Sampras 1993-1998 ERA v Djokovic 2011-2016 ERA

[chimpish]

@Pheasant @Borg Number One @Sampras Serve @Hitman @Martin J @Rosstour

Are they both eras? Undoubtedly both for me.
Who was more tour dominant? Discuss
Who had the toughest final opposition? Discuss
Who had the worse defeats? Discuss

I’d be grateful if you could remember to discuss and rate their achievements as to what actually happened during these years and not with an imaginary what if scenario for either era please. I’ve purposely tagged in people who I feel may have opposing views.

PS 1993-1998 v ND 2011-2016
PS V ND
Majors - 10 v 11
Major Split - (2A, 0F 5W, 3U) v (5A, 1R, 3W, 2U)
Major Finals - 11 v 18
Major Semi Finals - 14 v 22
1 Major Won Per Year - 2 v 3
2 Major Won Per Year - 4 v 1
3 Major Won Per Year - 0 v 2
Major Win Rate - 118-14 (89%) v 135-13 (92%)
Major Final Opps PS (Courier, Pioline, Martin, Goran, Becker, Agassi, Chang, Moyà, Pioline, Goran)
Major Final Opps ND (Murray, Nadal, Nadal, Nadal, Murray, Federer, Murray, Federer, Federer, Murray, Murray)
Major Defeats PS: (Edberg, Bruguera, Courier, Yzaga, Agassi, Schaller, Philippoussis, Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Norman, Korda, Kucera, Delgado, Rafter)
Major Defeats ND: (Federer, Nadal, Federer, Murray, Nadal, Murray, Nadal, Wawrinka, Nadal, Nishikori, Wawrinka, Querrey, Wawrinka)
Career Grand Slams - 0 v 1
ATP Finals - 3 v 4
Weeks as 1 - 252 v 223
Total Big Titles - 21 v 40
Big Title Split - (15H, 5G, 1C) v (29H, 8C, 3G)

Gaps to Closest Challenger(s)
PS v ND
Major +8 (Agassi,Brugera,Rafter) v +6 (Nadal)
Major Finals - +8 v +9
Weeks as 1 - +220 (Agassi) v +159 (Nadal)
Total Big Titles - +11 (Agassi) v +26 (Murray)

Both clear eras in my book, Pete more dominant as #1 with more weeks back and more of a major gap to his closest rival.

Novak with an extra major, way more major finals and major semi finals, a better major match win rate, an extra career grand slam, almost twice as many big titles, a wider surface split and far more dominance compared to his closest rival in terms of tour big titles.

 

[ForehandCross]

Novak played against Two GOATs.

Sampras played against Pioline. ROFLMAO.

 

[chimpish]

Novak played against Two GOATs.

Sampras played against Pioline. ROFLMAO.

Pete had some very good rivals too. Don’t forget I’ve only listed final opposition, for example in his first Wimbledon he beat Agassi and Becker before Courier. The routes varied in quality per major like it does for all 10+ major winning champs.

Djokovic final opposition that he beat is overall a level above for me. But QF, SF, F should be looked at to. It just would have looked very messy if I listed them all.

 

[Neptune]

Top5 wins 34 v 66
Top10 wins 72 v 140

Nole played Fed, Rafa, and Murray 80 times in those 6 years. Not sure who else could have handled that level of extreme grinding.

Total top5 top10 top32 matches in slams:
11, 21, 59 v 30, 47, 88 (Murray's numbers 19, 32, 69)

Murray would love to play in Pete's spot instead of facing the Big3 a total of 50 times in 6 years (Nole x28, Fed x11, Rafa x11), including 18 times at slams: Nole x10, Rafa x4, Fed x4.

 

[chimpish]

Top5 wins 34 v 66
Top10 wins 72 v 140

Nole played Fed, Rafa, and Murray 80 times in those 6 years. Not sure who else could have handled that level of extreme grinding.

Total top5 top10 top32 matches in slams:
11, 21, 59 v 30, 47, 88 (Murray's numbers 19, 32, 69)

Murray would love to play in Pete's spot instead of facing the Big3 a total of 50 times in 6 years (Nole x28, Fed x11, Rafa x11), including 18 times at slams: Nole x10, Rafa x4, Fed x4.

For the purpose of this particular thread please only discuss their achievements after the draws were made in their respective eras 93-98 and 11-16.

 

[GrassMasters]

Mugray lol

 

[chimpish]

Mugray lol

Was Murray better than Pioline, Goran, Chang, Moyà in your opinion? That’s the purpose of this thread, to discuss and compare.

