socallefty
G.O.A.T.
How are we supposed to compare players from different eras including those who played with wood/gut, mid graphite/gut, mid/mid+ graphite/poly? In the poly era, is it Federer over Djokovic?
Who was the best indoor surface player ever?
- Thread starter Winner Sinner
- Start date
Winner Sinner
Hall of Fame
I answer myself on the first question;
The h2h Federer-Djokovic on indoor surface is 6-5 in favor of Djokovic.
In reality, Djokovic has the advantage over Federer on all surfaces except clay where they are tied;
Hard courts: Djokovic, 20–18
Outdoor: Djokovic, 14–13
Indoors: Djokovic, 6–5
Grass courts: Djokovic, 3–1
Clay courts: Tied, 4–4
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
I can accept fed over Djokovic but not by much.
Neptune
Hall of Fame
Not when Fed played 125 more matches but only 1 more top5 and 2 more top10 wins, and 8 less big titles.
Top5 Weight over 15% and Top10 Weight over 30% can be considered as very tough.
Indoor | vs Top5 | T5 Weight | vs Top10 | T10 Weight | vs T11+ | T11+ Weight | vs All |
McEnroe | 64 (36-28) 56.25% | 13.09% | 112 (75-37) 66.96% | 22.90% | 377 (343-34) 90.98% | 77.10% | 489 (418-71) 85.48% |
Lendl | 59 (38-21) 64.41% | 14.43% | 98 (68-30) 69.39% | 23.96% | 311 (272-39) 87.46% | 76.04% | 409 (340-69) 83.13% |
Connors | 66 (27-39) 40.91% | 11.00% | 119 (66-53) 55.46% | 19.83% | 481 (428-53) 88.98% | 80.17% | 600 (494-106) 82.33% |
Borg | 37 (27-10) 72.97% | 13.17% | 70 (50-20) 71.43% | 24.91% | 211 (176-35) 83.41% | 75.09% | 281 (226-55) 80.43% |
Becker | 65 (47-18) 72.31% | 17.71% | 106 (77-29) 72.64% | 28.88% | 261 (216-45) 82.76% | 71.12% | 367 (293-74) 79.84% |
Fed | 51 (32-19) 62.75% | 15.13% | 107 (73-34) 68.22% | 31.75% | 230 (196-34) 85.22% | 68.25% | 337 (269-68) 79.82% |
Nole | 46 (31-15) 67.39% | 21.70% | 93 (71-22) 76.34% | 43.87% | 119 (97-22) 81.51% | 56.13% | 212 (168-44) 79.25% |
Pete | 41 (26-15) 63.41% | 15.13% | 86 (60-26) 69.77% | 31.73% | 185 (150-35) 81.08% | 68.27% | 271 (210-61) 77.49% |
Last edited:
NatF
Bionic Poster
Yes. Winning those titles in Dallas when he basically 40 is big. He had success at Wembley and the French Pro (when it was clay and crucially here indoors).
JoJoHackshow
Rookie
This.
Stats from different eras are one thing.
But pit them all against one another at all their peaks?
Literally everyone would be putting their money on Federer, and it's not even close either
Golden-24
Rookie
7 Paris Masters, 7 ATP Finals. Is there even a debate? No one comes close. No one.
Federer winning Basel 10 times doesn't hold a candle when he only has 1 Paris Masters.
And I know players like Connors and Lendl had some amazing stats and a highpercentage of wins in indoor but until someone wins 15 Paris/WTF, no one is touching Djokovic's records in indoor.
This "records single" table about the Paris Masters says it all. Djokovic holds all 8 records. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Masters
Until someone wins a combination of 15 AO/USO, there is only one best outdoor hard courts player too.
Federer winning Basel 10 times doesn't hold a candle when he only has 1 Paris Masters.
And I know players like Connors and Lendl had some amazing stats and a highpercentage of wins in indoor but until someone wins 15 Paris/WTF, no one is touching Djokovic's records in indoor.
This "records single" table about the Paris Masters says it all. Djokovic holds all 8 records. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Masters
Until someone wins a combination of 15 AO/USO, there is only one best outdoor hard courts player too.
Last edited:
RS
Bionic Poster
Doesn't make the cut.
