Who was the better hard-court player, 2004 Andre Agassi or 2023 Novak Djokovic?
- Thread starter zvelf
- Start date
-
- Tags
- agassi djokovic hard court
abmk
Bionic Poster
safin beats 23 djokovic in 4 sets at the AO. I mean peak djokovic would need like 5 sets to beat 2004 AO semi safin. 23 djokovic is far far behind that.
2023 djokovic wins a grand total of 0 slams and YEC in 2004
BauerAlmeida
Hall of Fame
I agree Djokovic is not winning 3 slams and the WTF with peak Federer around.
However, you put 2004 Agassi in 2023 and he does not win 3 slams and the YEC.
nolefam_2024
Talk Tennis Guru
He won't win any of the slam or YEC.
zvelf
Hall of Fame
You keep repeating yourself, but none of that is provable. That's solely your speculation and it's based on speculation that doesn't make sense. If 2023 Djokovic had to face the completely different set of players of 2004, he would tailor his game and tactics to adapt to their styles, not to today's players. An older Djokovic's game would have evolved differently to suit 2004. That's why it's ridiculous to claim you know the outcome of hypotheticals and therefore that alone is proof. No, that's just assuming what you are trying to prove.The point is that this version of Agassi would have won the Australian Open and the US Open if he had Tsitsipas and Medvedev as opponents in the GS finals and if we transport Djokovic from last year to 2004 he would not have won anything important with the competition that Agassi had in that season.
Djokovic detractors often say that Djokovic’s competition is low because players perform poorly against him based on their “eye test.” What the detractors are missing is that Djokovic makes players perform poorly against him. His defense has been so good that players feel like they have to go out of their comfort zone, take risks, and go after winners and hope they get hot because if they just play normal, they are going to lose anyway. That kind of pressure can’t be measured by any eye test. The average eye test can identify a player performing well when hitting a lot of winners but it has a very difficult time identifying the source of errors that may look unforced but actually are forced in ways unseen.
I'll take the opinions of the writers and editors of Tennis.com and the ATP's own website over your very biased views and both rated that match as top 2 of the year. I mean how much one likes a match is based on personal preferences, not some objective standard, but I agree with Tennis.com and the ATP and disagree with you.
I brought up those other Safin matches as a rebuttal to 2004 Safin being peak Safin. Safin did indeed play well against Agassi in that one match, but all his matches surrounding it did not show him to be playing well. Again, your second statement is just assuming what you're supposed to be proving and it can't be proved for the reasons I already stated. Players can't just be switched around in time like that because massive context changes mean changes to those players' games and tactics, which you can't account for.
Last edited:
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Yea we've been in a weak era for 9+ years in the timeframe where Federer only won 3 Slams while Djokovic won 17 and crushed all his records. Funny how that works. Funny that.
Don't tell me what I could have predicted. In July 2017, when everyone was writing Djokovic off this is what I said:
Worry about your own off the wall, and clearly wrong and arrogant predictions. Just like when I said Djokovic would win at least 4 more Slams after 2018 Wimbledon and you implied I was wrong. Lol. Was I?
nolefam_2024
Talk Tennis Guru
Don't respond to the trolls. They could see their idols records getting crushed in front of their eyes. Its horrible.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Some trolls like him have to be checked.
RS
Bionic Poster
Is the thread were you said this deleted or not?
Neptune
Hall of Fame
While Fed was still in the top 10 (before he fell out for the last time), Nole had already secured more top 10 wins than Fed, with a higher average opponent rank (the highest in open era).
If some delusional Fedfans (stuck in the endless cycle of coping grief) have any clue about competition.
If some delusional Fedfans (stuck in the endless cycle of coping grief) have any clue about competition.
