Tiers

The_Order said:
If I can interrupt for a second here, to those of you who are saying competition shouldn't be taken into account, WHY do people often refer to open era vs pre open era for achievements?
Click to expand...

You should try some common sense. Today, all Slams are played in a full field of professional players. Meaning all the best players in the world are in the draw for every Slam. In pre-Open Era, the fields were split, with most of the best players being on the Pro tour and the rest of them being on the Amateur tour. It'd be like Djokovic, Nadal, Wawrinka, Ferrer, Tsonga, Berdych, Raonic, Dimitrov being on one tour, and Federer, Murray, Del Potro, and Nishikori being on another. It's a totally different thing.

Be reasonable. Or do you know nothing about that era?
 
90's Clay said:
I quit reading when I saw Budge in tier 1 A yet somehow you got Borg, Nadal, Sampras in Tier 1B :shock::shock:
Click to expand...
How could you know that Borg and Nadal were in Tier 1B if you quit reading after seeing Budge in tier 1 A ?

:shock::confused:




_______________
 
Mayonnaise said:
You should try some common sense. Today, all Slams are played in a full field of professional players. Meaning all the best players in the world are in the draw for every Slam. In pre-Open Era, the fields were split, with most of the best players being on the Pro tour and the rest of them being on the Amateur tour. It'd be like Djokovic, Nadal, Wawrinka, Ferrer, Tsonga, Berdych, Raonic, Dimitrov being on one tour, and Federer, Murray, Del Potro, and Nishikori being on another. It's a totally different thing.

Be reasonable. Or do you know nothing about that era?
Click to expand...

LOL wtf did you think I was saying?
 
The more I think about it the more I feel Djokovic should be about level pegging with Agassi now. Apart from the career slam and longevity (which can't really be evaluated right now) Djokovic has nearly everything in his favor.

Still beneath McEnroe IMO.
 
BobbyOne said:
The Order, I agree that competition is a huge factor.

But playing only one match at Wimbledon, and French "Open" only for French players have passed long ago (early 1920s).
Click to expand...

Yes but they're still pre open era achievements aren't they?

There were a lot of differences over the years until the open era began. How many Wimbledon titles did Laver miss out on because of the way the system worked back then which limited the competition?
 
NatF said:
The more I think about it the more I feel Djokovic should be about level pegging with Agassi now. Apart from the career slam and longevity (which can't really be evaluated right now) Djokovic has nearly everything in his favor.

Still beneath McEnroe IMO.
Click to expand...

Djokovic wins one more slam, then he is above Agassi. He needs a few more masters and 1 or 2 more slams to surpass McEnroe. Djokovic will dominate the WTF for years to come I believe also
 
Noleberic123 said:
Djokovic wins one more slam, then he is above Agassi. He needs a few more masters and 1 or 2 more slams to surpass McEnroe. Djokovic will dominate the WTF for years to come I believe also
Click to expand...

I think one more slam will draw him level, if he ends the year at #1 then he goes over him.
 
The_Order said:
That's like saying we'd never know if Federer could beat me at Wimbledon, or Nadal beat me at RG.

I know tennis isn't played on paper but common sense has to be used, the vast majority of people who have been following the sport and give an objective view on things would clearly tell you that Agassi would not have a career grand slam if he had to deal with Nadal at RG or Federer at Wimbledon.

On the flip side, if Novak didn't have to deal with Nadal at RG, he most likely would've won at least 1 by now and got the career slam. I'm certain Novak would've loved to have seen Medvedev on the other side of the net in this year's final instead of Rafa.

So how can we say Agassi > Novak because Agassi has career slam and Novak doesn't?
Click to expand...

It's not so simple. What you claim is the "common sense" or "objective" view is actually just your opinion.

For example, given Agassi's ability on grass I don't find it unreasonable that he might win at Wimbledon if he were "swapped" with Djokovic (i.e. if Agassi were born in 1986 instead of Djokovic), just as Djokovic has done in Federer's later years.

Now, I'm not going to argue this point in detail, it's just the example you've used - my actual point is that different people have (often vastly) different opinions when it comes to comparing players and competition from different eras.
There is no consensus, and as I stated in the OP, comparing across eras is hard. I have just given my opinion on Tiers (which I think is a little less dodgy than an exact ranking) and I invite you to give me yours, if you wish.