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
Sinner has ZERO of them
Alcaraz ZERO
Murray just 2 (both in 2016) + 1 Madrid
Nadal zero + 1 Madrid
Subway Tennis
G.O.A.T.
Quite entertaining to see how high Sampras still ranks here given how little he cared about a lot of the indoor season and how often he basically phoned it in at indoor events and still has such great numbers.
The contrast with Becker and Sampras in this context is pretty interesting because Becker was often at his most energised at some of the European events, which was the complete opposite of Pete.
It’s a real credit to Becker and his ability to raise the hackles that we got those big matches where some of the best versions of Becker struck a chord with Sampras and inspired him to go nuclear.
McEnroe is the winner for me in terms of the greatest indoorsman.
The contrast with Becker and Sampras in this context is pretty interesting because Becker was often at his most energised at some of the European events, which was the complete opposite of Pete.
It’s a real credit to Becker and his ability to raise the hackles that we got those big matches where some of the best versions of Becker struck a chord with Sampras and inspired him to go nuclear.
McEnroe is the winner for me in terms of the greatest indoorsman.
TheGoldenEra1990’s
Hall of Fame
In terms of level? Oh definitely Sampras. Hell he even gave Federer fits in 2007 5 years retired in Macau
Sampras-Becker in ‘96 year end was arguably the best best match ever. Or one of them
Sampras-Becker in ‘96 year end was arguably the best best match ever. Or one of them
Lauren_Girl'
Hall of Fame
Big titles are the only stats that truly matter when you need to determine who is the best on a surface or in a category in particular. Most of Mcenroe and others' indoor titles were in 250/500 or equivalents. And there were much more indoor tournaments 30 years ago.ago.
Putting anyone above Djokovic in indoors is like saying Federer > Djokodal because he has 103 titles and they have less. Or saying Zverev is a better clay player than Alcaraz because he won 4 big titles vs 3.
Lauren_Girl'
Hall of Fame
And among those 5 indoor wins Federer snagged in indoors,
- 1 was a Davis Cup group match where Djokovic was hardly out of daycare in 2006
- 1 was a dead rubber, Djokovic already had 1 foot and a half in semi and then completely trashed him in the final 3 days later
- 2 were at the end of 2010 when Djokovic's only goal was the Davis Cup final. He admitted himself he couldn't care less about the results, he was using these tournaments as warmups for the DC.
Djokovic won the 4 matches that mattered the most. London finals 2012 and 2015, Paris semifinals in 2013 and 2018. Let's not forget Federer pulling out of the London final in 2014.
How anyone can seriously think Federer (and his big total of... 1 Bercy) is a better indoors player than Djokovic is beyond me.
JoJoHackshow
Rookie
Well Federer has more talent in his pinky finger than all of Nole's body. Makes sense why many people would think that
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
Exactly. Tell them. 250s are joke. 500s are weaker than masters.
I Am Finnish
Bionic Poster
Fedr
Lauren_Girl'
Hall of Fame
Then why does he only have 1 title in Bercy, one of the most 2 prestigious indoors events? Plus he won Bercy the year Djokovic pulled out of the tournament in 2011. Djokovic has 7 wins +2 extra finals. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Where was Federer's talent all these years? You tell me.
And why couldn't he win any more titles in London after his 30th birthday? Djokovic trashed Sinneraz last year at 37 years old. Federer won his last WTF at 30 and then repeatedly failed to beat a guy who's only 5 years younger than him... But Federer is more talented, sure. lol
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
Winner Sinner
Hall of Fame
But at the same time we return to the age-old question of the fact that Federer and Djokovic's peaks only came close.
So in the comparison we cannot take at face value the comparisons between the two before 2011 and after 2010 to establish who was the best player on equal terms.
From this aspect it is much easier to establish an equal comparison between Djokovic-Nadal or Sampras-Agassi, and at the end of their careers also between Sinner-Alcaraz.
TearTheRoofOff
G.O.A.T.
Federer had no talent.
Winner Sinner
Hall of Fame
Impeccable analysis, it is clear that Djokovic has been able to maintain a higher level once he turned 30 compared to Federer, all the statistical data proves this.
Having said that, here too it always goes back to the same old story, once Federer turned 30 he no longer won the ATP Finals mainly because he found Djokovic at his peak in his path.