 

[The Federest]

@Pheasant @Borg Number One @Sampras Serve @Hitman @Martin J @Rosstour

Are they both eras? Undoubtedly both for me.
Who was more tour dominant? Discuss
Who had the toughest final opposition? Discuss
Who had the worse defeats? Discuss

I’d be grateful if you could remember to discuss and rate their achievements as to what actually happened during these years and not with an imaginary what if scenario for either era please.

PS 1993-1998 v ND 2011-2016
PS V ND
Majors - 10 v 11
Major Split - (2A, 0F 5W, 3U) v (5A, 1R, 3W, 2U)
Major Finals - 11 v 18
Major Semi Finals - 14 v 22
1 Major Won Per Year - 2 v 3
2 Major Won Per Year - 4 v 1
3 Major Won Per Year - 0 v 2
Major Win Rate - 118-14 (89%) v 135-13 (92%)
Major Final Opps PS (Courier, Pioline, Martin, Goran, Becker, Agassi, Chang, Moyà, Pioline, Goran)
Major Final Opps ND (Murray, Nadal, Nadal, Nadal, Murray, Federer, Murray, Federer, Federer, Murray, Murray)
Major Defeats PS: (Edberg, Bruguera, Courier, Yzaga, Agassi, Schaller, Philippoussis, Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Norman, Korda, Kucera, Delgado, Rafter)
Major Defeats ND: (Federer, Nadal, Federer, Murray, Nadal, Murray, Nadal, Wawrinka, Nadal, Nishikori, Wawrinka, Querrey, Wawrinka)
Career Grand Slams - 0 v 1
ATP Finals - 3 v 4
Weeks as 1 - 252 v 223
Total Big Titles - 21 v 40
Big Title Split - (15H, 5G, 1C) v (29H, 8C, 3G)

Gaps to Closest Challenger(s)
PS v ND
Major +8 (Agassi,Brugera,Rafter) v +6 (Nadal)
Major Finals - +8 v +9
Weeks as 1 - +220 (Agassi) v +159 (Nadal)
Total Big Titles - +11 (Agassi) v +25 (Nadal)

Both clear eras in my book, Pete more dominant as #1 with more weeks back and more of a major gap to his closest rival.

Novak with an extra major, way more major finals and major semi finals, a better major match win rate, an extra career grand slam, almost twice as many big titles, a wider surface split and far more dominance compared to his closest rival in terms of tour big titles.

2011-2016 is not djokovic's era at all,he was the best but that doesn't make it "his" era when he was only dominant in 2 years.

 

[chimpish]

2011-2016 is not djokovic's era at all,he was the best but that doesn't make it "his" era when he was only dominant in 2 years.

Remember this is a direct comparison. I want you to explain and compare why you think what constitutes an era between the two. Maybe you think one does, maybe you think neither does. Clearly neither era are dominant as Fed era 03-07 but if you think one of these are, then please explain what you think the differences are.

Sampras was not tour dominant at all in 1996 or 1998.

And during the 3 months of every Clay court big title season from 1993-1998 he wasn’t even close to being the second best player. His match win-loss record was 32-14 (69.5%) He did have one excellent Clay court season in 1995 where he claimed his one career big title on the surface. However his overall match win performance in Clay big titles ranks him behind:-

Muster (79.45%), Brugera, Kafelnikov, Rios, Moyà, Corretja and Berasetegui.

Meanwhile from 2011-2016, Djokovic is at (82.7%) is ranked just behind Nadal (86.25%) and is massively well clear of:-

Ferrer (67.9%) Murray, Wawrinka, Federer, Nishikori, Berdych and Tsonga.

 

[The Federest]

Remember this is a direct comparison. I want you to explain and compare why you think what constitutes an era between the two. Maybe you think one does, maybe you think neither does. Clearly neither era are dominant as Fed era 03-07 but if you think one of these are, then please explain what you think the differences are.

Sampras was not tour dominant at all in 1996 or 1998.

And during the 3 months of every Clay court big title season from 1993-1998 he wasn’t even close to being the second best player. His match win-loss record was 32-14 (69.5%) He did have one excellent Clay court season in 1995 where he claimed his one career big title on the surface. However his overall match win performance in Clay big titles ranks him behind:-

Muster (79.45%), Brugera, Kafelnikov, Rios, Moyà, Corretja and Berasetegui.

Meanwhile from 2011-2016, Djokovic is at (82.7%) is ranked just behind Nadal (86.25%) and is massively well clear of:-

Ferrer (67.9%) Murray, Wawrinka, Federer, Nishikori, Berdych and Tsonga.

The difference between sampras and the rest of the tour was so big and can't be compared djokovic and the rest in 2011-2016.
sampras won 10 slams in that period and 2nd most after him was agassi and rafter with only 2.

 

[dking68]

Novak played against Two GOATs.

Sampras played against Pioline. ROFLMAO.

LMFAOOOO

 

[FlyingSaucer]

Junkie's ATG rival has arrived.