To summarise: in my opinion Agassi's accomplishments are greater than Djokovic's (so far, and not by much). Your opinion may differ, but I don't think it is unreasonable to argue either way in this case (as it's a close call).
 
Djokovic2011 said:
I'm sorry mate but Mayo is like an angel sent from heaven compared to NADALRECORD.
Click to expand...

no, not after the argument I had with him indeed. But I cant show you because it seems those posts have been deleted because of our heated argument.

just ask chico what happened. We gave mayo a new nickname which is FEDERECORD
 
Logic said:
It's not so simple. What you claim is the "common sense" or "objective" view is actually just your opinion.

For example, given Agassi's ability on grass I don't find it unreasonable that he might win at Wimbledon if he were "swapped" with Djokovic (i.e. if Agassi were born in 1986 instead of Djokovic), just as Djokovic has done in Federer's later years.

Now, I'm not going to argue this point in detail, it's just the example you've used - my actual point is that different people have (often vastly) different opinions when it comes to comparing players and competition from different eras.
There is no consensus, and as I stated in the OP, comparing across eras is hard. I have just given my opinion on Tiers (which I think is a little less dodgy than an exact ranking) and I invite you to give me yours, if you wish.

To summarise: in my opinion Agassi's accomplishments are greater than Djokovic's (so far, and not by much). Your opinion may differ, but I don't think it is unreasonable to argue either way in this case (as it's a close call).
Click to expand...

So it's only your opinion that Federer would beat me at Wimbledon, or Nadal at RG?

And yes, you do find it unreasonable that Andre would win WIM if he swapped with Novak. You just can't admit it because it would go against your original point.
 
90's Clay said:
I quit reading when I saw Budge in tier 1 A yet somehow you got Borg, Nadal, Sampras in Tier 1B :shock::shock:
Click to expand...

Of course, you could make a more productive contribution to the thread and post why you think I have over-rated Budge (as BobbyOne does below).

BobbyOne said:
Logic, Budge was lucky during his amateur career to not having to deal with Vines, Perry (after 1936), Nüsslein (on clay!) and Tilden. In 1938 also von Cramm was absent. I doubt that he had won the Grand Slam in an open field.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this - in his first year on the Pro Tour, Budge beat both Vines and Perry (the latter convincingly) head-to-head, so I think he would have a good shot against them the year before, when he won the Grand Slam.
Now, I'm not saying he would have won the Grand Slam in an open field, I'm just pointing out that he proved himself straight away to be better than the best Pros, and so he still would have done well in an open field.

BobbyOne said:
In 1939 he lost the Southport tournament, also called "British Pro" to 46 years old Tilden who in final lost to Nüsslein. Tilden beat Budge at least 3 times in 1939. Nüsslein (not a typical indoor player) almost beat Budge at Wembley.
Click to expand...

One bad loss doesn't invalidate Budge's whole career. I mean, Laver lost to an over-40 Gonzales, but that doesn't mean he's not Tier 1a.

Moreover that came in a smaller tournament; Budge still won the two Pro Slams he played that year (and "almost losing" at Wembley is irrelevant - he won and that is all that matters).

BobbyOne said:
Vines in his pro tour with Budge in 1939 was handicapped in a certain period by injuries.

In 1941 Don was clearly outplayed by Perry.
Click to expand...

You can't use injuries as an excuse, they are part of the game, and even if Vines was injured, that's not Budge's fault.

I don't have much info on 1941 - could you provide some details please?


This is a brief version of my overview on Budge before the War cut his prime short:

1937: 2 Amateur Majors
1938: Grand Slam (taking him to 6 consecutive Amateur Majors)
1939: Wins the Pro Tour over Vines and Perry and both Pro Majors he contests
1940: Wins 4/7 of the principal tournaments that year (as there is no Pro Tour), including the only Pro Major he contests
1941: Wins the Pro Tour over Tilden*, but loses the only Pro Major he contests
1942: Wins the Pro Tour over Bobby Riggs, Frank Kovacs, Perry and Les Stoefen and wins the only Pro Major he contests.

*(Yes, Tilden is old, but Budge demolishes him, and moreover, it's not Budge's fault that Tilden was his opponent for that year).