Sinneraz 2023 was in no way comparable to the Djokovic peak.
An equal comparison also from this perspective would have been to see how Djokovic would have behaved once he turned 30 if a Federer at his peak (2004-2009) would have been on his path
McEnroe had 8 titles at WTF/WCT Finals, the two biggest indoor tournaments of his time, both bigger than the Australian Open back then, with the WCT Finals being BO5 every round and WTF being BO5 in the final.
Beyond that, McEnroe had 13 titles at the U.S. Pro Indoor, Wembley, and Stockholm, the equivalent of Masters Series events now and the other three biggest indoor events at the time. Breaking it down:
-McEnroe won 4 straight U.S. Indoor titles from 1982-1985 (BO5 final every year; also BO5 SF in 1982). He didn't play the event in 1981 or 1986;
-McEnroe won 5/6 Wembley titles from 1978-1983 (BO5 final every year), losing the 1982 final to Connors in five sets. He didn't play the event in 1977 or 1984;
-McEnroe played Stockholm 5 times from 1978-1985, winning it 4 times and losing the 1980 final to Borg
In other words, at the 15 Masters-equivalent indoor events McEnroe played from 1978-1985, he won 13 of them, only losing 1 final to Borg and 1 final to Connors.
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
McEnroe is safe. It's our fed which is problem
Drob
Hall of Fame
Voted Others:
Gonzalez
Rosewall
Borotra
Kramer
et al.
From your list, there are a lot of good choices. Might say Lendl. But a pretty good list.
Shocked at the results of the poll. Federer perhaps weakest indoor player on your list, although he is a tremendous indoor player. Laver is the choice. His number is not 30, it is close to triple that number. The McEnroe votes surprise somewhat. Mac was swell indoors. But Lendl was better. Sampras was better. I am glad to see you recognize that Becker squarely belongs among the greatest when it comes to indoor tennis. I'd put him almost equal to McEnroe. A very good open era list.
But other posters have questioned why not go farther back, and have asked if players from radically different eras can be compared.
There are two big turning points in indoor tennis. the first is the advent of "technology" which begins I think w the graphite racket. That would be ca. 1983 maybe? The second is the markedly slowing of indoor surfaces from fast and super fast to medium and medium fast, occurring early this century, but I cannot precise the date (i.e. I watched Safin's two Paris wins, 2002 and '04 and those courts were pretty fast - but sometime very shortly after that). Federer and Djokovic are the best players on medium-fast. And there are very few others worth mentioning, because of the short time these slower courts have been the norm. But, Davydenko, Nalbandian, Zverev, maybe Medvedev, maybe Murray, Soderling, del Potro. It has only been 20 years roughly and Fed and Nole have dominated.
Gonzalez
Rosewall
Borotra
Kramer
et al.
From your list, there are a lot of good choices. Might say Lendl. But a pretty good list.
Shocked at the results of the poll. Federer perhaps weakest indoor player on your list, although he is a tremendous indoor player. Laver is the choice. His number is not 30, it is close to triple that number. The McEnroe votes surprise somewhat. Mac was swell indoors. But Lendl was better. Sampras was better. I am glad to see you recognize that Becker squarely belongs among the greatest when it comes to indoor tennis. I'd put him almost equal to McEnroe. A very good open era list.
But other posters have questioned why not go farther back, and have asked if players from radically different eras can be compared.
There are two big turning points in indoor tennis. the first is the advent of "technology" which begins I think w the graphite racket. That would be ca. 1983 maybe? The second is the markedly slowing of indoor surfaces from fast and super fast to medium and medium fast, occurring early this century, but I cannot precise the date (i.e. I watched Safin's two Paris wins, 2002 and '04 and those courts were pretty fast - but sometime very shortly after that). Federer and Djokovic are the best players on medium-fast. And there are very few others worth mentioning, because of the short time these slower courts have been the norm. But, Davydenko, Nalbandian, Zverev, maybe Medvedev, maybe Murray, Soderling, del Potro. It has only been 20 years roughly and Fed and Nole have dominated.
Last edited:
Subway Tennis
G.O.A.T.
Important contextualisation and necessary in this case.
Whenever you hear someone use the term “big titles” as a blanket statement in a discussion about statistics there is potentially a lack of knowledge about how titles have changed in importance and value over time and a lack of appreciation for previous era achievements.
