Where does Djokovic rank all time on grass?

ibbi

Hall of Fame
You can't just add their wins in other grass court majors. Who's to say how many grass court majors Djoker would have if 3 out of 4 majors were played on grass today?

At the very least you'd have to say Djokovic is massively more accomplished than Edberg and Connors at Wimbledon
The question was not about Wimbledon, the question is about grass, right? That's what the title says. He is more accomplished than them, sure, that's something else entirely. Sure, if there was more majors on grass he might have many more titles, but he doesn't, and they do :D
 

JoelSandwich

Hall of Fame
Tbh I’d prob still put him behind Federer, Sampras, and Borg obviously
And then behind Mac, Becker and Edberg
Because they had prime/peak ATGs in their way that stopped them from winning a couple more
Achievement wise he’s certainly above them though
I’d def put him above Connors and Nadal now though
But peak level is debatable
 

Spider

Hall of Fame
You're saying he'll win 3 more Wimbledons?
I mean why not? He is the second best of this generation on grass and can easily beat Federer at Wimbledon. Morever, Federer isn't getting any younger. I don't see any young guns raising up to challenge him on grass yet. And for Nadal it depends on surviving week 1.

3 is possible if he remains healthy and motivated.
 

BGod

Legend
The question is grass not Wimbledon so Edberg & Connors are ahead.

I take Novak over McEnroe now though.

Becker still my #4 so Novak 7th.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
I mean why not? He is the second best of this generation on grass and can easily beat Federer at Wimbledon. Morever, Federer isn't getting any younger. I don't see any young guns raising up to challenge him on grass yet. And for Nadal it depends on surviving week 1.

3 is possible if he remains healthy and motivated.
I don't even think Nadal will win that many FO titles from now on and Djokovic who isn't even a year younger is gonna win Wimbledon 3 times?

I guess the competition outside of the big 3 is so bad that it's possible but even there Djokovic is 31, I wouldn't bet on it.
 

vex

Hall of Fame
These nonsense arguments you can't seem to respond to with much more than lol's. Why discuss when you can act like a child, right?
Because I tried breaking it down point by point and it was like talking to a wall. There’s no point in me breaking out stats and in-depth analyse with a low brow poster. You arent Steve or Natf or Hitman or GM, there’s just no point, it’s a waste of my time.

On top of everything you are completely ignoring the giant fallacy in your argument: Novak would have even more grass slams had AO been played on grass as it was for dumpster fire Connors.

Connors doesn’t belong in the same breath as Djokovic. Period. He’s like 3 tiers behind him as a player.
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
The question was not about Wimbledon, the question is about grass, right? That's what the title says. He is more accomplished than them, sure, that's something else entirely. Sure, if there was more majors on grass he might have many more titles, but he doesn't, and they do :D
You have to take into consideration the number of opportunities for winning titles on the surface

There are barely any grass tournaments left
 
  • Like
Reactions: vex

ibbi

Hall of Fame
Because I tried breaking it down point by point and it was like talking to a wall. There’s no point in me breaking out stats and in-depth analyse with a low brow poster. You arent Steve or Natf or Hitman or GM, there’s just no point, it’s a waste of my time.

On top of everything you are completely ignoring the giant fallacy in your argument: Novak would have even more grass slams had AO been played on grass as it was for dumpster fire Connors.

Connors doesn’t belong in the same breath as Djokovic. Period. He’s like 3 tiers behind him as a player.
Okay, so I get it now, Jimmy Connors nailed your sister or something, right? You're accusing me of fallacies while awarding someone mythical titles he's never won. What have you broken down point by point? I must have missed that between your "lololol" and your "Lol no" and your "did he ever beat Fed or Rafa on grass?" or calling me a clown? Maybe it was when you responded to the idea that Djokovic's returning abilities would probably be less successful on less high bouncing grass by pointing out how he neutralized Anderson's serve?
 

ibbi

Hall of Fame
I watched him many times. Great player, just not in Djokovic's class. The real question is did you ever see either of them?
We can go back and forth asking each other the same question till the end of time, but I don't think it's going to get us anywhere :p That a serve and volleyer like Edberg won two majors on the grass in Australia so akin to todays Wimbledon is pretty ****ing slick.
 

ibbi

Hall of Fame
You have to take into consideration the number of opportunities for winning titles on the surface

There are barely any grass tournaments left
You also can't just award someone titles that don't exist, because it's not that simple. If there were three majors still being played on grass then the game would still probably be filled primarily by serve and volley guys, and a defensive baseliner is unlikely to have accomplished much more than he has.
 
