Complete nonsense. Players who had more success on the court does not make their opinion more valid.
Most of the best coaches were not multiple slam winners and have a better understanding of the game. The elite players were the best at executing a game plan but you have fallen into the correlation equals causation fallacy.
I value the opinions of Tony Roche, Brad Gilbert and Magnus Norman over McEnroe, Sampras or Kuerten. It's not even close.
Fed fans will take whatever they can get at this point. I guess you needed some counter for the Guga and Bolletteri threads but Henman?
Well players who have actually played at the highest level and know what it takes will always have more credibility. I would never regard Magnus Norman's opinion more than Sampras or McEnroe. Are you kidding me? Henman is lowline hating and it's cool. It's fine he doesn't think Djokovic is the most complete but Djokovic is playing a "little bit better" than Murray? Murray and Federer are very, very close? That is a major stretch. These are opinions on Djokovic from the real bosses during Henman's era who can talk without bias from an outside point of view.
Agassi: "And then you take that to a guy like Djokovic, who probably was even better than Hewitt ever moved and doesn't need to turn a point around. When he's on defence he can actually win the point with one shot.
That's an evolution of the game."
"It's remarkable to watch him play so far behind the baseline, to watch him play so far inside the baseline, to watch him be so defensive, watch him be so offensive, watch how he upsets the spin and how he creates his own set of rules out there," Agassi said.
“Does Djokovic resemble myself?” Agassi said. “No, he is even better. He defends really well, while I struggled more in that element of the game. Novak looks totally relaxed when defending, completely calm and the quality of his return is incredible. He is also extremely flexible in his game, which is facilitated by his ability to anticipate his rival’s moves. That is why I think he is a much more versatile player than I was and he is also much more athletic.”
“The ability he has to hurt you even from that defensive position is I think unparalleled in our sport from a returning perspective and then he also has the ability to step inside the court and really make you pay, if you get nervous at all hitting a second serve on a crucial point.
I look at him as the precedent-setting standard for the return.”
Sampras: “Novak has taken tennis to new heights”, said the American.
“Djokovic is having the greatest year in the history of our sport, there’s no doubt about it”, he said. “He bewildered Nadal. I’ve never seen Nadal look as if he doesn’t know what to do – and even on clay in Rome Djokovic made him look like that.”
“Wimbledon was where he separated himself and took himself to a whole new level. He beat Nadal six times in one year and, considering the year Nadal had in 2010, that’s pretty hard to do.”
“Just as a single season, I think Djokovic’s season is the best since Laver in 1969”
“He’s so good. Really, even though the players are great today, I think he really only has to be concerned with a couple of them,” Sampras told TENNIS.com. “Roger and Rafa and Murray are the only ones that can really push him.
I see him—if he stays healthy—staying on top for as long as he wants to be. I just think he’s that good. He wins on hard court, he wins on clay, he wins on grass. He’s done it all.
I think he can stay on top for as long as he wants to be.”
“I do [think Djokovic can remain No. 1 for years]. I was thinking about that when he won Monte Carlo." “He could stay No. 1 for quite a while, five or six years in a row. Realistically, if he stays healthy, he could very well do it.”