 

[chimpish]

The difference between sampras and the rest of the tour was so big and can't be compared djokovic and the rest in 2011-2016.
sampras won 10 slams in that period and 2nd most after him was agassi and rafter with only 2.

So it’s the 8 slam difference over the 6 slam difference that is the most decisive factor to you over everything else?

Djokovic has bigger differences elsewhere. In Hardcourt Majors for example, Djokovic has 7 to Wawrinka 2, and Pete had 5 to Andre/Rafter to 2. So a bigger gap of 5 to 3 for Djokovic over Sampras where 2 out 4 majors are played.

In terms of big titles he’s 26 ahead of his nearest rival Murray, and Pete was 11 clear of Agassi.

In terms of hardcourt big titles (which remember is the most prevalent surface on tour), Djokovic won 29, his next rival Murray was on 10, whilst Pete won 15 and Agassi won 10. So Djokovic with a gap of 19 compared to 5 to Pete on the surface which covers 65% of the big title tour.

He’s also got more majors on two surfaces (Hard/Clay) (7-5 hard) (3-1 clay) then Pete has as well as overall. Novak won a big title on each surface in 5/6 seasons whilst Pete managed this in 1/6.

And obviously there is the career grand slam which Novak completed in this period, but Pete didn’t manage in his career.

Make any difference to you?

 

[The Federest]

So it’s the 8 slam difference over the 6 slam difference that is the most decisive factor to you over everything else?

Djokovic has bigger differences elsewhere. In Hardcourt Majors for example, Djokovic has 7 to Wawrinka 2, and Pete had 5 to Andre/Rafter to 2. So a bigger gap of 5 to 3 for Djokovic over Sampras where 2 out 4 majors are played.

In terms of big titles he’s 25 ahead of his nearest rival Nadal, and Pete was 11 clear of Agassi.

In terms of hardcourt big titles (which remember is the most prevalent surface on tour), Djokovic won 29, his next rival Murray was on 10, whilst Pete won 15 and Agassi won 10. So Djokovic with a gap of 19 compared to 5 to Pete on the surface which covers 65% of the big title tour.

He’s also got more majors on two surfaces (Hard/Clay) (7-5 hard) (3-1 clay) then Pete has as well as overall. Novak won a big title on each surface in 5/6 seasons whilst Pete managed this in 1/6.

And obviously there is the career grand slam which Novak completed in this period, but Pete didn’t manage in his career.

Make any difference to you?

Pretty good arguements actually,
But I think it comes down to the fact that djokovic choked a lot between 2012-2014,
By his own standards he lost titles and matches he shouldn't have lost and many slam losses to non big 3 players.

So yeah compared to sampras you have good points but compared to djokovic 2019-2023 or federer 2004-2009 he let down his guard a lot in that period.

Pete may have dominated the 90s by the standards then,but by djoko/federer standards his 11-16 run wasn't exactly dominating.

 

[chimpish]

Pretty good arguements actually,

Appreciate you looking again, I’m a big fan of looking at the eras and trying to get as fair a comparison as possible. I think more associate Pete with dominance because he came at a period where there hasn’t been anyone has dominant as him since Borg (W77-RG81). Maybe there is Lendl second half of 85-87, but obviously Pete dominated number 1 for so long it really sticks with people.

Whereas Novak’s era came after Fed and Fed’s period was so dominant in terms of majors its puts Novak’s in the shade. But in reality Fed’s era in terms of majors puts both Pete and Novak into the shade, and pretty much anyone else in the open era barring Borg if you accept Australia wasn’t viable for him at the time.

But in terms of tour domaince that 11-16 where Novak won pretty much half of every big title played is something unique in its own right over such a period. Certainly far more dominant than Pete could ever manage and more regularly across the 3 surfaces too.

But I think it comes down to the fact that djokovic choked a lot between 2012-2014,
By his own standards he lost titles and matches he shouldn't have lost and many slam losses to non big 3 players.

This is true, but he was generally losing to some very good opposition, Querrey being the exception. And Pete was getting beat by the likes of Yzaga, Schaller, Delgado. Generally over that period all players will have bad losses. Again Fed and Borg were exceptions, with Fed only losing to Safin, Kuerten, Rafa between 2004-2007 but I’d still say for Fed, a defeat to Rafa on grass is a bad one for him.

Pete may have dominated the 90s by the standards then,but by djoko/federer standards his 11-16 run wasn't exactly dominating.

Yep, that’s fair.

 

[The Federest]

Appreciate you looking again, I’m a big fan of looking at the eras and trying to get as fair a comparison as possible. I think more associate Pete with dominance because he came at a period where there hasn’t been anyone has dominant as him since Borg. Maybe there is Lendl second half of 85-87, but obviously Pete dominated number 1 for so long it really sticks with people.

