Who was the better hard-court player, 2004 Andre Agassi or 2023 Novak Djokovic?

Who was the better hard-court player, 2004 Andre Agassi or 2023 Novak Djokovic?


  • Total voters
    86
  • Poll closed .

fedfan24

Hall of Fame
All the arguments against Djokovic are based on ridiculous hypotheticals that are completely unprovable and have no basis in reality or at least a competent argument in their favor.

Competition matters, yes. And 2023 didn't have the strongest competition, which I don't think anyone has argued. However, a player's competition is not something they choose. Denying a player their achievements because other players lost early or played badly is ridiculous. What exactly is a player supposed to do for his achievements to count and not be "asterisked" or "inflation"? Because I can understand the argument if he was struggling against subpar competition. Maybe against stronger competition he would lose and he got lucky. But that wasn't the case with Djokovic last year. AT ALL. He was routining the opposition and demolishing it at times. So he was doing his part.

At the USO he won 6 out 7 matches in straights.

At the AO he did the same thing. Beat Rublev 6-1 6-2 6-4. 7 games dropped against world #5. After the first set dropped only 3 games vs Tommy Paul. Dropped FIVE games against De Minaur, who is now TOP 10. He had two bagels and a breadstick in his first two matches. Only dropped one set across the whole tournament and it was a tie-break, similar situation as 2011.

What else was he supposed to do exactly for the achievement to be worth it? Not drop a set and not more than 3 games per set?

At the USO he beat a top hardcourter like Medvedev (who had just beaten Alcaraz) in straights. He beat a top 10 like Fritz 6-1 6-4 6-4. So it's not like he was struggling against them. Even in the match against Djere, the only one where dropped sets, he won his sets fairly comfortably. So expecting him to put a memorable clinic every match and dish out bagels and breadsticks to make the achievements "count" is nonsense. Criticizing his level when he beats a top player 6-1 6-4 6-4 or a multiple slam finalist in straights? I'd understood if he was going 7-5 in the fifth or at least a tough four-setter against weak rivals and saying he would lose against top opposition (which would still be a hypothetical, but at least more grounded in reality).

Saying his level was not good and he would easily lose against Agassi 2004, or any other player when he achieved far more (even if against worse competition) is hilarious. What's the argument to say his level was not good enough if he was winning comfortably? "Because I said so"?
I think it’s hard to properly rank his level because of just how poor his opponents were. He only faced 1 well playing potential atg player in alcaraz at W and lost in 5.
 

fedfan24

Hall of Fame
Say you didn't watch the match lol. Djokovic was thoroughly mediocre and fritz was garbage, particularly the first set is basically this era in a nutshell lol.
What Djokovic should do regardless of scorelines is to play crazy good tennis as befits his continued achievements, instead he keeps relying on opponents to mug up and vulturing their errors. Sad!
good point. If 23 Djokovic was blowing his opponents away ala 03-06 Federer with a full repertoire of shots then he would get more credit for beating up these mugs. But he often just plays solid boring tennis and watches them implode. Its ever so predictable, you just know most of these 90s nextgen will implode and hand back any initiative.
 

zvelf

Hall of Fame
bro, I straight up proved your point about Wimbledon 1980 final wrong. it did not have a high number of unforced errors at all.
I also addressed Hewitt/Roddick vs Alcaraz/Sinner.
that vast majority of both Djokovic and nonDjokovic fans predicted between 14-20 slams is a reality - which you again denied.
And you're still wrong about Hewitt/Roddick being better than Alcaraz/Sinner. Again, I didn't deny anything about the numbers predicted. I simply stated that most Djokovic fans aren't going to predict extreme long-term success for their player. It's exactly why in match threads involving Djokovic, many Djokovic fans are hesitant to say Djokovic is going to destroy whomever he's playing. You can see that with fans of every player in match threads.

As far as the last statement, oh my god, your desperation is hilarious. Let me burst your ignorant bubble though. likes only started some years ago and I had made plenty of posts before that.
My point still stands. You only joined this forum less than 2 years before me, but somehow I'm the super-terrible poster who has more likes than posts.

Just in case it didn't sink in: if you think I was looking for approval from a board currently having many djoko--bots, recency biased kiddos etc, you are even more delusional than I thought. I wanted to see how many would expose themselves.

that you think debates are won by polls with skewed members instead of actual substantial points is :-D :-D :-D
Substantial points do win debates. I addressed all of yours. You ignored many of mine. People can read and judge for themselves. They sided with me 2 to 1 against you. If you have such contempt for so many in this forum, why do you even stay and actively interact with them?
 

zvelf

Hall of Fame
good point. If 23 Djokovic was blowing his opponents away ala 03-06 Federer with a full repertoire of shots then he would get more credit for beating up these mugs. But he often just plays solid boring tennis and watches them implode. Its ever so predictable, you just know most of these 90s nextgen will implode and hand back any initiative.
And here we get right back to Roddick's point about how people have a hard time seeing why Djokovic is so difficult to play.
 

fedfan24

Hall of Fame
And here we get right back to Roddick's point about how people have a hard time seeing why Djokovic is so difficult to play.
I’d be inclined to agree had we not seen federer, nadal, wawrinka, murray all take multiple slams from prime djokovic. 90s gen have a single slam win vs an older version of him (2021 USO). He is difficult to play but not invincible.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
And you're still wrong about Hewitt/Roddick being better than Alcaraz/Sinner.


