping his heels and with a strong chance to surpass every hardcourt record ever.
On grass McEnroe 1984 has no rivals.
John was > Borg also in 1980-81 ...
*)
In 1980 Borg won at W but John was stronger than swedish for me.
In 1981 John won without too much story because he was unbeatable for the swede. Too much stronger.

What are you saying ?
But did you see them play?
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
On grass McEnroe 1984 has no rivals.
It was> Borg also in 1980-81 ...
What are you saying ?
But did you see them play?
Oh great. Mythical peak 1984 McEnroe has no rivals so that means he is ranked over the guy who won it 5 straight times and who he is 1-1 against in finals. Not even in an alternate universe would this be true. That is Borg's era on grass and then everyone else. Yea I watched the full matches from this time so did you actually watch them?
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
What is this crap? Why do all of your lists be so far off from the truth? McEnroe was great on grass but he was no Borg, and Federer is not alone on hardcourt. Djokovic is nipping his heels and with a strong chance to surpass every hardcourt record ever.
What is your problem ? It is his opinion who he considers as the greatest . And this thread is not strictly about achievements.
 

Born_to_slice

Professional
and while on fast grass he got drubbed in straight sets by Pat Cash of all people in a Wimbledon final at his absolute peak. I think he could definitely win a Wimbledon title today at some point, but I would not exagerrate how well he could do on modern grass either. He does not return like Agassi, Djojkovic, or even Murray, and he isnt the athlete Nadal or Djokovic is. Not really a good volleyer, or that natural even moving let alone adapting on grass.
Hard to tell how player from different era with different technology would do today. If somehow transported to today's game without adjustments I doubt he'd make top 100 really.
 

KG1965

Legend
Oh great. Mythical peak 1984 McEnroe has no rivals so that means he is ranked over the guy who won it 5 straight times and who he is 1-1 against in finals. Not even in an alternate universe would this be true. That is Borg's era on grass and then everyone else. Yea I watched the full matches from this time so did you actually watch them?
Arguing that Borg is > Mac on grass because 5 > 3 makes me laugh. **
** Among other things Borg was very strong on american HC, at the level of Connors and Mac even though he lost.
You haven't read the question: there has been a player you have watched that is superior to him ?

Federer and Sampras are the tops even if they won 2 Wimbledons for their level of play.
Even Becker > Borg on grass.
End of the our discussion.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Arguing that Borg is > Mac on grass because 5 > 3 makes me laugh.
You haven't read the question: there has been a player you have watched that is superior to him ?

Federer and Sampras are the tops even if they won 2 Wimbledons for their level of play.
Even Becker > Borg on grass.
End of the our discussion.
Becker > Borg on grass? Lmao. Ok now you are just trolling so I see where this is going. Everybody has opinions but yours are always too wrapped in bias. You leave out stats for some players and then add them for other players to make them appear superior. I shouldn't be surprised at this.
 

KG1965

Legend
Becker > Borg on grass? Lmao. Ok now you are just trolling so I see where this is going. Everybody has opinions but yours are always too wrapped in bias. You leave out stats for some players then add them for other players to make them appear superior. I shouldn't be surprised at this.
You are not very prepared. Can you do any better.
 

hipolymer

Hall of Fame
Based on consistency, no. Based on peak tennis, Safin and Federer have higher peaks. Wawrinka, Del Potro and Nadal are about tied with Djokovic in their peaks.


Past greats: Kuerten has higher clay peak, Sampras has higher indoor and grass peak. Wooden racket era I won't talk about as it's a different sport
 

powerangle

Legend
Everyone (especially the truly elite) have great days when they look nigh on untouchable and bad days when they look terrible (relatively speaking). So I'm just going by peak for peak.

Peak Federer was the best I've seen on grass with his combination of serving, movement, and lethal forehand and strong net play. Always loved the fluidity of his movement as well. He's probably the best on hard courts as well.

Nadal was/is a monster on clay of course and his defensive retriver skill is second to none. His "banana shots" are also awesome to see. How he threads the unbelievable passing shots are a sight to behold.

Djokovic has had some great displays as well with a good balance of offensive and defensive brilliance. IMO, his peak is a bit below Federer's but his trump card is his ability to win matches. A remarkable tennis machine.

Safin had a few really high level peaking matches but unfortunately those were few and far between.
 

Red Rick

Talk Tennis Guru
"Hardly ever comes in" according to people who don't watch him play matches unless it's against their favorite.

The actual stats tell a different story. Djokovic played 1545 total points at Wimbledon this year, and came to net 230 times, winning 170 of those points. That's good for a 15% net approach rate, and 74% net points won.
For comparison, Fed came in 256 times on 1572 points, and won 203 of those net points. This is a 16% approach rate with a 79% success rate. 1% higher approach rate than Novak despite having a better serve, giving him a better chance of attacking.

