The Green Mile
Bionic Poster
Yep, only person to achieve it. (IIRC)
Where do you rank Nole in all time great on Hard Court ?
- Thread starter TMF
- Start date
Yep, only person to achieve it. (IIRC)
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Yeah, I also made a mistake. I forgot that AO was also on grass, so I corrected my post: Connors actually has 3 on hard.
Yes, Connors won USO on 3 different surfaces. How cool is that?
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
He's won 2 more masters than Nadal on hard. Neither one has won wtf BUT Nadal has 2 finals there, Murray 0. Add to that 3 slam titles on hard for Nadal + Olympics vs only one slam title for Murray and I would still give the edge to Nadal because he's won more than Murray on hard where it mattered most.
But yeah, in winning % overall Murray has 78.1 vs 77.8 for Nadal.
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
Best HC players are Federer, Sampras, Lendl, Agassi, Connors, Djokovic, McEnroe, Edberg, Becker, Nadal, Borg.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Guys like Laver, Rosewall and Gonzalez were excellent on indoor wood - a type of 'hard court'.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
Yep. This is pretty much my sentiments on it. He can certainly bring himself up a big notch if he wins the AO in a few months, considering he will outright be the most successful AO champion of the Open Era. That has got to carry some serious weight, since he wrestled it away from Federer and Agassi, if that indeed happens next year.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
So wait. I thought Sampras and Lendl both had 5 WTF titles
NatF
Bionic Poster
Those were on carpet.
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
I do think that the AO record isn't as much prestigious than the other slam records because really it is an achievable record only since the 90's. There is a lot of all-time great who didn't play it enough and could have set a higher record than 4 wins, as it is currently: Connors, McEnroe, Borg, Lendl.
kOaMaster
Hall of Fame
Well you know, some people name Federer "average" on clay as well, having +/- the same success as Djokovic at the US Open (!).
This. A problem is that carpet was mainly replaced with hard courts, therefore a comparison with "older" players is difficult. Sampras would've won a lot more on HC if there were more events.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Djokovic really had his best chance this year to win another USO but he totally blew it. Nishikori and Cilic on a normal day for Novak are beatable.
Definetely a lot opportunity. This year he could have sealed the deal on the "only 1 USO title" matter
Definetely a lot opportunity. This year he could have sealed the deal on the "only 1 USO title" matter
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
Yes, the old-time great of the past who didn't compete much on HC are left out of the discussion, which isn't fair at all because we don't leave the current pro out of the discussion of "best grass players of all time", although they barely play on grass.
By the way, Rod Laver has the fifth best HC winning percentage of the open era, despite him being at the tail-end of his career. I don't know however if he played prestigious tournaments or mostly won in regional tournaments.
NatF
Bionic Poster
He won some big prestigious hard court tournaments. Laver's best surface may of been HC.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
You make a valid point. But still, considering how important HCs have been these past few decades, and being the most competitive surface with the greatest depth, it still carrys some weight of significance. To say that you have won more AOs than Agassi, Federer and Sampras, who all pretty much had the same amount of time to win their AOs, and who are considered quite possibly the top trio in the HC domain, it certainly does put Djokovic up there.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Which means that the competition on HC is more fierce, since everybody can play on HC
HipRotation
Hall of Fame
3rd I guess although these stats need to be adjusted for hard court inflation which happened around 1987 and then again in 1999 when it started to absorb the carpet
Magic Player
New User
It's hard to say. Djokovic will win a lot more hard court titles.
Wow. 5-10 leads the poll. :shock: :shock: :shock: How can haters be so ridiculously obvious. Only haters can find 5 people who are over Djokovic on HCs, when he is clearly top 3 or at worst top 4, with clear indication he will be top 2 by the end of his career.
So much hate here. It is unbelievable.
To me the poll result is respectable. Being ranked outside of the top 5 means Connors takes the 5th spot.