Last edited:
zvelf
Hall of Fame
Exactly. abmk wasn't just a little wrong. He was egregiously wrong. He can make mistakes like that but suddenly his picks for winners of hypothetical matches from different eras are somehow indisputably correct and proof of something?
nolefam_2024
Talk Tennis Guru
Fedfans are most delusional. Don't listen to their tantrums.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Time and time again at that. Everyone gets it wrong sometimes but the pompousness though...yea he was very wrong yet he's now the expert opinion on hypotheticals?
RS
Bionic Poster
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Yea this post is where I 1st said it.
LOL
Fed fan didn't make this silly hypothetical thread but the Djoker fan boys are now cringe over this topic when other fan base disagree with them.
Some of them have never saw Agassi picked up a racket and yet they think they know better and the real tennis enthusiasts are wrong.
It's like they think the world is living under the Third Reich
Fed fan didn't make this silly hypothetical thread but the Djoker fan boys are now cringe over this topic when other fan base disagree with them.
Some of them have never saw Agassi picked up a racket and yet they think they know better and the real tennis enthusiasts are wrong.
It's like they think the world is living under the Third Reich
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Good call one has to admit.
DSH
Talk Tennis Guru
Last edited:
mike danny
Bionic Poster
I swear, it's like pushing peak Fed in back to back years at the USO at 34 and 35 doesn't matter anymore. Tsitsipas and Med are the real competition
abmk
Bionic Poster
Like I said, if that is top 2 match of the year, the year has been immensely sh*t.
Btw it isn't top 2 of 2023.
AO 23 final, Wim 23 QF/SF (Jabeur matches) in WTA for starters were clearly better
AO 23 final was clearly better than Wim 23 final also (not just Cincy 23 final) as it was high quality throughout.
ATP website list does not include slam matches (ITF)
except Safin played at peak level in the Roddick match also. he played his way into form in the tournament.
final he played well in the first set, but dipped after that though he was still fighting in 2nd set. (but that's due to being spent from the brutal draw)
the semi wasn't a random match where he played well.
the last part is a copout.
If you can observe properly and take into context, you'd admit it.
If it is somewhat close, then you can argue era factors. Here agassi was clearly better in the HC slams in 04 compared to djoko in 23.
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
predicting from known variables is very different from predicting unknown. No one sane could predict weak years would last for so long causing the worst era and mega inflation in tennis. The next time you mix those 2, I'm gonna straight call you a liar. So you've been warned.
Btw NoleFam lied about what I had said there
My quote is this:
so I didn't say djokovic couldn't win 4 slams after Wim 18, I said he could. just that he'd need some real good fortune for it.
And djokovic hit the mega giga lottery with worst fields of open era.
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
That poster had a thread (later deleted) claiming Novak would never catch up with Fed in slams. part of a group of posters that thinks they can predict hypothetical matches but can’t predict a real match to save their lifes.
The Guru
Legend
I think people respect 04 Dre but he's being compared on HC to a guy who literally won every big HC tournament he entered. It's not disrespectful to say he wasn't as good as that.I swear, it's like pushing peak Fed in back to back years at the USO at 34 and 35 doesn't matter anymore. Tsitsipas and Med are the real competition
Sputnik Bulgorov
Professional
Djokovic’s competition don’t just perform poorly against him. They perform poorly against much lesser players. Tsitsipas has been a punching bag for the top 10 for most of the past year. With the exception of Monte Carlo l, he had a grand total of 1 top 10 win in the past year. He loses to random journeymen all the time, and it just happened again in Madrid. Zverev has a high peak level, but he’s wildly inconsistent and chokes his opportunities away. He has a 30% win rate vs the top 10 and only a 50% win rate vs top 20 in the past year, and he also loses to random journeymen all the time. He was such a choker in the biggest stages that despite his talent, he didn’t get his first top 10 slam win until 2022 RG when he was already 25! Medvedev is a great player, no doubt, but it’s not saying good things about the competition when he’s the best of his generation. He has limitations, but he’s maximized his results with the tools he has. He also loses to random journeymen all the time on grass and clay. This is not a case of Djokovic’s competition consistently beating the field, only to lose to him. It’s really no surprise that at 20 and 22, Alcaraz and Sinner have surpassed all of Djokovic’s mediocre competition when they should be at their peak.