Whereas Novak’s era came after Fed and Fed’s period was so dominant in terms of majors its puts Novak’s in the shade. But in reality Fed’s era in terms of majors puts both Pete and Novak into the shade, and pretty much anyone else in the open era barring Borg if you accept Australia wasn’t viable for him at the time.

But in terms of tour domaince that 11-16 where Novak won pretty much half of every big title played is something unique in its own right over such a period. Certainly far more dominant than Pete could ever manage and more regularly across the 3 surfaces too.



This is true, but he was generally losing to some very good opposition, Querrey being the exception. And Pete was getting beat by the likes of Yzaga, Schaller, Delgado. Generally over that period all players will have bad losses. Again Fed and Borg were exceptions, with Fed only losing to Safin, Kuerten, Rafa between 2004-2007 but I’d still say for Fed, a defeat to Rafa on grass is a bad one for him.


Yep, that’s fair.

Perfect way to put it,gotta wonder what if australia was relevant back then,many slam count and rankings would've changed.

 

[chimpish]

Perfect way to put it,gotta wonder what if australia was relevant back then,many slam count and rankings would've changed.

Yep, and even without Australia and using the current rankings system, Borg would have looked closer to being as dominant as he actually was. W77 to RG 81 was an incredible period by anyone’s definition.

 

[The Federest]

Yep, and even without Australia and using the current rankings system, Borg would have looked closer to being as dominant as he actually was. W77 to RG 81 was an incredible period by anyone’s definition.

Who do you have as the 4th goat sampras or borg?

 

[chimpish]

Who do you have as the 4th goat sampras or borg?

Borg for exactly that reason.

Tbh, if Borg was closer to Nadal in majors, I’d place him above Rafa too but the gulf in majors is too big for my personal preference.

I prefer tour dominance over 1 surface dominance and especially if that 1 surface wasn’t the most prevalent on tour at the time.

 

[The Federest]

I prefer tour dominance over 1 surface dominance and especially if that 1 surface wasn’t the most prevalent on tour at the time.

One trick pony from mallorca trembles*

 

[chimpish]

One trick pony from mallorca trembles*

I don’t like being critical of any player unnecessarily. Especially not an ATG like Rafa.

Nadal is the best single surface player of all time, and he could be elite on hard and grass in periods at times. But whilst that being the case, he also remained very beatable on hard and grass by a lot of the tour, for the majority of his career, even if it wasn’t Fed who was doing much of the beating for a while. And he clearly didn’t have his own clear era in the way the other 4 did. You can argue his timing was unfortunate but then again if you become the best player on two surfaces out of three with one of those surfaces being hard, then you are much more likely to have your own era. And that’s what Novak did.

I have nothing but respect for what Rafa achieved in the game, he’s rightly considered one of the best players of all time. However, I do have an open apathy for a large section of his fan base who regularly try to exaggerate his achievements and level by excusing any significant defeats to an “injury” or a period whereby he wasn’t in his prime even though he was regularly winning majors from 2005-2022 and played every Clay court season in that period.

 

[GoatNo1]

	rafas 08-14 (7 seasons)	noles 11-16 (6 seasons)
YE#1	3	4
YE	1,2,1,2,4,1,3 (average 2)	1,1,2,1,1,2 (average 1,3)
ATP points	65825	78535
ITF champ	0	5
slams	11 (1 AO, 6 RG, 2 W, 2 USO)	11 (5 AO, 1 RG, 3 W, 2 USO)
WTF	0	4
OG	1	0
masters	18 (5 HC, 13 CC)	25 (18 HC, 7 CC)
big titles	30	40
all titles	41	48
h2h vs nole / rafa	17-17	19-7

nole in his actually era 11-RG16 won 50% of all slams and 50% of all big titles!
rafa in 08-14 perod won 39% of all slams and 30% of all big titles!
h2h vs main rivals rafa 50%; nole 73,1%

 

[chimpish]

	rafas 08-14 (7 seasons)	noles 11-16 (6 seasons)
YE#1	3	4
YE	1,2,1,2,4,1,3 (average 2)	1,1,2,1,1,2 (average 1,3)
ATP points	65825	78535
ITF champ	0	5
slams	11 (1 AO, 6 RG, 2 W, 2 USO)	11 (5 AO, 1 RG, 3 W, 2 USO)
WTF	0	4
OG	1	0
masters	18 (5 HC, 13 CC)	25 (18 HC, 7 CC)
big titles	30	40
all titles	41	48
h2h vs nole / rafa	17-17	19-7

nole in his actually era 11-RG16 won 50% of all slams and 50% of all big titles!
rafa in 08-14 perod won 39% of all slams and 30% of all big titles!
h2h vs main rivals rafa 50%; nole 73,1%

This is about comparison between Novak and Pete. Can you comment on that please.