Behind Federer, Sampras, Borg, Edberg, Becker, Mac, and Connors, and that's just the Open era.
That’s probably about right.

Edberg and Connors both won 4 majors on grass, which younger viewers will not appreciate.

Mac and Becker with their 3 W titles are still above Novak Djokovic due to facing stronger competition and being naturally better grass courters.

So we can give Novak Djokovic 8th place in the Open Era on grass.

All time, the likes of Tilden, Perry, Budge, Laver and others stand above him also.
 
Last edited:

clout

Hall of Fame
IMO the greatest Wimbledon players in open era are:
1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Borg
4. Djokovic
5. Becker
6. McEnroe
7. Connors
8. Nadal
9. Laver
10. Newcombe
Honourable mentions: Edberg and Murray
 
Last edited:

Nadal_Django

Hall of Fame
That’s probably about right.

Edberg and Connors both won 4 majors on grass, which younger viewers will not appreciate.

Mac and Becker with their 3 W titles are still above Novak Djokovic due to facing stronger competition and being naturally better grass courters.

So we can give Novak Djokovic 8th place in the Open Era on grass.

All time, the likes of Tilden, Perry, Budge, Laver and others stand above him also.
If the competition is some kind of the criteria then what the hell is Federer doing in the top 5 grass courters of all time.;)
 

PMChambers

Hall of Fame
Don't mean to be rude but I'm yet to see Djokovic play grass court tennis I've seen him on grass but never seen him play grass court tennis. Grass ended around 2000. This stuff they csll grass now is closer to Med HC. And in a way I'm happy with that as otherwise Wimbledon Gentlemens singles would be as awesome as the lsdied with 1 of 10 making R64. Maybe should reset the counter from 2001 onwards he's 2nd after Federer with Nadal or Murray 3rd.
 

swordtennis

Legend
Don't mean to be rude but I'm yet to see Djokovic play grass court tennis I've seen him on grass but never seen him play grass court tennis. Grass ended around 2000. This stuff they csll grass now is closer to Med HC. And in a way I'm happy with that as otherwise Wimbledon Gentlemens singles would be as awesome as the lsdied with 1 of 10 making R64. Maybe should reset the counter from 2001 onwards he's 2nd after Federer with Nadal or Murray 3rd.
I do not know what to say. I love and loved jimmy connors and djokovic is a new and improved jimmy connors on grass. Cyborg in the mould of jimmy connors. This is beyond me. Is this a tennis historian thing? A fed fan where only fed or sampras know how to play on grass? Jmac? Borg? Im stumped on this.
 

Sport

Legend
Behind Federer, Sampras, Borg, Edberg, Becker, Mac, and Connors, and that's just the Open era.
Why do you always overrate players from the past? This is the less objective comment I have ever read in TTW.

Edberg and Connors only have 2 Wimbledon titles and you are putting them ahead of Djokovic who has twice as many titles? MacEnroe and Becker have 3 Wimbledon titles.

You can make all the subjective arguments you want about competition/surfaces and whatever. The only objective fact is that 4>3> 2.

Djokovic is closer to Borg than any of those you mention with less than 4 Wimbledon titles.
 

Pheasant

Hall of Fame
To me, peak means a ton. Borg won 5 consecutive Wimbledon titles(tied with Fed) and went to 6 consecutive finals(1 short of Fed's record). Let's say that Djokovic wins his 6th Wimbledon title in 2023. That would mean that it took him 13 years to win 6 titles whereas Borg needed only 5 to win 5. In this scenario, I'd still easily give this to Borg. This is no knock on Djokovic. Of course, if Djokovic ran off 6 straight finals appearances(starting with this year), then I would nudge Djoker ahead of Borg.

Let's see what happens here. But for now, Djoker seems like a solid #4 guy. FWIW, I think that Becker is the type of guy that would have troubled Djokovic HTH on grass. Boom Boom was awesome on grass. But it's tough to argue against Djokovic's accomplishments.