It's kind of hard to compare with surfaces changing so much over time. Even in the 90s/early 00s, there were a lot more carpet events that are now indoor hard. If you go back further, it gets even crazier. I had no idea Connors had won so many hard court tournaments, especially since it didn't have the same share in tour-level events that it does today for most of his career.
Clearly, he hasn't quite reached the level of results that Federer, Sampras, and Agassi did in very similar conditions. I'd even argue for Lendl and Connors over him at this point, putting him squarely in fifth place. I suspect he'll move up a tad by the end of his career, though, perhaps matching Agassi but not reaching the heights of Sampras or Federer.
Clearly, he hasn't quite reached the level of results that Federer, Sampras, and Agassi did in very similar conditions. I'd even argue for Lendl and Connors over him at this point, putting him squarely in fifth place. I suspect he'll move up a tad by the end of his career, though, perhaps matching Agassi but not reaching the heights of Sampras or Federer.
My rankings would be:
1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Djokovic
4. Connors
5. Lendl
6. McEnroe
7. Agassi
8. Nadal
9. Not sure, maybe Becker
10. Edberg, or maybe switch with Becker
I rank Agassi well down since his consistency was horrible, and he vulture a bunch of Australian Opens at the end of his career against super weak competition. Connors won 5 U.S Opens, and had they been on had courts instead of clay 75-77 it would probably be 7, and who knows what he would have done at the Australian Open had he played and it been on hard courts but at minimum a few there probably too. Lendl has 5 hard court slams, but 8 finals at the U.S Open alone, and would also have more hard court slams probably had the Australian been on hard courts instead of grass from 83-87.
Djokovic is already the slow hard court GOAT IMO, or atleast pretty close to solidifying that, and that along with his consistency on all speeds of hard courts, even if he has underachieved at the U.S Open slightly in terms of totals puts him up in 3rd for me. By the end of his career he will easily pass Sampras, and probably challenge Federer.
1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Djokovic
4. Connors
5. Lendl
6. McEnroe
7. Agassi
8. Nadal
9. Not sure, maybe Becker
10. Edberg, or maybe switch with Becker
I rank Agassi well down since his consistency was horrible, and he vulture a bunch of Australian Opens at the end of his career against super weak competition. Connors won 5 U.S Opens, and had they been on had courts instead of clay 75-77 it would probably be 7, and who knows what he would have done at the Australian Open had he played and it been on hard courts but at minimum a few there probably too. Lendl has 5 hard court slams, but 8 finals at the U.S Open alone, and would also have more hard court slams probably had the Australian been on hard courts instead of grass from 83-87.
Djokovic is already the slow hard court GOAT IMO, or atleast pretty close to solidifying that, and that along with his consistency on all speeds of hard courts, even if he has underachieved at the U.S Open slightly in terms of totals puts him up in 3rd for me. By the end of his career he will easily pass Sampras, and probably challenge Federer.
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
Good post. To challenge Federer Djokovic need to win 4 more HC slams, in my opinion, not sure he will do it.
I rank Edberg in front of Becker, who has one more HC title but was overall a lot less consistent than Edberg, who reached more finals, SF and QF than Becker.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Djokovic this year didn't even reach a HC slam final,which is pretty bad. He wasted some great opportunitues this year to be at least on par with Agassi.
He is 27 now. Sampras only won 1 more HC slam after 27. Federer as well only 1 HC slam after 27. IMO it is a big task for Novak to win 4 HC slams after 27. On a bad day he can still get upset as we saw this year at AO and USO.
While he may win WTF this year it isn't telling at all. In the previous 2 years he also dominated the fall season, but he couldn't deliver at the slams, where it mattered it most. This year he got upset in the HC slams after dominating the fall season the previous year, so him dominating the fall season again isn't very telling.
I still give him 2 more HC slams, but 4 is a big task at this stage of his career.
He is 27 now. Sampras only won 1 more HC slam after 27. Federer as well only 1 HC slam after 27. IMO it is a big task for Novak to win 4 HC slams after 27. On a bad day he can still get upset as we saw this year at AO and USO.
