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

[zvelf]

I think a concept that a lot of people struggle with is the idea that once you cross a certain threshold, what differentiates you from other ATGs is consistency more than your ability to hit a high top level. If this was not the case, H2H’s between ATG’s would be way more lopsided than they are.

So the notion that Agassi performed about as well as Djokovic in some places (although not most) should not be too surprising. He was a very good player who still maintained a high level on hard courts, even if he didn’t have the same day-to-day consistency that Djokovic now has.

I'm not arguing that Agassi's level in 2004 never surpassed Djokovic's level at any point in 2023. I'm sure at times it did. But across their hard-court average across these years, Djokovic is clearly superior. Right now in the poll, a supermajority of TTW agrees with me.

What's even the point of this discussion tbf.

Just going to be Fed fans siding Agassi and Djokovic fans siding with Djokovic. Then Fed fans defending Roddick and Djokovic fans defending Alcaraz.

I think AO 2023 and USO 2023 vs AO 2004 and USO 2004 is a good convo. I don't really have strong a lean there.

Yeah the OP is actually a Djokovic fan so I guess they can address my post there.

I already answered this earlier in the thread. This discussion started as a tangent in a Sinner thread, so I turned it into its own thread. If 2004 Agassi and 2023 Djokovic's levels are really that close, I assume the polling will bear that out.

 

[Kralingen]

My dude, tennis is 'bout the only thing better in '24 than in '4. Like seriously the only genius thing about Andre Agassi of '04 was that he made the game look super fast by running in goddamn slow motion

Why was he able to push Fedr and Saf so easily then?

 

[NatF]

I mean, I ****ing loved Roddick, that doesn't mean I have to argue he eye tests better than the current #200 in the world, let alone a Jannik Sinner or whatever. The latter is completely delusional

You're such a clown now.

 

[nolefam_2024]

I'm not arguing that Agassi's level in 2004 never surpassed Djokovic's level at any point in 2023. I'm sure at times it did. But across their hard-court average across these years, Djokovic is clearly superior. Right now in the poll, a supermajority of TTW agrees with me.



I already answered this earlier in the thread. This discussion started as a tangent in a Sinner thread, so I turned it into its own thread. If 2004 Agassi and 2023 Djokovic's levels are really that close, I assume the polling will bear that out.

Omg this sad thread started from sinner discussions is probably the worst thing I have heard today. The sinner

Super polluters

Are trying to claim he is the best ever. Do you really take their claims at face value?

 

[nolefam_2024]

What's even the point of this discussion tbf.

Just going to be Fed fans siding Agassi and Djokovic fans siding with Djokovic. Then Fed fans defending Roddick and Djokovic fans defending Alcaraz.

That's exactly how Politics work.

Not sports.

If you are a Djokovic fan and you support a troll who is undermining Federer's accomplishment, you should feel shame as well.

 

[Neptune]

2007-2013 competition (2019 too) was better than most other years right?

I'd appreciate seeing your insightful analysis on this statement.

 

[Kralingen]

Is Modi going to win reelection?

 

[RS]

Has it got up to a billion votes since India's population is well over 1.4 billion?

 

[Phenomenal]

To Djokovic fans yeah Djokovic leads Federer in h2h at Wimbledon but come on i saw many times some suggesting the Federer is no different than his early version who won 5 streak + 7 Wimbledon prior to 2010. This is simply not true and laughable.

I can count 8+ years Djokovic was better RG but didn't win RG. Almost every other year he was better pre RG than 2023 aswell.
Alcaraz has much tougher draw compared to Djokovic at USO. really easily.

At the same Djokovic imo played one of his best level in SF and Final of YEC. I was rooting for Sinner but Djoko played really well to me better than his any level at slams last year.
So the question shouldn't be eligible due to huge gap. Comparing player who didn't played final to 2 HC slam winner + YEC + NO1.

So these are just an examples same things apply to Nadal. Though my guy i believe faced more against best of the other 2 great.

You can continue from there: ) with accepting some things. With all respect discussions would be better then.
IMO they are very close to facts though you might think they are opinions.

 

[zvelf]

abmk keeps using the eye test to evaluate who would win in hypothetical matchups. Andy Roddick himself explains in this video how people misunderstand how good Djokovic is from the "eye test." From 7:55 to 12:55, Roddick explains exactly what makes Djokovic so difficult to beat and why it's not apparent to a lot of people. That's why all of abmk's assumptions about hypothetical matches are nonsense. The things about Djokovic's game that hampers his opponents are not easy to see. Until these hypothetical matches actually happen, which they never will, his scoffing that the winner could only possibly be who he believes it should be is just a lot of posturing. Roddick knows tennis 100x better than abmk and even Roddick claims players are better now than when he was playing.