Djoker gets the #4 spot for now.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I'd be interested to hear @NatF's views on this. :)
Below peak Arod for sure :p ;)

On a serious note it's tough because his number of Wimbledon titles clashes with my perception of how he compares to players like McEnroe, Becker and Edberg. It's probably the same reason people think Sampras > Federer on grass still, subjectively style matters a lot.

All time obviously includes pre-OE as well, off the top of my head I'd put him below Federer, Sampras, Laver, Borg, Rosewall, Gonzalez, Newcombe, Tilden, McEnroe and Becker.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Below peak Arod for sure :p ;)

On a serious note it's tough because his number of Wimbledon titles clashes with my perception of how he compares to players like McEnroe, Becker and Edberg. It's probably the same reason people think Sampras > Federer on grass still, subjectively style matters a lot.

All time obviously includes pre-OE as well, off the top of my head I'd put him below Federer, Sampras, Laver, Borg, Rosewall, Gonzalez, Newcombe, Tilden, McEnroe and Becker.
Wow, that's quite a lot of players you still have above him. Would it be sacrilegious to say he now has a good argument of at least being ahead of Becker and McEnroe in terms of players from the Open Era?
 

Sport

Legend
Below peak Arod for sure :p ;)

On a serious note it's tough because his number of Wimbledon titles clashes with my perception of how he compares to players like McEnroe, Becker and Edberg. It's probably the same reason people think Sampras > Federer on grass still, subjectively style matters a lot.

All time obviously includes pre-OE as well, off the top of my head I'd put him below Federer, Sampras, Laver, Borg, Rosewall, Gonzalez, Newcombe, Tilden, McEnroe and Becker.
Bill Tilden, graphic description:

 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Wow, that's quite a lot of players you still have above him. Would it be sacrilegious to say he now has a good argument of at least being ahead of Becker and McEnroe in terms of players from the Open Era?
Of course he does have arguments with the extra Wimbledon, it's just my opinion. It's not that many players considering that list goes back 100 years...

Both Becker and McEnroe have 4 Queens titles to go with their Wimbledon's and Becker has 3 more finals that Djokovic too. So I don't think I'm being unfair ;)

Bill Tilden, graphic description:

In 50 years time I hope to be educating people on the greatness of Nadal on clay as well.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
Edberg did win two AO titles on grass but 2 AO titles + 2 Wimbledon titles is not equal to 4 Wimbledon titles. Djokovic is greater since he won the most coveted trophy 4 times when Edberg did it twice. No one is going to rank Edberg over him when they look back over history.
Heck, that's like saying that Wilander is as good of a grasscourter as Nadal just because he won 2 AO titles on grass despite not passing the QF at Wimb.

Wimb is the barometer for grass greatness. It's the only slam that has stayed on grass since its creation.
 
Last edited:

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
I mean why not? He is the second best of this generation on grass and can easily beat Federer at Wimbledon. Morever, Federer isn't getting any younger. I don't see any young guns raising up to challenge him on grass yet. And for Nadal it depends on surviving week 1.

3 is possible if he remains healthy and motivated.
Let's not go overboard. Not too long ago he barely avoided upsets against Cilic and Anderson and was actually upset by Querrey.

Djokovic has never beaten Federer easily at Wimb.

Thr guy went 2 years without winning Wimb and suddenly he'll match Sampras. Get a grip :rolleyes:
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Heck, that's like saying that Wilander is as good of a grasscourter as Nadal just because he won 2 AO titles on grass despite not passing tge QF at Wimb.

Wimb is the barometer for grass greatness. It's the only slam that has stayed on grass since its creation.
This. Wimbledon is seen as the centerpiece and holy grail of tennis which means it's more pressure and more at stake. That's the reason a player like Wilander did well at AO and beat players like McEnroe and Edberg and didn't do well at all at Wimbledon. I would like to know how much differently the grass at AO played in comparison to the grass at Wimbledon because Wilander's record at both tournaments is like night and day.
 