“Big titles” as a term is essentially a current day marketing gimmick created by the ATP to bundle in its own modern day events and the Olympics in a common tier with majors. Some people think events without something like a m1000 designation are not important historically.
Pete on a proper slick, fast indoor court was a beast too. Those two would be by 1 and 2 with fed shading it.
That’s open era not history. Laver won a lot more indoors in the pro era
Pheasant
Legend
I am surprised that Lendl doesn’t have more votes. But I will definitely take it.
1985-87, Lendl went 14-0 at the year-end tourney while droping only 1 set the entire time. Here are some of his most impressive wins:
1985 final. Beat Becker 3-0
1986: beat Edberg in straights in RR, beat Wilander in straights in semis, then beat Becker 3-0 in the final
1987: Beat Becker 2-1 in RR. Lost tiebreaker set. Beat Wilander 3-0 in final.
That’s 6-0 vs 6+ slam champions while winning 15 sets and losing just 1 set(tiebreaker to Becker). This doesn’t include his win over Connors where Connors forfeited the match midway through the first set.
The 2 years before this , McEnroe eliminated Lendl in the championship match each time.
2 years before that, he won both of those titles while beating McEnroe along the way both times(once in championship and once in the semis).
Year before that, he lost the championship to Borg
Lendl has a case. But I voted for Mac. Mac was an even bigger monster. And his competition was insane.
1985-87, Lendl went 14-0 at the year-end tourney while droping only 1 set the entire time. Here are some of his most impressive wins:
1985 final. Beat Becker 3-0
1986: beat Edberg in straights in RR, beat Wilander in straights in semis, then beat Becker 3-0 in the final
1987: Beat Becker 2-1 in RR. Lost tiebreaker set. Beat Wilander 3-0 in final.
That’s 6-0 vs 6+ slam champions while winning 15 sets and losing just 1 set(tiebreaker to Becker). This doesn’t include his win over Connors where Connors forfeited the match midway through the first set.
The 2 years before this , McEnroe eliminated Lendl in the championship match each time.
2 years before that, he won both of those titles while beating McEnroe along the way both times(once in championship and once in the semis).
Year before that, he lost the championship to Borg
Lendl has a case. But I voted for Mac. Mac was an even bigger monster. And his competition was insane.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Becker himself stated that the 96 final was the best he ever played.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Reaching 9 finals in a row is already crazy.
Angrybirdstar
Professional
can you talk a bit about Lacoste and Sedgman? i haven't really read about indoor tournaments Lacoste played in, and i thought Sedgman was quite like Edberg, in not doing too well against the dominant indoors contemporary (Gonzalez; Becker) and thriving more outdoors with the greater variability and lesser inherent bias towards power tennis
and Federer said he was peaking in 2015 or whenever. i disagree
In terms of McEnroe and Becker, their indoor records are also greatly enhanced by their stellar Davis Cup records Before the 90s with the significantly increased prize money awarded by the grand slams and ATP tour formation / standardisation, the Davis Cup was as important as a grand slam.
McEnroe had a 17-2 record in live singles rubbers under a roof, on carpet, hard and clay; 15-1 on indoor carpet, 1-0 on indoor hard and 1-1 on indoor clay (a win against Noah in the 1982 final and defeat to Sundstrom in the 1984 final). The solitary defeat on carpet was against Becker in Hatford in 1987 in 6 hours and 20 minutes.
Becker had a 23-1 record in live singles rubberz under a roof, again on carpet, hard and clay; 21-0 on indoor carpet, 1-1 on indoor hard and 1-0 on indoor clay (a dominant win against Edberg in the 1988 final). The solitary indoor defeat was against Haarhuis on indoor hard in the Netherlands in 1995. But he bounced back by teaming up with Stich to beat Eltingh / Haarhuis in the doubles rubber, before beating Krajicek to wrap up the tie in his next singles match.
McEnroe had a 17-2 record in live singles rubbers under a roof, on carpet, hard and clay; 15-1 on indoor carpet, 1-0 on indoor hard and 1-1 on indoor clay (a win against Noah in the 1982 final and defeat to Sundstrom in the 1984 final). The solitary defeat on carpet was against Becker in Hatford in 1987 in 6 hours and 20 minutes.