 

[The Federest]

I don’t like being critical of any player unnecessarily. Especially not an ATG like Rafa.

Nadal is the best single surface player of all time, and he could be elite on hard and grass in periods at times. But whilst that being the case, he also remained very beatable on hard and grass by a lot of the tour, for the majority of his career, even if it wasn’t Fed who was doing much of the beating for a while. And he clearly didn’t have his own clear era in the way the other 4 did. You can argue his timing was unfortunate but then again if you become the best player on two surfaces out of three with one of those surfaces being hard, then you are much more likely to have your own era. And that’s what Novak did.

I have nothing but respect for what Rafa achieved in the game, he’s rightly considered one of the best players of all time. However, I do have an open apathy for a large section of his fan base who regularly try to exaggerate his achievements and level by excusing any significant defeats to an “injury” or a period whereby he wasn’t in his prime even though he was regularly winning majors from 2005-2022 and played every Clay court season in that period.

I respect him too I was just kidding,that being said I still believe he had no chance for being the GOAT of the sport,
How can you be the best in the sport when your indoor resume is basically non existent?
Horrendous grass run in his prime years and probably the worst to any slam winner at a major he won,
6th at weeks at no.1 kills any chance.

 

[chimpish]

I respect him too I was just kidding,that being said I still believe he had no chance for being the GOAT of the sport,
How can you be the best in the sport when your indoor resume is basically non existent?
Horrendous grass run in his prime years and probably the worst to any slam winner at a major he won,
6th at weeks at no.1 kills any chance.

Fair play, i do like banter

But yeah I agree no chance for GOAT, for many reasons.

But anyway, back on topic, this is about Novak and Pete.

 

[The Federest]

But anyway, back on topic, this is about Novak and Pete.

Yeah lol I forgot what the arguement was even about,good thread idea.

 

[GoatNo1]

This is about comparison between Novak and Pete. Can you comment on that please.

i know

but this is one "era" that does not belong there.... it is good to can compare all 3 or even 4 or 5 if we take both noles.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Borg for exactly that reason.

Tbh, if Borg was closer to Nadal in majors, I’d place him above Rafa too but the gulf in majors is too big for my personal preference.

I prefer tour dominance over 1 surface dominance and especially if that 1 surface wasn’t the most prevalent on tour at the time.

Borg could/would easily have won 4 AOs min if he had bothered to play there every year. + the 77 FO would have made it 16 by the age of 25. This is absolutely incredible especially given the standards of his time.

 

[SonnyT]

@Pheasant @Borg Number One @Sampras Serve @Hitman @Martin J @Rosstour

Are they both eras? Undoubtedly both for me.
Who was more tour dominant? Discuss
Who had the toughest final opposition? Discuss
Who had the worse defeats? Discuss

I’d be grateful if you could remember to discuss and rate their achievements as to what actually happened during these years and not with an imaginary what if scenario for either era please. I’ve purposely tagged in people who I feel may have opposing views.

PS 1993-1998 v ND 2011-2016
PS V ND
Majors - 10 v 11
Major Split - (2A, 0F 5W, 3U) v (5A, 1R, 3W, 2U)
Major Finals - 11 v 18
Major Semi Finals - 14 v 22
1 Major Won Per Year - 2 v 3
2 Major Won Per Year - 4 v 1
3 Major Won Per Year - 0 v 2
Major Win Rate - 118-14 (89%) v 135-13 (92%)
Major Final Opps PS (Courier, Pioline, Martin, Goran, Becker, Agassi, Chang, Moyà, Pioline, Goran)
Major Final Opps ND (Murray, Nadal, Nadal, Nadal, Murray, Federer, Murray, Federer, Federer, Murray, Murray)
Major Defeats PS: (Edberg, Bruguera, Courier, Yzaga, Agassi, Schaller, Philippoussis, Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Norman, Korda, Kucera, Delgado, Rafter)
Major Defeats ND: (Federer, Nadal, Federer, Murray, Nadal, Murray, Nadal, Wawrinka, Nadal, Nishikori, Wawrinka, Querrey, Wawrinka)
Career Grand Slams - 0 v 1
ATP Finals - 3 v 4
Weeks as 1 - 252 v 223
Total Big Titles - 21 v 40
Big Title Split - (15H, 5G, 1C) v (29H, 8C, 3G)

Gaps to Closest Challenger(s)
PS v ND
Major +8 (Agassi,Brugera,Rafter) v +6 (Nadal)
Major Finals - +8 v +9
Weeks as 1 - +220 (Agassi) v +159 (Nadal)
Total Big Titles - +11 (Agassi) v +26 (Murray)

Both clear eras in my book, Pete more dominant as #1 with more weeks back and more of a major gap to his closest rival.