So, overall, it seems like Budge does very well - the only real negative being his loss in the Pro Major in 1941.

Moreover, Kramer himself rated Budge as the GOAT in 1979 (even after the feats of Gonzales, Rosewall and Laver). Now, I don't necessarily agree that Budge is the GOAT, but I think he must be a contender.

All of this leads me to rank in Budge in Tier 1a.
 
Last edited:
5555 said:
So, you think competition should be taken into account?
Click to expand...

Only if it can be analysed accurately. However, I don't think comparing competition across eras can be done accurately.

Logic said:
f your criteria take all factors into account, that does not make them less flawed than mine, unless you can accurately judge those factors.
Click to expand...

5555 said:
You're wrong.
Click to expand...

Logic said:
Explain why what I have said (as quoted above) is wrong.
Click to expand...

5555 said:
I believe it's more likely that you'll get an accurate judgement about greatness if you put statistics under scrutiny.
Click to expand...

As you can see, you have not answered the question properly.

I will make it more simple for you:

"Unless you can accurately analyse the factors which you consider, then considering these factors does not help your overall analysis."

Now do you agree with the above statement or not?
 
Last edited:
Logic, unless you correct your OP and put Djokovic in tier 2 with Lendl, Agassi, Connors and McEnroe, where he belongs, your thread is an utter and total failure and whatever you say has no credibility whatsoever. So please stop flooding the board with your hateful biased anti Novak bashing and correct what you did wrong first. Thanks
 
The_Order said:
So it's only your opinion that Federer would beat me at Wimbledon, or Nadal at RG?
Click to expand...

Technically, yes it is just my opinion about a conjecture which you can't test.
However, to argue otherwise would be difficult, given the gulf in resumé between Fedal and yourself (no offense).

However, in the example we were discussing, it's not "outrageous" to say Agassi > Djokovic (for now) or Djokovic > Agassi. It's a fairly even debate, and you'll see plenty of people arguing both sides. It is reasonable to do so, because both players have similar resumés.

The_Order said:
And yes, you do find it unreasonable that Andre would win WIM if he swapped with Novak. You just can't admit it because it would go against your original point.
Click to expand...

I didn't want to get drawn into a debate about this, because it was just an example. However, just for the sake of courtesy, I'll give you a response.

In my opinion, if Djokovic can Wimbledon in 2014 (for example), I think so could Agassi (if he were born in 1986), given the same draw. I think this is reasonable because Djokovic's hardest opponent was an almost-33 year old Federer, and I think it is perfectly reasonable that a prime Agassi could beat him on grass (especially grass which is slower and with a better bounce than in the 90s).

P.S. Please don't have the pretence to tell me what I think - it's rude.
 
Last edited:
Chico said:
Logic, unless you correct your OP and put Djokovic in tier 2 with Lendl, Agassi, Connors and McEnroe, where he belongs, your thread is an utter and total failure and whatever you say has no credibility whatsoever. So please stop flooding the board with your hateful biased anti Novak bashing and correct what you did wrong first. Thanks
Click to expand...

The only biased person here is you.

Show me one place were I have said anything derogatory towards Novak. On the contrary, if you look at my posts I have often praised him, calling him a "Great Champion" and so on.

My OP is already correct - in my opinion, Novak is not yet Tier 2 All Time (but probably soon will be). Your opinion may differ, but that does not either of us a hater, it just means we disagree.
 
Djokovic is definitely not tier 2 all time. Once you start adding in Kramer, Budge, Vines etc...tier 2 rapidly gets bigger and some inevitably get pushed down.
 
let's face it, Djokovic is a better clay player than Agassi, the fact than Agassi won the french open and Djokovic not doesn't mean Agassi was better on clay.
Do you seriously think Agassi would have beaten Nadal ?

If Nadal didn't lose to Soderling, would it mean Agassi is a better clay player than Federer ? I don't think so. Federer even with zero french player would be better than Agassi on clay.
 
Logic said:
Technically, yes it is just my opinion about a conjecture which you can't test.
However, to argue otherwise would be difficult, given the gulf in resumé between Fedal and yourself (no offense).