World Beater

Hall of Fame
lots of bias against novak because he plays mostly from the baseline...

people rating becker and edberg above him? really? i can understand mcenroe but its still a tough sell.

lets not forget he has 5 finals (lost to murray).

djokovic beat a decent fed twice in finals! Nadal once! these are all time champions.

his runs have been very impressive.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
lots of bias against novak because he plays mostly from the baseline...

people rating becker and edberg above him? really? i can understand mcenroe but its still a tough sell.

lets not forget he has 5 finals (lost to murray).

djokovic beat a decent fed twice in finals! Nadal once! these are all time champions.

his runs have been very impressive.
He beat Nadal twice. The semi this year was the de-facto final.
 

MeatTornado

Legend
Heck, that's like saying that Wilander is as good of a grasscourter as Nadal just because he won 2 AO titles on grass despite not passing the QF at Wimb.

Wimb is the barometer for grass greatness. It's the only slam that has stayed on grass since its creation.
But that's like saying Roger's Australian Open titles are meaningless for describing his hard court prowess.

Surely you can see the double-standard you just set?
 

eldanger25

Hall of Fame
I'm going to limit my answer to Wimbledon, since it isn't particularly fair to either Novak or guys like Connors/Edberg to look at grass as a whole given generational differences (for instance, Novak would have more grass court majors if Australia was still on grass, but Jimmy would have more too if he had played the AO more than 2x in his career).

Anyway, 4 titles in 8 seasons is huge. I think he's past Mac and Becker (who may've only had two Wimbledons if Curren hadn't redlined against Connors in the 1985 semi: teenaged Becker v. aging Connors - two strutting peacocks, the great server versus the great returner - for the 1985 Wimbledon title is maybe my great lost match of the Open Era).
 

clout

Hall of Fame
IMO the greatest Wimbledon players in open era are:
1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Borg
4. Djokovic
5. Becker
6. McEnroe
7. Connors
8. Nadal
9. Laver
10. Newcombe
Honourable mentions: Edberg and Murray
In addition to Wimbledon these would be my top 10 rankings for each major (open era only):
Australian Open:
1. Federer
2. Djokovic
3. Agassi
4. Wilander
5. Edberg
6. Lendl
7. Sampras
8. Nadal
9. Courier
10. Rosewall
Honourable Mentions: Becker, Laver and Newcombe

French Open:
1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Wilander
4. Lendl
5. Kuerten
6. Courier
7. Federer
8. Djokovic
9. Bruguera
10. Vilas
Honourable Mentions: Agassi, Kodes, Laver and Rosewall

US Open:
1. Sampras
2. Federer
3. Connors
4. McEnroe
5. Lendl
6. Nadal
7. Agassi
8. Djokovic
9. Edberg
10. Rafter
Honourable Mentions: Laver, Rosewall and Borg
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
In addition to Wimbledon these would be my top 10 rankings for each major (open era only):
Australian Open:
1. Federer
2. Djokovic
3. Agassi
4. Wilander
5. Edberg
6. Lendl
7. Becker
8. Sampras
9. Rosewall
10. Nadal
Honourable Mentions: Courier, Laver and Newcombe

French Open:
1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Wilander
4. Lendl
5. Kuerten
6. Courier
7. Federer
8. Djokovic
9. Bruguera
10. Vilas
Honourable Mentions: Agassi, Kodes, Laver and Rosewall

US Open:
1. Sampras
2. Federer
3. Connors
4. McEnroe
5. Lendl
6. Nadal
7. Agassi
8. Djokovic
9. Edberg
10. Rafter
Honourable Mentions: Laver, Rosewall and Borg
Solid lists
 

Tiki-Taka

Hall of Fame
Somewhere around McEnroe and Becker. You could make a case for any of them being fourth of the Open Era.

Novak's roads to his Wimbledon titles haven't been easy at all to be honest so he deserves a lot of praise for winning four...
 

duaneeo

Hall of Fame
Novak's roads to his Wimbledon titles haven't been easy at all to be honest so he deserves a lot of praise for winning four...
Every road to the final has been easy for Djokovic.

In 2011, 2014, and 2015 he kept facing the same 4 players to reach the final...Tomic (2011, 2015), Tsonga (2011, 2014), Cilic (2014, 2015), and Anderson (2011, 2015...and who Djokovic would beat in the final in 2018). To reach the true final this year (the semis), he faced a few mugs, a few NextGens still developing, and punching bag Nishikori.
 
Top