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

[GabeT]

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.

Exactly. The conflation of these two different scenarios borders on the intellectually dishonest.

If the debates here solely centered on comparing matches that have happened and nothing else, I would agree with you. But that's not what's happening.

Let's pick two matches, say WB10 and WB05 finals. If the debate were purely about whether Nadal or Federer played better against their competition, I wouldn't be raising any issues at all. In this scenario, we could compare some aspects @TearTheRoofOff mentions, like UEs, movement, or ball striking. It still wouldn't be easy to reach a consensus since some of these comparisons lack data (how, exactly, would you compare movement?). And of course, each faced different competition, making it even more difficult.

But if you stopped there, it would tell us nothing about how Nadal from WB10 would fare against Federer from WB 05. All we could say, for example, would be that Nadal in WB10 played better against his competition than Fed in WB05 (making this up btw, I don't actually have an opinion on this comparison).

The argument I'm addressing, though, is different. That argument doesn't stop with comparing relative performances. It goes one step further and pretends to predict outcomes, for example, to claim that Nadal from WB10 would beat Fed from WB05. That is a very different argument.

If you claim that Djokovic in WB 15 played worse than Federer in WB09 (or some other example) that is not the same as claiming that Fed WB09 would beat Novak WB15. That's when you start predicting hypotheticals.

And a lot of posters here do that. They claim that they can look at the level of Player A at Time X and the level of Player B in time Y and predict who would win (note that this is a precondition for any weak era claim). And that's where they start to predict hypotheticals.

 

[Sputnik Bulgorov]

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.

I agree. But I do think Agassi has great chances in the HC slams though, especially the AO.

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.

Alcaraz only became Djokovic’s rival last year. Sinner spent most of last year in the bottom half of the top 10. I do agree they are worthy rivals, but there was a 14 year gap between them that Djokovic could take advantage of. Not his fault of course, but it was definitely good fortune that no other ATG has had. As you said, if these two didn’t appear, Djokovic would have 26 slams by now. Clearly, the players before them weren’t much competition.

Even before 2023, Zverev, Tsitsipas and Medvedev were losing to random journeymen. Zverev injured his ankle in the very same tournament where he got his first top 10 win in a slam. It had been a meme up to that point that he couldn’t get it together at the slams, and only made it deep when he had weak draws. Tsitsipas has lost to low ranked players at every single Wimbledon and US Open he’s participated in. Losses to the no 43, 89, 32, 55, 57, 94, 40, 43 and 128 in the world. Went 0-5 vs 18/19 yo Alcaraz, 10 match losing streak to Djokovic. Medvedev lost his soul at the 2022 AO and went on his own year long slump. Also loses to journeymen at half of the slams, just like Tsitsipas. Lost to no 24, 43, 63, 23, 172 in the world at RG and Wimbledon. Not bad compared to Tsitsipas, but Medvedev is supposed to be the best of his generation. I think he’s great on hard courts though, but still not enough of a main rival for a GOAT level player. This holds true for both Djokovic and Nadal.

I don’t mind calling Djokovic the GOAT, or going back to the point of this thread, saying 2023 Djokovic is better than 2004 Agassi, but can we please stop acting like his competition these past few years has been strong?

 

[Sputnik Bulgorov]

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.

I’m confused. I know this is a hypothetical thread, but my post wasn’t hypothetical at all as I was discussing the real shortcomings of Tsitsipas, Zverev and Medvedev. Are you insinuating that Tsitsipas’s relative level may be low, but his absolute level is high? Should we be hailing Dominic Stricker, Christopher Eubanks and Daniel Elahi Galan as giant killers and tennis titans for beating Tsitsipas, and that there’s no way for us to suggest that 2004 Agassi might be favored to beat him?

 

[GabeT]

I’m confused. I know this is a hypothetical thread, but my post wasn’t hypothetical at all as I was discussing the real shortcomings of Tsitsipas, Zverev and Medvedev. Are you insinuating that Tsitsipas’s relative level may be low, but his absolute level is high? Should we be hailing Dominic Stricker, Christopher Eubanks and Daniel Elahi Galan as giant killers and tennis titans for beating Tsitsipas, and that there’s no way for us to suggest that 2004 Agassi might be favored to beat him?