Novak with an extra major, way more major finals and major semi finals, a better major match win rate, an extra career grand slam, almost twice as many big titles, a wider surface split and far more dominance compared to his closest rival in terms of tour big titles.

In the ELO study that ultimatetennisstatistics.com conducted, Djokovic was rated #1, and his competitors Nadal, Federer and Murray were rated #4, 5 and 9.

In the same study, Sampras and Agassi were rated #13 and 16.

 

[chimpish]

Borg could/would easily have won 4 AOs min if he had bothered to play there every year. + the 77 FO would have made it 16 by the age of 25. This is absolutely incredible especially given the standards of his time.

I don’t apply the what if scenario to ensure consistency, but yeah, it is amazing to think what extra he might have achieved.

 

[USO2010]

Pretty good arguements actually,
But I think it comes down to the fact that djokovic choked a lot between 2012-2014,
By his own standards he lost titles and matches he shouldn't have lost and many slam losses to non big 3 players.

So yeah compared to sampras you have good points but compared to djokovic 2019-2023 or federer 2004-2009 he let down his guard a lot in that period.

Pete may have dominated the 90s by the standards then,but by djoko/federer standards his 11-16 run wasn't exactly dominating.

2019 is a big donation to Novak considering Nadal won two slams that year. Anyhow 2021-23 I think is fair to allot to Novak (weak competition)

It's clear Fed's 04-07 cross slam domination is a very impressive considering it was at least average difficulty. I think this really gives him a case. The most dominant for an array of consecutive years. Neither Nadal nor Djokovic really achieved this.

 

[USO2010]

Junkie's ATG rival has arrived.

It really is man. He spams threads, his analysis is usually crap, and his posts are long. Long garbagey posts.

Junkie at least keeps it concise. He probably knows deep down he is trolling.

But this guy im convinced is insane. Or perhaps he's just prompting AI agents and spamming the threads at will.

 

[chimpish]

In the ELO study that ultimatetennisstatistics.com conducted, Djokovic was rated #1, and his competitors Nadal, Federer and Murray were rated #4, 5 and 9.

In the same study, Sampras and Agassi were rated #13 and 16.

I can the understand the use of ELO as a general guide.

But no version of ELO can take into account all the individual statistics of any given match (e.g serve quality, unforced errors) which I may personally use to assess the overall quality of any given win or loss.

However it definitely does have its uses.

 

[thrust]

Pete had some very good rivals too. Don’t forget I’ve only listed final opposition, for example in his first Wimbledon he beat Agassi and Becker before Courier. The routes varied in quality per major like it does for all 10+ major winning champs.

Djokovic final opposition that he beat is overall a level above for me. But QF, SF, F should be looked at to. It just would have looked very messy if I listed them all.

Indeed! One usually has to beat top players to reach the final. Overall, Novak had the tougher competition, especially in finals. People can only play the top players in their era.

 

[chimpish]

It's clear Fed's 04-07 cross slam domination is a very impressive considering it was at least average difficulty. I think this really gives him a case. The most dominant for an array of consecutive years. Neither Nadal nor Djokovic really achieved this.

No one is stating Djokovic reached a level of domination Fed did in 04-07, I’ve stated that myself a number of times, Feds major domination was much clearer and unrivalled.

But in terms of overall tour domination, Djokovic 11-16 is one of the most tour dominant periods we’ve seen in the open era. That’s a fact. Not an opinion. Far more dominant than anything Nadal ever achieved over a consecutive period, and as I’ve just demonstrated, more dominant than Pete (in terms of majors and big titles won) managed in his era, that most people readily accept has his era.

Now again you’ve already stated multiple times you give zero value to the ATP Finals that Sampras worked so hard to win or the countless clay court masters that help forge Nadal’s reputation as the most dominant player we’ve seen on surface, or the Gold medal that Djokovic was so desperate to win, so your input here is something that most people who value the whole Tennis season as having some worth would completely dismiss.

 

[chimpish]

It really is man. He spams threads, his analysis is usually crap, and his posts are long. Long garbagey posts.

Junkie at least keeps it concise. He probably knows deep down he is trolling.

But this guy im convinced is insane. Or perhaps he's just prompting AI agents and spamming the threads at will.

And yet here you are appearing on every single one of my threads, unable to debunk anything I’m clearly able to demonstrate.

So instead, you resort to your silly jibes and offer zero insight, and when challenged to, you can offer none, because your knowledge of Tennis history is lamentably low and you continue to apply a hatred of anti Djokovic bias into every calculation you make.

 

[USO2010]

And yet here you are appearing on every single one of my threads, unable to debunk anything I’m clearly able to demonstrate.