abmk
Bionic Poster
djoko/nadal gen won 8 slams (murray/wawa/delpo/cilic) up vs prime djoko/nadal and federer playing well often --- compared to 89-99 generations which won 2 slams combined vs much worse versions of djoko/nadal/fed
the rao-dimi-nishi gen and med-zed-tpas geerations are cr*p. worst generations of open era. compare their performances vs rest of the field too,
it has nothing to do with how djokovic plays. sorry excuse. since no one sane seriously said 11-14 was weak or competition low back then.
oh and btw the tier 2 of fed's generation and nadal/djoko generation are similar to tier 1 of those 2 sorry *** generations.
nalby, davy, ferrer- tier 2 of fed's gen (tier 1 being fed/hewitt/roddick/safin etc.)
tsonga, berdych, sod - tier 2 of nadal/djoko gen
similar to rao-dimi-nishi and med-zed-tpas.
RS
Bionic Poster
If Foreman combined his 70s athleticism with his better technique and composure in 1990s I think he would cause Ali a heck of a lot of problems but we never quite saw that version. I think every time Ali gets into the 2nd half the fight he is the favourite and I think that happens most the time out of 20.
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
You make the same mistake so many here make when talking of hypotheticals. You confuse and mix together relative levels vs absolute levels. Tsitsipas losing to players today tells us he is worse than those players. It doesn’t tell us how he would do if time travel tennis were possible.
TearTheRoofOff
G.O.A.T.
Watching him gives very intuitive clues.
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
I’m sure all the posters that have mastered measuring and comparing absolute levels are now rich from betting gains
nolefam_2024
Talk Tennis Guru
No brains but are getting rich from betting gains?I’m sure all the posters that have mastered measuring and comparing absolute levels are now rich from betting gains
zvelf
Hall of Fame
Except this isn't a hypothetical thread. Nowhere am I asking who would win if 2004 Agassi played 2023 Djokovic. The question is who was better on hard court in their respective years. I think the answer is obviously Djokovic, and the poll is backing me up. Nothing cringe about it.
But that's a straw man argument. Nowhere did I claim 2023 Djokovic would beat 2004 Federer. My stance has always been that these hypothetical matchups are meaningless and people can't use them as proof because they didn't happen.If you think your 36-year-old idol could beat prime Federer you should be kidding.
Sure, Djokovic has benefited from a weaker era, but weaker from what? Weaker from the strongest era ever in Open Era tennis. That's why Djokovic won fewer slams in 2012-2014 than recently and vice versa.
When you made that prediction in 2018, you said Djokovic could win 4 more slams if he was lucky and you knew in that moment what the level of tennis was in 2017 and 2018. Djokovic won 7 more slams than you predicted even after factoring luck in your prediction. Djokovic totally demolished your prediction but instead of giving credit, you dismiss the achievement.
2012-2014 are no more normal years than 2021 and 2023 are abnormal years. It is disingenuous to act like 2012-2014 should be the baseline when Nadal and Murray are peak/prime, Federer is still playing great, Berdych, Ferrer, and Tsonga are all solid, Del Potro is solid when uninjured, and Wawrinka starts to peak. Those are arguably the most competitive years in all of tennis.
You're entitled to your opinion. Tennis.com disagrees and I disagree.
It looked pretty random. Roddick and Agassi are brutal, but the rest of his draw was not. This was not some peak James Blake, but one who had yet to ever crack the top 20, was 2 years removed from doing so, and was every bit his #39 ranking. This was a way-past-his-prime 33-year old Todd Martin who was regularly going out the second round of slams for the 3 years previous to this tournament and took Safin to 5 sets. Martin would retire from tennis later in 2004. Now, Safin was 5 months in from coming back from injury, so I don't expect him to be peak, and he did play very well in this match, but Safin's wins against Agassi and Roddick are his sole notable victories in the whole first half of 2004.