I wasn‘t even comparing with Agassi. The further you go back the less relevant the comparisons are since you have changes to tech, surface and training.

I’m simply pointing out that you can’t each conclusions on absolute levels based on relative comparisons. If Tsitsipas was inconsistent in this era that does not mean he would be equally inconsistent in every era. For that you’d need some way to compare absolute levels across time. Unfortunately that doesn’t exist.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

I don’t mind calling Djokovic the GOAT, or going back to the point of this thread, saying 2023 Djokovic is better than 2004 Agassi, but can we please stop acting like his competition these past few years has been strong?

It hasn't been strong, but nowhere near as weak as it is made out to be. Nadal, Sinner, Alcaraz, Medvedev, Zverev, etc were around at one point or the other. Until Wimbledon 2022 Nadal was a threat. Since early 2022 Alcaraz has been a threat. Medvedev has been a threat for a long time even if only at the HC slams. Zverev is a guy who has won the Olympic Gold, many M1000 and TWO YECs. If he wins a slam (only one) he will have one of the best CVs this century outside the Big 3+2. Djokovic had to face Sinner the last two Wimbledons.

Last year Djokovic beat Medvedev at the USO, Sinner at Wimbledon and YEC and Alcaraz at RG, Cinci and YEC. He didn't face much competition at the AO but he destroyed everyone (faced two TOP 5 players) and lost only one set in a tiebreak. I agree competition matters, if one is winning but is struggling against weakish competition it is possible to say that he would be losing to stronger rivals. But if you are destroying the lesser competition it is not your fault that they are not good enough. You are doing your part. Djokovic won 12 out of the 14 matches he played last year at USO and AO in straights. And then beat Alcaraz and Sinner back to back to win the YEC.

 

[abmk]

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.

worst period in open era by far, pal. 2 worst generations in open era by far - 89 to 99 born generations.

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.

yes, because I thought tennis would improve within a year or two. no one sane would think inflation era would continue for so long (from 2016 onwards)

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.

That would be 2007-12 (with exception of 2010).

2013, 2014 aren't particularly different by any means. 2013 is good enough, but 14 a little better than decent, nothing else.

You're entitled to your opinion. Tennis.com disagrees and I disagree.

stats also show quality of Cincy 23 not being good by any means.

Opinions closer to reality matter more.

people knowing their tennis laugh if they think Cincy 23 was better than AO 23 WTA final. because that'd be a joke.

I mean if I say Wimbledon 2023 final level was higher than Wim 2015 final level from djokovic, that'd be an opinion too, but laughable one.

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.

its brutal facing when it is starting in earlier rounds.
blake was rising up back then and only hindered in between by his major injury.

It wasn't random at all if you actually followed tennis properly. Safin peaked starting from QF onwards. SF wasn't anywhere near random.

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.

you can stand on your head and do any kind of dance. when the difference in level is significant, you lose the vast majority of times (unless there is some significant matchup issue)

forget hypotheticals for a second.
As is, Agassi's level in HC slams in 2004 > djokovic's in 2023 by a significant distance.

 

[Hitman]

GabeT is a dishonest crook lumping in those 2 things together always inspite of having been told gazillion times.

Dishonest crook, as opposed to being an honest crook?

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

If the debates here solely centered on comparing matches that have happened and nothing else, I would agree with you. But that's not what's happening.

Let's pick two matches, say WB10 and WB05 finals. If the debate were purely about whether Nadal or Federer played better against their competition, I wouldn't be raising any issues at all. In this scenario, we could compare some aspects @TearTheRoofOff mentions, like UEs, movement, or ball striking. It still wouldn't be easy to reach a consensus since some of these comparisons lack data (how, exactly, would you compare movement?). And of course, each faced different competition, making it even more difficult.

But if you stopped there, it would tell us nothing about how Nadal from WB10 would fare against Federer from WB 05. All we could say, for example, would be that Nadal in WB10 played better against his competition than Fed in WB05 (making this up btw, I don't actually have an opinion on this comparison).

The argument I'm addressing, though, is different. That argument doesn't stop with comparing relative performances. It goes one step further and pretends to predict outcomes, for example, to claim that Nadal from WB10 would beat Fed from WB05. That is a very different argument.