So instead, you resort to your silly jibes and offer zero insight, and when challenged to, you can offer none, because your knowledge of Tennis history is lamentably low and you continue to apply a hatred of anti Djokovic bias into every calculation you make.

I can't debate an idiot..

11-16 Djokovic dominance....LOL. Was getting clocked by his rivals at the slams almost every time. Was even having trouble with old Fed until 2012.
When Nadal stopped pistol whipping the guy in 2014, Stan came along and won 3 critical slam matches against Novak. Two of them finals.

Even dogcrap AO 2015 Stan pushed Novak to 5. And that Stan was crap.

Novak era my arse. You're blind as a bat.

 

[SonnyT]

I can the understand the use of ELO as a general guide.

But no version of ELO can take into account all the individual statistics of any given match (e.g serve quality, unforced errors) which I may personally use to assess the overall quality of any given win or loss.

However it definitely does have its uses.

One thing that ELO never mixes the players within a generation. For example, in Borg's generation, it's always Borg-Mac-Connors-Lendl-Vilas. In Sampras, it's always Sampras-Agassi, just like humans would put it!

 

[chimpish]

I can't debate an idiot..

11-16 Djokovic dominance....LOL. Was getting clocked by his rivals at the slams almost every time. Was even having trouble with old Fed until 2012.
When Nadal stopped pistol whipping the guy in 2014, Stan came along and won 3 critical slam matches against Novak. Two of them finals.

LOL yeah sure, because he won almost half of all the majors and big titles he entered in that period..yet simultaneously at the same time somehow he was getting always clocked by his rivals was he….well let’s check that out:-

Djokovic 4-4 Nadal (4 meetings at RG)
Djokovic 6-2 Federer
Djokovic 8-2 Murray
Djokovic 4-3 Wawrinka
Djokovic 3-0 Ferrer
Djokovic 4-0 Berdych
Djokovic 5-0 Tsonga
Djokovic 1-1 Nishikori
Djokovic 2-0 Raonic

Overall:-

Djokovic 37-12 (76%) against any player who reached the top 5 during 11-16. Pretty impressive considering his list of matches contained 33 matches against Federer, Nadal, Murray, Wawrinka.

Sampras was 26-6 (81%) in his period 93-98, so more impressive but unlike Djokovic he had losing records to a couple of rivals in Rafter and Edberg who luckily given his overall 1-3 record against them in majors, he didn’t have to play more often. Sampras other multiple major winner opponents were (Becker, Agassi, Courier, Kafelnikov, Brugera)

Overall its very comparable and Djokovic had to play a lot more of the top players of his era.

LOL - Look how it easy it is to expose you for your blatant lies. But thank for you drawing attention to another very impressive part of the Djokovic era.

Even dogcrap AO 2015 Stan pushed Novak to 5. And that Stan was crap.

Novak era my arse. You're blind as a bat.

Nah, you’re as biased an “analyst” as one could be. Which makes you one of the worst on here, maybe the even actual worst when Djokovic is involved.

Now run along, haven’t you got some important threads to be creating like how many slams Djokovic would have won with 1 arm tied behind his back…LOL keep the comedy coming brother!

 

[thrust]

No one is stating Djokovic reached a level of domination Fed did in 04-07, I’ve stated that myself a number of times, Feds major domination was much clearer and unrivalled.

But in terms of overall tour domination, Djokovic 11-16 is one of the most tour dominant periods we’ve seen in the open era. That’s a fact. Not an opinion. Far more dominant than anything Nadal ever achieved over a consecutive period, and as I’ve just demonstrated, more dominant than Pete (in terms of majors and big titles won) managed in his era, that most people readily accept has his era.

Now again you’ve already stated multiple times you give zero value to the ATP Finals that Sampras worked so hard to win or the countless clay court masters that help forge Nadal’s reputation as the most dominant player we’ve seen on surface, or the Gold medal that Djokovic was so desperate to win, so your input here is something that most peopleF who value the whole Tennis season as having some worth would completely dismiss.

Federer's 04-07 domination was NOT against ATG players. Novak, especially in 11, dominated Nadal and Federer 10-1, which is far more impressive than Federer achieved in 04-07

 

[chimpish]

Federer's 04-07 domination was NOT against ATG players. Novak, especially in 11, dominated Nadal and Federer 10-1, which is far more impressive than Federer achieved in 04-07

I’m sorry but I can’t agree here. Nadal is an ATG. It’s not Federer’s fault that an ATG, was getting regularly beaten by the players Federer didn’t lose to. As a reminder Nadal beat Federer on hard in 2004, a major winner in 2005 and also won 2 hardcourt masters in 2005 including indoor. I wish Federer had played Nadal more on hardcourt in 04-07 majors.