You're completely missing my point. That's simply not how it works. Context matters. 2023 Djokovic has not geared his game to play 2004 Federer, Roddick, Agassi, and Safin just as 2004 Agassi has not geared his game to play 2023 Djokovic, Alcaraz, Sinner, and Medvedev. If these were their regular opponents, they would adjust their styles and tactics accordingly based on experience and familiarity against these opponents. Whatever history these opponents have against one another could play into their mental toughness. Furthermore, level on one particular day against one particular opponent totally does not translate to having a very similar level against a different opponent. You act like style matchups don't matter and that somehow level would remain the same against a different opponent. You want to pretend you can just remove all context and plop two players from two different time periods together and assume their levels are exactly the same as they were that day against different opponents and that you can then predict that winner with near certainty?!? I don't buy that at all.
zvelf
Hall of Fame
Prime Alcaraz and Sinner are better than Medvedev, Zverev, and Tsitsipas, but they are Djokovic's competition now too. If it weren't for Alcaraz and Sinner, Djokovic could well be sitting on 26 majors now. However, it's weird to focus on Tsitsipas and Zverev's recent performances to take them down. Tsitsipas has notably been slumping of late and Zverev spent most of 2023 coming back from a horrific injury and having to play into form. Djokovic hasn't played Tsitsipas in over a year and has only played Zverev once, at Cincinnati, in the past year so the current versions of Tsitsipas and Zverev haven't been Djokovic's main rivals. The versions of them that were playing better than recently were the version Djokovic played many times.
TearTheRoofOff
G.O.A.T.
That's... Not particularly relevant, but surely intra-era relative levels would be more appropriate for that anyway?I’m sure all the posters that have mastered measuring and comparing absolute levels are now rich from betting gains
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
Anyone who thinks they can compare levels across time (any amount of time) with such accuracy that they can predict with high certainty who would win a hypothetical match would be able to also use such knowledge to get rich betting.
it’s a little like the people or companies that promise to teach you how to get rich in the stockmarket. If they actually knew they wouldn’t tell anyone
TearTheRoofOff
G.O.A.T.
Key difference is you've actually seen the two performances you're comparing in the hypothetical. No such luxury with future matchups.
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
Not sure I understand your point. Future matches are hypotheticals, since they haven’t actually happened. Nadal is playing tomorrow against Cachin. Right now that is a hypothetical since it hasn’t happened. You may have a view on who will win based on the level each has shown so far. But the actual match has yet to be played.
This is no different (in principle) than comparing players across time. The major difference is that unlike the Nadal match mentioned above the time travel tennis hypotheticals can never be proven wrong.
TearTheRoofOff
G.O.A.T.
The hypotheticals being discussed are directly comparing two performances that we've already observed - e.g. compare Djokovic from the 100 UEs match vs Simon against the Djokovic who absolutely shellacked Ferrer that time. Same form, quality, movement, ballstriking, health etc. How would you compare their levels? Who do you think put in the more impressive performance? It's basically asking who did you think was better from the matches we've actually seen. I've used this specific example just to provide a stark contrast for clarity as to how one might clearly lean one way. When pitting hypothetical matchups, one might of course add a little matchup nuance to the question but the observed levels are obviously the key ingredients.
This is different to predicting future matches in which a player's day form is simply unknown until it happens. It seems you're fixed on the semantic of 'hypothetical' and lumping these two exercises together, presumably just to outright discredit people not siding with Djokovic. Yes they can't be proven wrong but that's why they are discussed and debated. Wouldn't be much point if there was a simple Wikipedia W we could turn to.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
Exactly. The conflation of these two different scenarios borders on the intellectually dishonest.
No one could’ve foreseen the hyper inflation era. I thought he would max out at 18-20 then we’d have the 90s followed by 00s gen taking over.
Similar threads
- Poll