If you claim that Djokovic in WB 15 played worse than Federer in WB09 (or some other example) that is not the same as claiming that Fed WB09 would beat Novak WB15. That's when you start predicting hypotheticals.

And a lot of posters here do that. They claim that they can look at the level of Player A at Time X and the level of Player B in time Y and predict who would win (note that this is a precondition for any weak era claim). And that's where they start to predict hypotheticals.

I see what you're saying and I agree that especially with a less stark contrast in level it becomes more nuanced and the matchup, tactics, mentality, conditions etc will come into play, plus of course nothing is actually certain, hence the argumentation and levels of confidence. Fusing time X and time Y seems like witchcraft but all that's being imagined is the respective day forms clashing.

It's still a different kettle of cheese to future matches, and there's more to go on in a direct comparison with two disconnected performances than either none at all or a generalized assessment of a player (though the latter can still be entertained, like the fact I think that a half decent Fed would've wrecked any Med's sh1t more than basically anyone.)

If in doubt, remember the extreme examples as a reminder of the difference between the two. How about Djokovic from the 2011/2012 US semi vs Fed from the ROFLMAO Robredo match? A little easier than predicting even Nadal's results in the coming clay weeks, I'd wager.

 

[RS]

1960s Ali vs 1970s Foreman, best of 20 matches, what’s the final tally?

What do you think?

I think Ali vs Holmes would be a great matchup that might be close to a even split.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

And a lot of posters here do that. They claim that they can look at the level of Player A at Time X and the level of Player B in time Y and predict who would win (note that this is a precondition for any weak era claim). And that's where they start to predict hypotheticals

Yea cannot agree more. Have said that several times, some posters on TTW say player X's peak level from match Y would beat every other player in history while in reality it does not prove much more than that it would beat the opponent in that particular match. Krajicek in Wimbledon Quarter 96, or Safin in USO 2000 played out of their mind, but matchups exist for a reason and it could well be that had they played the exact same day against a different opponent they might have lost.

Fed destroyed Hewitt in USO 2004 and looked invincible but would the match have turned out same had he played a less convenient match-up opponent like Nadal the same day? Impossible to know, so just counting errors, winners, aces and presume a player could just copy that level against any potential other opponent is not the best way of analysis.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

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.

Exactly. Well put. If Zverev, Tsitsipas etc had consistently reached later stages of slams only succumbing to the big three, then I would be quick to say they are ATG potential in "normal" eras but were prevented from their rightful titles just by the anomaly of the best players in history whose 80% would still be too much for regular ATGs.

However, Zverev needed years for his first top ten win. At a time he was already in the top 5, he was busy losing to all kind of mediocre players in middle rounds of slams and had to fight over several 5 setters against actual journeymen in early rounds. Guys like Anderson or Delpo reached slam finals at a time one would have expected Zverev to take that place, and Delpo (in his state after injury) or even more Anderson were never more than 2nd or 3rd tier players during the big three prime era, hence got further than what would have been one of the leading players of the 90s gen. Tsitsipas and especially Med did a little better than Zverev, but let's not pretend their only problem were the big three. Med is the only one who would be even close to an ATG career now if the big 3 hadn't existed and he is already 28.

I don't agree with the way Djoko's incredible achievements are undermined here sometimes but one cannot deny that the 90s born players are one of the worst generation of all times and I am also still sceptical about Raz and Sinner.

 

[zvelf]

yes, because I thought tennis would improve within a year or two. no one sane would think inflation era would continue for so long (from 2016 onwards)

You can exaggerate weak era claims, but the fact is, you still missed your guess by 7 slams even allowing for luck for Djokovic to reach a mere 4 instead of the 11 he got. Missing a guess by 7 slams, 7!, the entire career of a McEnroe or Wilander, just means that Djokovic vastly, vastly outperformed your estimation of him. But when that happens, it can't remotely be because you underestimated Djokovic. It has to be that his competition just kept getting worse even as clear ATGs like Alcaraz and Sinner have arisen.

stats also show quality of Cincy 23 not being good by any means.

Opinions closer to reality matter more.

people knowing their tennis laugh if they think Cincy 23 was better than AO 23 WTA final. because that'd be a joke.

I mean if I say Wimbledon 2023 final level was higher than Wim 2015 final level from djokovic, that'd be an opinion too, but laughable one.