Hewitt/Roddick are both better than Alcaraz/Sinner so far. Better prime to prime at Wim, USO and AO.

I'll repeat:

their level so far isn't even at Roddick/Hewitt level at their primes.
Sinner is a luckier Berdych.
Alcaraz worse than Roddick/Hewitt at their primes at AO/Wim/USO. Only better at RG, but he failed to even last for more than 2 sets vs 36 yo old Djokovic.

someone had to win a slam here and there. them being decent/least worst did.

what they do from now on isn't going to change what has happened previously. bolded and underlined for you. If you don't get it, it means you've failed 101 of evaluation in tennis (or any sport)

--------

you saying I'm wrong without an inch of anything to justify means diddly squat.

Again, I didn't deny anything about the numbers predicted. I simply stated that most Djokovic fans aren't going to predict extreme long-term success for their player. It's exactly why in match threads involving Djokovic, many Djokovic fans are hesitant to say Djokovic is going to destroy whomever he's playing. You can see that with fans of every player in match threads.

my point was djokovic and non-Djokovic fans predicted 14-20 - not so much different than me. so why are you bringing my prediction as if it were something different?


My point still stands. You only joined this forum less than 2 years before me, but somehow I'm the super-terrible poster who has more likes than posts.
instead of taking the L, you double down like a mega giga fool. :-D

now go and count no of posts of both of us before likes started and after likes started.
Here is a hint: I was way more active before 2020 than after.

Substantial points do win debates. I addressed all of yours. You ignored many of mine. People can read and judge for themselves. They sided with me 2 to 1 against you. If you have such contempt for so many in this forum, why do you even stay and actively interact with them?

I didn't address your points?

dude you are the one who ran away from:
1. admitting about 2 worst generations ever
2. my points about Hewitt/Alcaraz movement or movement in general. you acted like speed is the only component in movement. how shortsighted is that?
3. my points about Hewitt/Roddick vs Alcaraz/Sinner
4. the unforced errors point in Borg/Mcenroe Wimbledon 1980 final straight up being proven wrong.

as far as your question is concerned:
1. There are some good posters who know their tennis.
2. I have put many Djoko--bots on ignore
3. once in a while, it becomes necessary to contradict the nonsense being spewed on this forum.
 
Last edited:
Hewitt/Roddick are both better than Alcaraz/Sinner so far. Better prime to prime at Wim, USO and AO.
Until now Raz and Sinner have not shown so much which makes me believe that they are even considerably better than Zverev, Tsit or Med. They have the advantage to face an even older Djo and not having to deal with the old versions of Fedal anymore, but Raz still lost to Zed at this years AO and this was after our TTW scholars predicted after Wimbledon last year that he would break Djoko’s slam record :D. As for Sinner: after this years AO the deluded ones are out in full force comparing him with prime big three. He has won one single slam so far and needed five sets to beat Med. Hasn’t done much before and since other than being injured for a start. Absurd overrating going on here.
 

StefanV

Semi-Pro
FwmZ.gif
 

RS

Bionic Poster
Until now Raz and Sinner have not shown so much which makes me believe that they are even considerably better than Zverev, Tsit or Med. They have the advantage to face an even older Djo and not having to deal with the old versions of Fedal anymore, but Raz still lost to Zed at this years AO and this was after our TTW scholars predicted after Wimbledon last year that he would break Djoko’s slam record :D. As for Sinner: after this years AO the deluded ones are out in full force comparing him with prime big three. He has won one single slam so far and needed five sets to beat Med. Hasn’t done much before and since other than being injured for a start. Absurd overrating going on here.
I didn't find the Alcaraz stuff as extreme as the Sinner stuff.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Hewitt/Roddick are better, and face superior competition than Alcaraz/Sinner.

They had to deal Sampras, Agassi, Safin, Federer, and later Nadal on clay.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I wouldn’t go as far as see that as a given, but yes, interesting new dynamics could have appeared in their rivalry had they been the same age.
Given what we've seen, had they been the same age, Fed could've still only won 2 slam matches vs Nadal from 22 to 27, which, IMO, is the worst case scenario for him.

But from age 28 onwards he could actually take control of the rivalry and that's not even mentioning the weak 90's gen he'd feast upon after his prime is over. No more age disadvantage against Djokovic either. And maybe he switches to a bigger racquet earlier in this case.

I think it would be kind of silly in 2024 to still claim that Fed wouldn't reach at least 20 slams if he was the same age as Djokodal and that somehow his slam count would be cut in half...
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Or maybe Federer remains a talent that never breaks through due to all mental scars dished out first by Rafa and then Djokovic.
Any ATG finds a way. I've yet to see any great player not break through because of mental scars that were never capable of healing. We're talking about a 20 time GS winner here. To go from 20 to 0 in hypothetical scenario is some serious cope.

Djokovic did break through, remember that.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Or maybe Federer remains a talent that never breaks through due to all mental scars dished out first by Rafa and then Djokovic.

yeah, because federer didn't have scars from mutliple losses to agassi, hewitt, nalbandian,, henman etc and didn't turn them around.

only a scarred fed hater or ignorant delusional can think an ATG talent like fed wouldn't break through.

anyway fed wasn't so consistent on clay before, so he wouldn't be facing nadal so much on clay earlier in this scenario
 
Top