 

[NoleFam]

PTSP obviously, just can't help himself. Or maybe it's an AI scripted to deliver same drivel over and over?

Could make for an interesting study

Maybe so, since a human would have gotten tired of this by now. An android would make so much more sense.

That was indeed a good call. Djokovic ended up nowhere near 20 slams.

It was indeed—quite the prophecy.

 

[RS]

Has it got up to a billion votes since India's population is well over 1.4 billion?

I read it got up to 969 million but this was a article 8 days ago.

 

[Phenomenal]

I'd appreciate seeing your insightful analysis on this statement.

Idk if you kidding or not: )
I can't explain everything some are very obvious to me. I meant overall 2007-2013. You can find weaker slams inside but considering competition players stats and level even though its objective. I think this period was the highest.

For ex. I rate Djokovic quite high in 2008. 2017 to 2018 until Wimbledon no Djokovic so bit weaker not only that but mainly. 2021(no Thiem after good year half Nadal)-2023 even after 2022 Wimbledon No Nadal much weaker. 2015 quite weak to me, goes on and on. Nadal made final every year and multiple final in many inside until 2015. He was the main guy not Federer back then. Even Murray was not good in 2015 etc.

In 2019 you will see that every top 5-6 player achieved smth and won titles with good Big 3.

But this doesn't change or any dig to players they all deserve their titles just my opinions about competition.

 

[NoleFam]

You are the king of using hypothetical matches as if they actually happened as proof that player A is better than player B. Hypothetical matches are not proof of anything except confirmation bias.


I watched all of those matches when they happened, but ad hominem is where one goes when one is losing the argument.



Tennis.com ranked that Cincinnati final the second-best match of the year even while combining men's and women's matches into their consideration:

2023 Matches of the Year, No. 2: Djokovic d. Alcaraz, Cincinnati Final | Tennis.com

Three hours and 49 minutes later, the Serb's legend grew when he outlasted the 20-year-old to triumph, 5-7, 7-6 (7), 7-6 (4), after saving a championship point.

www.tennis.com

The ATP ranked the Cincinnati final the single best match of the year:

Novak Djokovic & Carlos Alcaraz Showdown Among Best ATP Matches Of 2023 | ATP Tour | Tennis

Another ATP Tour season full of gripping storylines, magic moments and standout achievements is in the books… but which matches from 2023 will live longest in fans' memories?

www.atptour.com

We know that Djokovic haters are biased, but yes, that match is widely seen as a classic among the broader tennis community.

Well since Cincy was a mid match, no need to ask about the the Sinner/Djokovic RR ATP Finals match. Tough crowd.

 

[nolefam_2024]

abmk keeps using the eye test to evaluate who would win in hypothetical matchups. Andy Roddick himself explains in this video how people misunderstand how good Djokovic is from the "eye test." From 7:55 to 12:55, Roddick explains exactly what makes Djokovic so difficult to beat and why it's not apparent to a lot of people. That's why all of abmk's assumptions about hypothetical matches are nonsense. The things about Djokovic's game that hampers his opponents are not easy to see. Until these hypothetical matches actually happen, which they never will, his scoffing that the winner could only possibly be who he believes it should be is just a lot of posturing. Roddick knows tennis 100x better than abmk and even Roddick claims players are better now than when he was playing.

That is up for debate.

But what I 100% agree with Andy Roddick is tennis is better today than 20 years ago. You can make jokes about evolution all you want.

I don't buy it that someone can play inside the baseline all the time in today's game. Andy also makes a joke about people saying take it early. It's a dated concept.

I mean you have to drop back in this game to hit the ball deep and with purpose. Everyone is hitting ball with far more spin and speed nowadays on average. It may have gone too far with players like Zverev but they are all maximizing their chance to win. And that means they can't win inside the baseline with current rackets and balls.

And I think in general tennis is better today than 20 years back apart from less variety.

 

[Dominic & Andrey]

This thread is the TTW equivalent of watching your uncles and aunts throwing plates at each other during a family reunion.

 

[StefanV]

I mean, I ****ing loved Roddick, that doesn't mean I have to argue he eye tests better than the current #200 in the world, let alone a Jannik Sinner or whatever. The latter is completely delusional

Lmao

 

[RS]

abmk keeps using the eye test to evaluate who would win in hypothetical matchups. Andy Roddick himself explains in this video how people misunderstand how good Djokovic is from the "eye test." From 7:55 to 12:55, Roddick explains exactly what makes Djokovic so difficult to beat and why it's not apparent to a lot of people. That's why all of abmk's assumptions about hypothetical matches are nonsense. The things about Djokovic's game that hampers his opponents are not easy to see. Until these hypothetical matches actually happen, which they never will, his scoffing that the winner could only possibly be who he believes it should be is just a lot of posturing. Roddick knows tennis 100x better than abmk and even Roddick claims players are better now than when he was playing.