However, in the example we were discussing, it's not "outrageous" to say Agassi > Djokovic (for now) or Djokovic > Agassi. It's a fairly even debate, and you'll see plenty of people arguing both sides. It is reasonable to do so, because both players have similar resumés.
Click to expand...

And what's the gulf between Medvedev and Nadal's resume at RG? Andre went down 2 sets to 0 in that final, Nadal would've swiped him off in straight sets.

Logic said:
I didn't want to get drawn into a debate about this, because it was just an example. However, just for the sake of courtesy, I'll give you a response.

In my opinion, if Djokovic can Wimbledon in 2014 (for example), I think so could Agassi (if he were born in 1986), given the same draw. I think this is reasonable because Djokovic's hardest opponent was an almost-33 year old Federer, and I think it is perfectly reasonable that a prime Agassi could beat him on grass (especially grass which is slower and with a better bounce than in the 90s).

P.S. Please don't have the pretence to tell me what I think - it's rude.
Click to expand...

When Agassi was 27 he was too busy with his meth, definitely not in the form to knock off 33 year old Federer. He didn't even play Wimbledon when he was 27 iinm...
 
Logic said:
Of course, you could make a more productive contribution to the thread and post why you think I have over-rated Budge (as BobbyOne does below).



I disagree with this - in his first year on the Pro Tour, Budge beat both Vines and Perry (the latter convincingly) head-to-head, so I think he would have a good shot against them the year before, when he won the Grand Slam.
Now, I'm not saying he would have won the Grand Slam in an open field, I'm just pointing out that he proved himself straight away to be better than the best Pros, and so he still would have done well in an open field.



One bad loss doesn't invalidate Budge's whole career. I mean, Laver lost to an over-40 Gonzales, but that doesn't mean he's not Tier 1a.

Moreover that came in a smaller tournament; Budge still won the two Pro Slams he played that year (and "almost losing" at Wembley is irrelevant - he won and that is all that matters).



You can't use injuries as an excuse, they are part of the game, and even if Vines was injured, that's not Budge's fault.

I don't have much info on 1941 - could you provide some details please?


This is a brief version of my overview on Budge before the War cut his prime short:

1937: 2 Amateur Majors
1938: Grand Slam (taking him to 6 consecutive Amateur Majors)
1939: Wins the Pro Tour over Vines and Perry and both Pro Majors he contests
1940: Wins 4/7 of the principal tournaments that year (as there is no Pro Tour), including the only Pro Major he contests
1941: Wins the Pro Tour over Tilden*, but loses the only Pro Major he contests
1942: Wins the Pro Tour over Bobby is to Riggs, Frank Kovacs, Perry and Les Stoefen and wins the only Pro Major he contests.

*(Yes, Tilden is old, but Budge demolishes him, and moreover, it's not Budge's fault that Tilden was his opponent for that year).

So, overall, it seems like Budge does very well - the only real negative being his loss in the Pro Major in 1941.

Moreover, Kramer himself rated Budge as the GOAT in 1979 (even after the feats of Gonzales, Rosewall and Laver). Now, I don't necessarily agree that Budge is the GOAT, but I think he must be a contender.

All of this leads me to rank in Budge in Tier 1a.
Click to expand...
Logic,you are right
Budge is a clear contender.
I would like to know his record vs Nüsslein
Vines is an all time great but,just like Sampras,sucking so much on slower surfaces place him behind Don
Crawford was the real dark horse
 
Last edited:
Noleberic123 said:
no, not after the argument I had with him indeed. But I cant show you because it seems those posts have been deleted because of our heated argument.

just ask chico what happened. We gave mayo a new nickname which is FEDERECORD
Click to expand...

I gave you facts. It's not my fault Djokovic couldn't win any more than 7 Slams despite his biggest competition being grandpa Federer and one-leg Nadal.
 
Mayonnaise said:
You were saying, "if people can call the split fields of pre-Open Era weak, we can call the full fields of the Open Era weak," which is utterly preposterous. And you know it. Can't admit it, can you? ;)
Click to expand...

That's actually the opposite of what I said :lol:

That avatar of yours must be a selfie...
 
The_Order said:
That's actually the opposite of what I said :lol:
Click to expand...

No, you said: "If I can interrupt for a second here, to those of you who are saying competition shouldn't be taken into account, WHY do people often refer to open era vs pre open era for achievements?"