While he may win WTF this year it isn't telling at all. In the previous 2 years he also dominated the fall season, but he couldn't deliver at the slams, where it mattered it most. This year he got upset in the HC slams after dominating the fall season the previous year, so him dominating the fall season again isn't very telling.
I still give him 2 more HC slams, but 4 is a big task at this stage of his career.
Yeah I agree it is unlikely Djokovic will catch/surpass Federer. However it isn't impossible. I could see him winning another 4 hard court slams, although it isn't that likely. If both have 9 slams I would probably favor Djokovic, since he would likely be way ahead in slam finals at that point (how could he not with all the slam finals he lost, lol), and probably clearly ahead in hard court Masters too. Even at 8, if 3 of his 8 (atleast) are U.S Opens I could see a case given what I just said, especialy if he wins atleast another couple WTF titles (a hard court event these days).
Come to think of it I agree Edberg > Becker on hard courts overall, despite Becker having 1 more hard court major. Edberg had some massive bad luck at the Australian Open. I don't believe Becker is really a better player on those courts at all, despite having 2 titles on those slow hard courts vs 2 for Edberg. Becker it was mostly feast or famine on hard courts too. He was very inconsistent, and never a semi dominant force on the regular tour on them, the way Edberg was at times.
I agree he will most likely win 2-3 more. However the low end of possibility is only winning 0-1 more (that isn't impossible either), and the high end if is 4-5 IMO (again not likely, but clearly not impossible). I am considering the entire scope of realistic possibility, not just the most likely. Especialy when in tennis the most likely doesn't even happen most of the time, LOL!
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
I'm not sure how M1000 titles should be considered, because a shift regarding them happened in 2007. Before that, it was still pretty common for top players to miss a lot of them. Federer missed 9 M1000 between 2004-2006 for example. It's even worse during the 90's, Sampras and Agassi were roughly playing only 4-6 of them each years (the north-american ones).
Frankly Murray has 9 of them, Sampras has 11.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Wow I can't believe that Murray still is on the verge of surpassing Sampras in the number of masters 1000 win.
In the following years I think he should set some goals, like to get out of the row with 2 slam winners, by adding more majors and surpassing Sampras in the number of masters 1000 wins. Surpassing an all-time great at a stat would certainly be amazing
This is a flawed poll as it implies everyone agrees Agassi is #3 all time on hard courts. I am sure that is not the case at all. There are many who would rank atleast 1 or multiple of Lendl, Connors, McEnroe above him. Probably the only rankings everyone would agree on are Federer #1 in the Open Era, Sampras #2, and Nadal #8. Everything else could be strongly debated, but the OP tries to make everyones rankings for them already, so what is the point of a poll.
HipRotation
Hall of Fame
In Defense of Sampras he only seemed to put the effort in for American and Indoor Carpet tournaments, back then they weren't mandatory and so he seemed to flunk or skip ones he didn't like entirely. Whether this was a case of not caring or an issue with his fitness due to his anaemia is debatable.
Although against him is the fact that the only one he seemed to do poorly at but could do better was Toronto/Montreal which could mean he is only really missing 2 or 3 from his total.
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
In Defense of Sampras he only seemed to put the effort in for American and Indoor Carpet tournaments, back then they weren't mandatory and so he seemed to flunk or skip ones he didn't like entirely. Whether this was a case of not caring or an issue with his fitness due to his anaemia is debatable.
Although against him is the fact that the only one he seemed to do poorly at but could do better was Toronto/Montreal which could mean he is only really missing 2 or 3 from his total.
Also others tournaments gave as much or more ranking point than Masters 1000 and a prize money in the same range too. Timz has a very interesting thread in the former pro section where he tries to identify M1000 equivalent from the 90's.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
In Defense of Sampras he only seemed to put the effort in for American and Indoor Carpet tournaments, back then they weren't mandatory and so he seemed to flunk or skip ones he didn't like entirely. Whether this was a case of not caring or an issue with his fitness due to his anaemia is debatable.