Stats don't tell the whole story. The Borg-McEnroe 1980 Wimbledon final for decades was widely seen as the greatest tennis match of all time and was even turned into a movie, but it was filled with unforced errors. Now look at the most liked comments from the Cincy match:

"Novak at 36 years old and playing at a high level against a 20 year old Carlos, that's incredible." - 10,000 likes
"Probably the greatest non-slam final I've watched, just unbelievable." - 8,100 likes
"What a match this was. Alcaraz v Nole probably the best fixture in any sport right now." - 2,500 likes
"As an Alcaraz fan, how Djokovic came back after struggling so much with the heat is insane, legend." - 1,500 likes
"There is no one better in adversity than one, Novak Djokovic. Astounding feat of grit and determination. Wow." - 1,500 likes
"I don't think people realize how absurd it is for Novak to still be playing at such a high level at his age, and still winning major trophies against another generation of athletes." - 1,300 likes
"Match was amazing" - 1,200 likes
"It's unbelievable that a man like Alcaraz has come along and he's being able to push Djokovic beyond limits he has probably not touched before. Seriously, this was the greatest 3-set non-slam final in history. The level has been raised like never before." - 1,000 likes

This video has 7.8 million views. If the match was so awful, surely someone, anyone would have chimed in and said so, but none, zero, of the top-voted comments state this was a poorly played match. I mean, I know you know more about tennis than anyone on Earth and so everyone else's opinions are invalidated just because you say so, but I guess thousands of people who watched this match don't know anything about tennis or reality and are just lying to themselves.

its brutal facing when it is starting in earlier rounds.
blake was rising up back then and only hindered in between by his major injury.

Outside of 2006, Blake has never had any sustained level of play to equal to, much less surpass Medvedev, Zverez, or Tsitsipas, but all of a sudden #39 James Blake whose ranking would continue to drop the rest of 2004 is a "brutal" matchup, but Medvedev, Zverez, or Tsitsipas are all mugs. If that's not a self-serving agenda, there is no such thing.

you can stand on your head and do any kind of dance. when the difference in level is significant, you lose the vast majority of times (unless there is some significant matchup issue)

forget hypotheticals for a second.
As is, Agassi's level in HC slams in 2004 > djokovic's in 2023 by a significant distance.

Not proof. You're just asserting what needs to be proved and the assertion by itself has no merit. As to your objection to my objection of hypothetical matchups, you clearly didn't understand any of what I wrote.

 

[RS]

I am getting in before USO 05 QF Agassi Blake ATG match comes up.

 

[Kralingen]

I am getting in before USO 05 QF Agassi Blake ATG match comes up.

I am trying to formulate some 'aura' argument for Andre because he had no business getting to that many balls and bullying Blake (and later Fed) in baseline rallies with the movement he possessed at the time.

I guess some of it is anticipation but I also think he just scared guys because they knew if they weren't precise he would bury them. There has to be some of that going on.

Additionally it might be the expectations of lower movement and stamina part too. There were rallies where I felt Blake didn’t go for the kill shot because he wanted to extend the match and make it physical, and then when he did succeed in that goal, he found that Andre was right there with him in the 5th, and sort of ran out of ideas.

There seems to be an expectations and gameplanning effect that helps ATGs as they age. Either they are taken too seriously or not seriously enough and it often causes their opponents to play with suboptimal strategy, which, combined with the crowd and pressure of the occasion, allows them to win matches with a physical disadvantage.

I really want to study this phenomenon as I’m certain it exists but not sure how to prove it.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

You can exaggerate weak era claims, but the fact is, you still missed your guess by 7 slams even allowing for luck for Djokovic to reach a mere 4 instead of the 11 he got. Missing a guess by 7 slams, 7!, the entire career of a McEnroe or Wilander, just means that Djokovic vastly, vastly outperformed your estimation of him. But when that happens, it can't remotely be because you underestimated Djokovic. It has to be that his competition just kept getting worse even as clear ATGs like Alcaraz and Sinner have arisen.