You then proceeded to discredit Agassi's career Slam, saying he had weaker competition :)
 
Last edited:
The_Order said:
And what's the gulf between Medvedev and Nadal's resume at RG? Andre went down 2 sets to 0 in that final, Nadal would've swiped him off in straight sets.
Click to expand...
Agassi has a French Open. Djokovic doesn't. It's a testament to the weakness of the current clay field that Nadal's strongest clay competition is Federer and Djokovic who both have Clay as their worst surface :lol:
 
The_Order said:
And what's the gulf between Medvedev and Nadal's resume at RG? Andre went down 2 sets to 0 in that final, Nadal would've swiped him off in straight sets.
Click to expand...

It's not as straightforward as that, since tennis is about match-ups.
You can't just say (for example) A has a better resume than B, so A beats B when they play each other.

For what it's worth, I agree with you that Agassi, like Novak would fail to beat peak Nadal at French (though, again, like Nole, I think he'd put up a good fight and probably win a set). However, I think that (were he born in 1987, like Nole) he would win Roland Garros after Nadal has declined/retired, since Agassi had great longevity (and won his actual Roland Garros title at a late age). I actually think that this is what Djokovic will do, although that remains to be seen.

The_Order said:
When Agassi was 27 he was too busy with his meth, definitely not in the form to knock off 33 year old Federer. He didn't even play Wimbledon when he was 27 iinm...
Click to expand...

I haven't checked this, but it's beside the point.
You know what I meant - a peak Agassi on grass (especially the slower grass of the 2010s), not on drugs, would have a good shot of beating near-33-year-old Federer for a Wimbledon title, just as Djokovic did.
Do you honestly deny that?
 
Logic said:
It's not as straightforward as that, since tennis is about match-ups.
You can't just say (for example) A has a better resume than B, so A beats B when they play each other.

For what it's worth, I agree with you that Agassi, like Novak would fail to beat peak Nadal at French (though, again, like Nole, I think he'd put up a good fight and probably win a set). However, I think that (were he born in 1987, like Nole) he would win Roland Garros after Nadal has declined/retired, since Agassi had great longevity (and won his actual Roland Garros title at a late age). I actually think that this is what Djokovic will do, although that remains to be seen.



I haven't checked this, but it's beside the point.
You know what I meant - a peak Agassi on grass (especially the slower grass of the 2010s), not on drugs, would have a good shot of beating near-33-year-old Federer for a Wimbledon title, just as Djokovic did.
Do you honestly deny that?
Click to expand...

You're talking with a poster that eats his cake and has it too! :) If people are gonna discredit Agassi's French Open because they think he couldn't beat Nadal, they should also discredit Djokovic of his Wimbledon titles because he wasn't gonna do much damage on Fast Grass.

Ultimately, it is what it is, and Agassi has a Career Slam, which Djokovic doesn't. Yet.
 
Why do people keep waffling on about how Nole needs to complete the Career Grand Slam to surpass Agassi? Neither Connors nor Lendl won all 4 majors and yet the general consensus seems to be that they are greater than Andre. Am I missing something here? Answers on a postcard please.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
Why do people keep waffling on about how Nole needs to complete the Career Grand Slam to surpass Agassi? Neither Connors nor Lendl won all 4 majors and yet the general consensus seems to be that they are greater than Andre. Am I missing something here? Answers on a postcard please.
Click to expand...

We're just discussing permutations. This is how Djokovic can surpass Agassi:

1. Win French Open
2. Win a non-FO Slam and end 2014 as #1
3. Win 2 more Slams
4. Win 1 more Slam and 1 more WTF

These are various ways in which he can surpass Agassi, in my opinion. He doesn't necessarily need to win the French, but it would be neater that way.
 
Mayonnaise said:
He hasn't. It's not even a reasonable view until Djokovic at least ties Agassi's count.
Click to expand...

I don't think that saying Djokovic > Agassi is "unreasonable" (since they are "close" in achievements), but it would most probably be a minority opinion.

Personally I would say Agassi > Djokovic (for now), but not by much.

Djokovic2011 said:
Never fall into the 'slams are everything' trap Mayo. It can be difficult to dig yourself out of it.
Click to expand...