Although against him is the fact that the only one he seemed to do poorly at but could do better was Toronto/Montreal which could mean he is only really missing 2 or 3 from his total.
It seems Sampras skipped about half of the MS1000. If the MS1000 was mandatory like it is today, Sampras would probably have won twice more M1000.
NatF
Bionic Poster
No he wouldn't. Most of the ones he skipped during his prime were clay.
chjtennis
G.O.A.T.
I would have to think quite a bit before making any judgement on this. Nole is one of the GOAT IMHO. However, it is hard to decide where to put him if I were to rank all the players in history. The circumstances have changed. Masters 1000 now bear more importance than 10 years ago. It is due to the change in format of men's tour, which I think was a very good idea, and Masters 1000 events were not seen as important as they are back then. A lot of top players in the history put so much importance on slams, especially the ones they liked, and other variables should also be considered. However, I think Djokovic is an exceptional talent and should be ranked very high even on all time list.
Haha I was reading this thread, and didn't see the dates .
TRUE. Novak has won 93 total titles. 6 Rome on Clay, 2 FO, 3 Madrid and 2 MC on clay as well as 7 Wimbledons on grass. All of which is 20 off hard courts. Therefore, Novak has 73 titles on hard courts, must be very close to Rogers total? Therefore, Novak is either 1 or 2 all time great hard court champion.
Tennfan123
Legend
Connors. Lendl. Agassi. Sampras. Federer.
After them.
After them.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Most hardcourt Slams, most hardcourt Slam finals by far, tied with most WTFs, most hardcourt Masters and most hardcourt Masters finals is pretty much a done deal. Add in highest win percentage on hardcourt, most top 5 and most 10 wins, and it's hard to argue the opposite.
initialize
Hall of Fame
2nd. He simply isn't as well rounded as Fed on hardcourts, especially at the USO and faster hardcourts
TheAssassin
G.O.A.T.
He's already won the most at 6/9 biggest HC events today and next year his AOs alone could be equal to the second best total HC Slam tally. This is actually pointless to discuss unless we are going to be clowns and throwing in Rolex ads lol...
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
LOL. Plus he's the only one who won all the big hardcourt tournaments at least twice. We could go on and on. Yea I mean...it's pretty a done deal at this point.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
He's won 8 more HC slams since the end of 2014 mike.
Enceladus
Legend
What about a 10-0 record in Australian Open finals? That's the stat that primarily makes Nole the HC GOAT.
Biotic
Legend
Who is Djokovic exactly being compared to here? A guy who is like 0-10 in big matches at the AO and who couldn't get anywhere close to winning a single USO once the CRAPOLA era ended? A dude whose prime was so much stronger that he couldn't win more YECs in his prime than Djoko? That is just sad and depressing.
There's only one name that can be in the conversation today: PETE. Nuff said.
There's only one name that can be in the conversation today: PETE. Nuff said.
DSH
Bionic Poster
jl809
Legend
Getting 10 AOs is pretty ridiculous, he has to be up there now
I’ve said before that I think Fedovic would get smacked by the 90s pair of PETE and Agassi if their primes intersected, and Djoker also loses points for taking Ls to Stan and Murray in his prime, so he isn’t HC BOAT for me.
But just like with the Overall GOAT debate, stats have to be the main driver after a certain point, and Djoker and Fed are clear of the rest for HC GOAT discussions
I’ve said before that I think Fedovic would get smacked by the 90s pair of PETE and Agassi if their primes intersected, and Djoker also loses points for taking Ls to Stan and Murray in his prime, so he isn’t HC BOAT for me.
But just like with the Overall GOAT debate, stats have to be the main driver after a certain point, and Djoker and Fed are clear of the rest for HC GOAT discussions
Similar threads