In short, Djokovic comes to net 1% less than Federer, who should be our frame of reference. Wow, what a humongous difference! Unless you mean to tell me Fed also "hardly ever comes in"
Begone, you and your facts
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Exactly. It is me asking. This thread is asking if somebody has seen better players than Novak. And what exactly is you issue with his opinions. You have yours and he has his.
I think he can answer for himself without your help. The fact that he thinks even if Novak breaks the Slam record, he still needs multiple more Slams to be greater than Federer shows his bias. Not surprised to see you, someone who thinks Djokodal need 26 Slams to be the greatest, are running to his rescue. So I don't even expect him or you for that matter to have a fair opinion in regards to Djokovic. The topic is about Borg and how he trying to rate McEnroe and Becker over him which is ridiculous, and he has alluded to this before without talking in regards to a peak level.
 

Ann

Hall of Fame
The greatest player bandwagoner fans have ever seen is the one they jumped on the ATP bandwagon for... I'M SHOCKED, SHOCKED, I SAY!
 

Ann

Hall of Fame
Are you still in high school? What an odd question.
No I graduated high school in 1981 and college in 1985 and it's not an odd question. How the hell could someone post such **** that no one would ever like anything they say? I fight and argue with everyone, have 2/3rds of the board on ignore and still have more likes than posts. I have to read over your posts. I'm actually fascinated now.
 

Poisoned Slice

Bionic Poster
No I graduated high school in 1981 and college in 1985 and it's not an odd question. How the hell could someone post such **** that no one would ever like anything they say? I fight and argue with everyone, have 2/3rds of the board on ignore and still have more likes than posts. I have to read over your posts. I'm actually fascinated now.
Don't forget to have a look at when he joined. The dastardly like system had not been introduced even when I joined. Some time in 2015 we got likes.
 

Ann

Hall of Fame
Don't forget to have a look at when he joined. The dastardly like system had not been introduced even when I joined. Some time in 2015 we got likes.
That's still 4 years and he's posted a lot in the last 4 years... but ok he's averaging 70 likes a year.
 
Novak’s problem is that he didn’t ascend to #1 until 2011, when he was already 24 years old, by which point Federer’s level had already dropped off a cliff. Federer had already started to lose in slams against 2nd tier guys like Delpo, Berdych, and Tsonga that he used to destroy when he was in his prime. That made it feel to most observers like Djokovic got to the top spot only due to Federer’s decline.

Then he let Murray take him out in 2 slam finals, something that never happened to Federer.
 

ompluscator

New User
Then and only then will you realize how ridiculous this thread is.
So, why don't you leave this ridiculous thread and continue watching matches on youtube or write some comments anywhere else where you can pick even more likes than you have right now?

Don't worry, we can live without you. We could live without tennis before 2015, we can live without your posts as well.
 

RaulRamirez

Hall of Fame
For me he is the best player I've ever seen. But not the greatest.
I see a lot of "GOAT" and "BOAT" here, and with respect to other sports. How do you distinguish between the two?

For example, as an NFL fan, I've been watching football a long time, and Aaron Rodgers is the best QB I've ever seen, though achievement-wise, team achievement-wise, he won't be able to top Tom Brady.

I'm not sure one can do the same with an individual sport such as tennis. When all's said and done, it could be that Novak has the greatest achievements, and Roger the best combination of skills. And then there's Rafa who can hang in either category.
 
Last edited:

ompluscator

New User
Novak’s problem is that he didn’t ascend to #1 until 2011, when he was already 24 years old, by which point Federer’s level had already dropped off a cliff. Federer had already started to lose in slams against 2nd tier guys like Delpo, Berdych, and Tsonga that he used to destroy when he was in his prime. That made it feel to most observers like Djokovic got to the top spot only due to Federer’s decline.

Then he let Murray take him out in 2 slam finals, something that never happened to Federer.
I would not call it problem. Federer became No1 when we was 23, and Nadal when he was 22. For 3-4 years, before he was No1, only Nadal and Federer were better ranked, so, only ATGs.

Story about Federer "declining" prior to 2011 is, to me, total nonsense. He wasn't declining, but younger player (Novak, Murray, Delpo) were emerging, plus Nadal as already emerged. I mean, it would be silly to say that player, accepted as GOAT from majority, started to decline when he was 27, 28, 29. Short domination, right?

And regarding Murray beating Novak. From some point yes, I still think those 2 GS should be something that Novak had to win. And if there is something that I can call as his problem, that would be those 2 slams.

And regarding topic, there is one player I've always afraid, as Novak's fan - Wawrinka at GS. Nadal on RG has beaten Novak many times, but when clay season starts, that's totally other sport, because of Nadal, so my expectations are different. But in general, taking most of the tournaments, I'm only worried when it comes to Novak matches with Stan.
 

chimneysweep

Semi-Pro
Novak’s problem is that he didn’t ascend to #1 until 2011, when he was already 24 years old, by which point Federer’s level had already dropped off a cliff. Federer had already started to lose in slams against 2nd tier guys like Delpo, Berdych, and Tsonga that he used to destroy when he was in his prime. That made it feel to most observers like Djokovic got to the top spot only due to Federer’s decline.
That is kind of silly logic when Nadal had already been #1 most of the previous 3 years at that point anyway.
 
Top