True, but Agassi has more majors than Djokovic despite Agassi having skipped many majors (especially at the AO where he was most successful).

Moreover, Agassi and Djokovic are both part of the post-1990 "majors are everything" era, so when comparing them I think one does have to put extremely heavy emphasis on major count (similarly with Sampras, Federer, Nadal etc.).

Of course, when comparing with pre-1990 players, this is not so much the case.
 
In terms of peak level what do people think?

I think Agassi is definitely better on fast hard courts. Djokovic superior on clay.

Unsure about grass or slow hard courts.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
Never fall into the 'slams are everything' trap Mayo. It can be difficult to dig yourself out of it.
Click to expand...

They're not everything. But they mean more than anything, individually.

Agassi-Djokovic
Slams: 8-7
Finals: 7-7
Semifinals: 11-9
Quarterfinals: 10-6

YE#1: 1-2
WTF: 1-3
WTF Finals: 3-0
Masters: 17-19
Olympics: 1-0

It's close, overall, but Agassi has overall better results at the Slams. So he's higher.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
Agassi shouldn't be awarded extra points for skipping so many AOs. If he chose not to play that's his problem.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand - I never awarded him extra points for skipping majors.

I'm saying that both Agassi and Djokovic are from the post-1990s "majors are everything era", so it's fair to weight majors heavily when comparing them, which is what leads me to say Agassi > Djokovic (for now), IMO.

The point about Agassi skipping majors is merely to point out that weighting majors heavily in this case (as I explained above) is biased against Agassi (if at all), but despite that, he still leads Djokovic (by this metric).
 
Logic said:
It's not as straightforward as that, since tennis is about match-ups.
You can't just say (for example) A has a better resume than B, so A beats B when they play each other.

For what it's worth, I agree with you that Agassi, like Novak would fail to beat peak Nadal at French (though, again, like Nole, I think he'd put up a good fight and probably win a set). However, I think that (were he born in 1987, like Nole) he would win Roland Garros after Nadal has declined/retired, since Agassi had great longevity (and won his actual Roland Garros title at a late age). I actually think that this is what Djokovic will do, although that remains to be seen.
Click to expand...

Ok, so then we can both agree that Agassi having a career slam is based more on luck of not having the RG legend in his way. Therefore we can't say that Agassi is greater than Novak because he has a career slam.

BTW Nadal is only 1 year older than Novak and we also don't know who will come up next so saying that he'll win one when/if Nadal retires before him is pure speculation (something I thought you were trying to avoid doing).

Nadal was a tough match up for Agassi even off clay, so the match up argument you have doesn't have much weight to it. Nadal is a far superior player to Medvedev.

Logic said:
I haven't checked this, but it's beside the point.
You know what I meant - a peak Agassi on grass (especially the slower grass of the 2010s), not on drugs, would have a good shot of beating near-33-year-old Federer for a Wimbledon title, just as Djokovic did.
Do you honestly deny that?
Click to expand...

Well I just checked and he missed 1997 Wimbledon where he was 27 years of age.

Even if he does get the Wimbledon with Fed around, he's not getting RG with Nadal around, so no career slam. I'd even go as far as saying Agassi wouldn't even have 4 AO titles if he were in Novak's place.
 
Mayonnaise said:
They're not everything. But they mean more than anything, individually.

Agassi-Djokovic
Slams: 8-7
Finals: 7-7
Semifinals: 11-9
Quarterfinals: 10-6

YE#1: 1-2
WTF: 1-3
WTF Finals: 3-0
Masters: 17-19
Olympics: 1-0

It's close, overall, but Agassi has overall better results at the Slams. So he's higher.
Click to expand...

Djokovic will surpass that with ease in the next few slams
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sport
  • Poll Poll
Agassi vs. The Big 3. Are they on the same tier of ATGs?
2 3 4
Replies
194
Views
10K
zagor
zagor
Sport
Different tiers of ATGs.
2
Replies
52
Views
3K
BGod
BGod
J
Slam wins against slam winners
Replies
4
Views
339
JMR
J
George Turner
Tiering each player
2
Replies
98
Views
10K
DSH
DSH
M
What would a French Open Championship Mean for Djokovic
Replies
8
Views
1K
Deleted member 3771
D
Back
Top