I do think Roddick undersells himself as a player but who can dismiss him completely he does talk sense. Even if you don't agree with him his opinion is still valid.

 

[RS]

This thread is the TTW equivalent of watching your uncles and aunts throwing plates at each other during a family reunion.

I am enjoying this thread.

 

[StefanV]

I guess Djokovic narrowly. Oldovic impressed me.

 

[Neptune]

Idk if you kidding or not: )
I can't explain everything some are very obvious to me. I meant overall 2007-2013. You can find weaker slams inside but considering competition players stats and level even though its objective. I think this period was the highest.

Not kidding.
I'm interested in your analytical approach, rather than just your impression.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Not kidding.
I'm interested in your analytical approach, rather than just your impression.

I don't think the below big 3 players like Berdych Ferrer and Tsonga were really that good.

Other than that big 3 and young Murray meeting each other many times did make it a strong era.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I'm not arguing that Agassi's level in 2004 never surpassed Djokovic's level at any point in 2023. I'm sure at times it did. But across their hard-court average across these years, Djokovic is clearly superior. Right now in the poll, a supermajority of TTW agrees with me.



I already answered this earlier in the thread. This discussion started as a tangent in a Sinner thread, so I turned it into its own thread. If 2004 Agassi and 2023 Djokovic's levels are really that close, I assume the polling will bear that out.

"Average" does not equal "best". (Polls are never reliable either.)

 

[Dominic & Andrey]

Some of these Djokovic fans are getting greedy with the amount of ground they're insistent on taking relative to how little ground they consider yielding. 04 Safin-Agassi being rated this low was not even a point of debate three years ago.

It's unfortunate , but in sports, when a player/a team ends up taking a relatively significant lead in terms of achievements over his or its rivals, that's the kind of attitude/behavior you have to expect from the fanbase supporting that said player or team. It concerns some Djokovic fans but it's a common and wider phenomenon that happens with sports fans in general. Me personally though, I do think that this match is a classic too.

 

[RS]

I guess Djokovic narrowly. Oldovic impressed me.

I would probably say the same. Djokovic by a bit I mean.

 

[NoleFam]

I guess Djokovic narrowly. Oldovic impressed me.

Narrowly? Like Novak, you're obsessed with being liked.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

abmk keeps using the eye test to evaluate who would win in hypothetical matchups. Andy Roddick himself explains in this video how people misunderstand how good Djokovic is from the "eye test." From 7:55 to 12:55, Roddick explains exactly what makes Djokovic so difficult to beat and why it's not apparent to a lot of people. That's why all of abmk's assumptions about hypothetical matches are nonsense. The things about Djokovic's game that hampers his opponents are not easy to see. Until these hypothetical matches actually happen, which they never will, his scoffing that the winner could only possibly be who he believes it should be is just a lot of posturing. Roddick knows tennis 100x better than abmk and even Roddick claims players are better now than when he was playing.

Roddick is not an impartial observer, so his supposed expertise is nullified by that. Neither is any one of us apparently so we're at even grounds :lol:

Besides that, surely you can see everything if you watch a lot and diligently enough, it's not that difficult. No one wins matches just by existing, of course.

 

[StefanV]

Narrowly? Like Novak, you're obsessed with being liked.

How have you been?

 

[NoleFam]

How have you been?

Can't complain, how about you? Don't see you on here often these days.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Djokovic fans don't need to yield a single inch. Just to satisfy the nostalgia fans egos.

 

[CHillTennis]

That is up for debate.

But what I 100% agree with Andy Roddick is tennis is better today than 20 years ago. You can make jokes about evolution all you want.

I don't buy it that someone can play inside the baseline all the time in today's game. Andy also makes a joke about people saying take it early. It's a dated concept.

I mean you have to drop back in this game to hit the ball deep and with purpose. Everyone is hitting ball with far more spin and speed nowadays on average. It may have gone too far with players like Zverev but they are all maximizing their chance to win. And that means they can't win inside the baseline with current rackets and balls.

And I think in general tennis is better today than 20 years back apart from less variety.

Right. I mean that's why we have a 36 year old player winning 3 out of 4 grand slams. The sport has evolved to the point where the young players can't keep up anymore. That makes sense.

 

[StefanV]

Can't complain, how about you? Don't see you on here often these days.