But I do agree Novak was exceptional in 2011 which is why I ranked it as the best season of his career, and arguably in all of the open era.

 

[Neptune]

For the purpose of this particular thread please only discuss their achievements after the draws were made in their respective eras 93-98 and 11-16.

Bro, you simply cannot talk about achievements without context. Look at how many debates you already have to engage in.

LOL yeah sure, because he won almost half of all the majors and big titles he entered in that period..yet simultaneously at the same time somehow he was getting always clocked by his rivals was he….well let’s check that out:-

LOL - Look how it easy it is to expose you for your blatant lies. But thank for you drawing attention to another very impressive part of the Djokovic era.

He keeps spamming blatant lies because the data would only expose him.

During the most brutal era 2011-16:

Top5 wins: Nole 66 vs 31 Rafa. Rafa has less than half!!

Top10 wins: Nole 140 vs 68 Rafa. Again, less than half!!

Nole averages 23.3 top10 wins per season. Rafa barely crossed that line (24) only once in his entire career, with every other season far below (17-). Oddly, his lone 3-slam season had only 11 top10 wins, lol.

 

[The Federest]

2019 is a big donation to Novak considering Nadal won two slams that year. Anyhow 2021-23 I think is fair to allot to Novak (weak competition)

It's clear Fed's 04-07 cross slam domination is a very impressive considering it was at least average difficulty. I think this really gives him a case. The most dominant for an array of consecutive years. Neither Nadal nor Djokovic really achieved this.

I think by that time it was clear nadal can't hurt novak or grandpa fed outside clay at the slightest that's why I gave it to novak but yeah you have a point.

 

[Hitman]

They are both eras if you had to go by the top guy.

 

[thrust]

I’m sorry but I can’t agree here. Nadal is an ATG. It’s not Federer’s fault that an ATG, was getting regularly beaten by the players Federer didn’t lose to. As a reminder Nadal beat Federer on hard in 2004, a major winner in 2005 and also won 2 hardcourt masters in 2005 including indoor. I wish Federer had played Nadal more on hardcourt in 04-07 majors.

But I do agree Novak was exceptional in 2011 which is why I ranked it as the best season of his career, and arguably in all of the open era.

Though I was never a Fed fan, as a person, I did love his tennis. To imply that a 20 slam winner is not an ATG, is beyond belief. In reality: Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Sampras and Borg are GOAT tier players of the open era.

 

[chimpish]

Though I was never a Fed fan, as a person, I did love his tennis. To imply that a 20 slam winner is not an ATG, is beyond belief. In reality: Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Sampras and Borg are GOAT tier players of the open era.

Who implied that? I’m a huge Federer fan. Were you addressing someone else or did you misread my comment.

 

[chimpish]

Bro, you simply cannot talk about achievements without context. Look at how many debates you already have to engage in.

I know, I thought you were alluding to the fixed draw thing. I stay away from that side of things altogether.

If it’s regarding the amount of top 5 players he had to beat and it was an awful lot in 11-16 compared to Sampras 93-98, then that’s different, that’s a worthy context point within the discussion.

He keeps spamming blatant lies because the data would only expose him.

It’s such a strange thing to do. Either he’s so really consumed in hatred, he has blocked out of his mind what actually happened, or he really just doesn’t know his Tennis.

During the most brutal era 2011-16:

Top5 wins: Nole 66 vs 31 Rafa. Rafa has less than half!!

Top10 wins: Nole 140 vs 68 Rafa. Again, less than half!!

Im keeping the discussion to Djokovic v Sampras here, whilst Rafa was the closest challenger to Novak in majors, it was Murray who was the closest challenger in terms of big titles won.

 

[thrust]

Who implied that? I’m a huge Federer fan. Were you addressing someone else or did you misread my comment.

In your reply to one of my posts you said that Nadal was an ATG and then went on to state all the times Rafa beat Roger, never saying the Roger was an ATG. No doubt, I misread your true meaning.

 

[chimpish]

In your reply to one of my posts you said that Nadal was an ATG and then went on to state all the times Rafa beat Roger, never saying the Roger was an ATG. No doubt, I misread your true meaning.

Ahh…I see. Nah I was stating there were two ATG players competing from 2005 onwards which often gets missed by some Djokovic fans and also deliberately misconstrued by Rafa’s own fans because Federer increased the slam count by 3 to 10 after RG05 until Aus 10. So they make out Rafa only really appeared on the scene in 08, even though he was a 3x major winner by 07 and his match win rate on hard courts was higher than in 05 than it was 09, 11, 14, 17, 20, 21.

 

[chimpish]

@Pheasant - Let’s hear your thoughts on these stats. Keen to know what a fellow statto makes.