Becker had a 23-1 record in live singles rubberz under a roof, again on carpet, hard and clay; 21-0 on indoor carpet, 1-1 on indoor hard and 1-0 on indoor clay (a dominant win against Edberg in the 1988 final). The solitary indoor defeat was against Haarhuis on indoor hard in the Netherlands in 1995. But he bounced back by teaming up with Stich to beat Eltingh / Haarhuis in the doubles rubber, before beating Krajicek to wrap up the tie in his next singles match.
Last edited:
Here's my own breakdown of McEnroe vs. Lendl:
Winning Percentage: McEnroe: 85.3%; Lendl: 82.97%
Total Titles: McEnroe: 56; Lendl: 42
WTF/WCT Finals/Grand Slam Cup (the Big 3): McEnroe: 8 titles in 19 events played; Lendl: 7 titles in 19 events played
Other "Big" Titles: McEnroe: 13 (5 Wembley/4 Philadelphia/4 Stockholm); Lendl: 4 (2 Tokyo/1 Philadelphia/1 Stockholm)
Head-to-Head: McEnroe 8-6
Indoor Davis Cup Record: McEnroe: 17-2; Lendl: 8-5
For me, while Lendl is great, McEnroe is the clear choice.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
I am not at all a guy who takes player’s words as gospel or as a debate ending argument, far from it. The folks resorting to that Fed 2015 statement I have always called out, as of course players have an agenda when saying such things. Having watched the 96 final countless times though I agree with Becker. He hit 31 aces and his return was on fire, all of that boosted by playing in front of a crazy German home crowd. Of course we can debate about 88 YEC, but I do agree with Becker here.
I wonder whether anyone has done a rewatch of this and the five set Stuttgart final between the two of them. Becker had 29 aces in the Stuttgart match (on fewer serves), and his return was also on fire, generating 14 break points.
France should be Rosewall's favorite country, outside of Australia, tennis wise at least.
I don't know how this should play into the analysis of the "best indoor surface player ever," but we don't know how good Federer and Djokovic would have been on indoor carpet. We know the least about Djokovic. He played only 13 matches on the surface, going 9-4 (69.2%), with his last match being a loss to Mathieu in Bercy in 2006 when he was 19.
As for Federer, he was 50-19 (72.5%), with most of those matches coming from 1999-2003 before he hit his peak (Fed was 5-2 in 2003, losing to Ljubicic in the Basel R16 and Henman in the Bercy QF). Federer only played one WTF on carpet, in 2005, losing a five set to final against Nalbandian (albeit when he was less than 100%).
Honestly, I'm not sure how this plays into the analysis. Players like Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Becker, and Sampras were great on both indoor hard and carpet courts while Federer and Djokovic are/were great on indoor hard courts, but how they would have done on carpet is at least somewhat of a question mark.
As for Federer, he was 50-19 (72.5%), with most of those matches coming from 1999-2003 before he hit his peak (Fed was 5-2 in 2003, losing to Ljubicic in the Basel R16 and Henman in the Bercy QF). Federer only played one WTF on carpet, in 2005, losing a five set to final against Nalbandian (albeit when he was less than 100%).
Honestly, I'm not sure how this plays into the analysis. Players like Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Becker, and Sampras were great on both indoor hard and carpet courts while Federer and Djokovic are/were great on indoor hard courts, but how they would have done on carpet is at least somewhat of a question mark.
I think a player now near the top would be better than any player 2, 3 decades ago. Think about it! One player introduces a new trick, and everyone and his mother would copy that. And practice makes perfect! And a player now wouldn't have a chance against a slam winner 2, 3 decades from now!
gamelovergold
Professional
Federer has more talent thats why he is behind rafa and novak in slam tally.
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
When talking indoors nadal is some scrub nothing else. Fed and nole clears him.
gamelovergold
Professional
Nadal was a great clay court player who overacheived in hard court and grass . Roger and novak can be compared directly as both were versatile player.
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
Then do so. Let's not add nadal here. Fed is one of the greatest on indoors.
JoJoHackshow
Rookie
Nope, he's "behind" only because he's 6 years older and didn't benefit from the CIE
gamelovergold
Professional
No doubt fedrer was a great player and his records are well enough to put him in higher bracket of tennis greats.
Similar threads