I've been fine. I don't know what to post anymore. I miss the group chat so maybe I shouldn't have deleted the old account.

 

[CHillTennis]

Roddick is not an impartial observer, so his supposed expertise is nullified by that. Neither is any one of us apparently so we're at even grounds :lol:

Besides that, surely you can see everything if you watch a lot and diligently enough, it's not that difficult. No one wins matches just by existing, of course.

Correct! Andy Roddick is nothing more than a paid shill. He's a Kool-aide drinker in the same sense as Tim Henman or John McEnroe. Whatever the establishment wants, Roddick sides with.

 

[NoleFam]

I've been fine. I don't know what to post anymore. I miss the group chat so maybe I shouldn't have deleted the old account.

Ahh I see. Well the chat is pretty dead now so you're not missing anything.

 

[sportsfan1]

Djokovic has losing h2h against both safin and roddick iirc. Sinner showed Novak's real level at the aus open.
Novaks been asking to be put to retirement but the last several gens comprising the weak era keep gifting him titles instead. It's clearly shown by the fact that novak in his 30s has more titles than peak prime 20s Novak.

 

[NatF]

Agreed he would not be winning 3 slams in many other years.


However, the idea he would lose in straights to Roddick is laughable.

Meh, if you factor in some mental strength shenanigans sure but I think the difference in level is quite obvious. On the flip side you have numpties saying that 2004 Roddick wouldn't even be #200, so I guess 2004 Fed in 2024 is ranked #199? But lets pretend like only Fed fans have hot takes.

I think your take that Djokovic has vultured a barren field for years and years is a trash take, and a cope and inability to accept things at face value. But that's just my opinion. So again, why are we wasting each other's time?

Sure pointing out that Paul, Shelton, Tsitsipas and Ruud etc...last year was hardly some murders row is just coping lol.

 

[RS]

TTW takes.

 

[RS]

 

[inflation_era]

Roddick keeps bolstering Djokovic cause he knows he owned him.

 

[Phenomenal]

You are bored aren't you? Always same discussions, repeated cycles...

 

[nolefam_2024]

TTW takes.

Are ****ing stupid.

 

[Holmes]

April Fools' was a few weeks ago.

 

[Holmes]

Only on TT can we get, "reasonable" posters arguing that a 0 slam year is greater than a 2 slam one.

 

[Holmes]

I think a concept that a lot of people struggle with is the idea that once you cross a certain threshold, what differentiates you from other ATGs is consistency more than your ability to hit a high top level. If this was not the case, H2H’s between ATG’s would be way more lopsided than they are.

So the notion that Agassi performed about as well as Djokovic in some places (although not most) should not be too surprising. He was a very good player who still maintained a high level on hard courts, even if he didn’t have the same day-to-day consistency that Djokovic now has.

I think the concept a lot of people struggle with is the idea that comparing a 2 slam year to a 0 slam year, and arguing the 0 slam year is superior is logically tenable.

 

[Holmes]

"Some of your Fed fans" LOL. Like you Djoko fans don't have your own patterns. I don't think all players from Federer's era are superior no, but I think 2004 Fed is clearly superior to 2023 Djokovic and that filters down to the rest of the field considering the similar levels of dominance.

I think Djokovic vultured a barren field last year and has done for years and years. He might still be the greatest, I don't think that's mutually exclusive but it's based off years like 2011 and 2015. He's still playing great tennis but not at the level that should achieving these sorts of results. So yeah, agree to disagree. But I'm still going to call out trash takes like Alcaraz in 2023 Cincy > Roddick in 2004 Cincy

A Fedfan arguing that an ATG vultured a weak field is the definition of pot and kettle, especially given how many years we spent laughing at the idea of a "weak field" in general when other fans brought it up against our guy. Please, let's not embarrass ourselves any further.

 

[_phantom]

Fed fans lost in the poll but they won the debate.

 

[zvelf]

Fed fans lost in the poll but they won the debate.

By definition, if more people agree with me, I won the debate.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Meh, if you factor in some mental strength shenanigans sure but I think the difference in level is quite obvious.

What difference in level?

On the flip side you have numpties saying that 2004 Roddick wouldn't even be #200,

This is obviously not true and I hardly believe anyone seriously says this. He would still be a top player in this era.

 

[Holmes]

What difference in level?





This is obviously not true and I hardly believe anyone seriously says this. He would still be a top player in this era.

2009 Roddick would be an excellent competitor, and consistent presence in the top 10.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

2009 Roddick would be an excellent competitor, and consistent presence in the top 10.

Not as good as Wimbledon 2004 first set Roddick though, that one would be competing for CYGS with Djokovic.