Stats don't tell the whole story. The Borg-McEnroe 1980 Wimbledon final for decades was widely seen as the greatest tennis match of all time and was even turned into a movie, but it was filled with unforced errors. Now look at the most liked comments from the Cincy match:

"Novak at 36 years old and playing at a high level against a 20 year old Carlos, that's incredible." - 10,000 likes
"Probably the greatest non-slam final I've watched, just unbelievable." - 8,100 likes
"What a match this was. Alcaraz v Nole probably the best fixture in any sport right now." - 2,500 likes
"As an Alcaraz fan, how Djokovic came back after struggling so much with the heat is insane, legend." - 1,500 likes
"There is no one better in adversity than one, Novak Djokovic. Astounding feat of grit and determination. Wow." - 1,500 likes
"I don't think people realize how absurd it is for Novak to still be playing at such a high level at his age, and still winning major trophies against another generation of athletes." - 1,300 likes
"Match was amazing" - 1,200 likes
"It's unbelievable that a man like Alcaraz has come along and he's being able to push Djokovic beyond limits he has probably not touched before. Seriously, this was the greatest 3-set non-slam final in history. The level has been raised like never before." - 1,000 likes

This video has 7.8 million views. If the match was so awful, surely someone, anyone would have chimed in and said so, but none, zero, of the top-voted comments state this was a poorly played match. I mean, I know you know more about tennis than anyone on Earth and so everyone else's opinions are invalidated just because you say so, but I guess thousands of people who watched this match don't know anything about tennis or reality and are just lying to themselves.


Outside of 2006, Blake has never had any sustained level of play to equal to, much less surpass Medvedev, Zverez, or Tsitsipas, but all of a sudden #39 James Blake whose ranking would continue to drop the rest of 2004 is a "brutal" matchup, but Medvedev, Zverez, or Tsitsipas are all mugs. If that's not a self-serving agenda, there is no such thing.


Not proof. You're just asserting what needs to be proved and the assertion by itself has no merit. As to your objection to my objection of hypothetical matchups, you clearly didn't understand any of what I wrote.

"Stats don't tell the whole story"

Welcome aboard.

 

[RS]

I am trying to formulate some 'aura' argument for Andre because he had no business getting to that many balls and bullying Blake (and later Fed) in baseline rallies with the movement he possessed at the time.

I guess some of it is anticipation but I also think he just scared guys because they knew if they weren't precise he would bury them. There has to be some of that going on.

Additionally it might be the expectations of lower movement and stamina part too. There were rallies where I felt Blake didn’t go for the kill shot because he wanted to extend the match and make it physical, and then when he did succeed in that goal, he found that Andre was right there with him in the 5th, and sort of ran out of ideas.

There seems to be an expectations and gameplanning effect that helps ATGs as they age. Either they are taken too seriously or not seriously enough and it often causes their opponents to play with suboptimal strategy, which, combined with the crowd and pressure of the occasion, allows them to win matches with a physical disadvantage.

I really want to study this phenomenon as I’m certain it exists but not sure how to prove it.

They all kinda tired to outduel old Agassi in this toe to toe aggressive game. Not sure if this is a common opinion or not.

 

[Kralingen]

They all kinda tired to outduel old Agassi in this toe to toe aggressive game. Not sure if this is a common opinion or not.

Right it’s a matter of imposing style on a player and getting them out of their comfort zone to adjust to your game. Who can make the other uncomfortable easier? That player usually wins.

Of course this is not some uniting theory, doesn’t really matter that much, Djokovic doesn’t force anyone to adjust their style, if anything he effectively tells them play their normal game just 20% better and don’t miss or you lose.

But I think such a huge part of tennis is what happens on the drawing board before the match with the coaches and we never hear anything about that.

 

[GabeT]

I see what you're saying and I agree that especially with a less stark contrast in level it becomes more nuanced and the matchup, tactics, mentality, conditions etc will come into play, plus of course nothing is actually certain, hence the argumentation and levels of confidence. Fusing time X and time Y seems like witchcraft but all that's being imagined is the respective day forms clashing.

It's still a different kettle of cheese to future matches, and there's more to go on in a direct comparison with two disconnected performances than either none at all or a generalized assessment of a player (though the latter can still be entertained, like the fact I think that a half decent Fed would've wrecked any Med's sh1t more than basically anyone.)

If in doubt, remember the extreme examples as a reminder of the difference between the two. How about Djokovic from the 2011/2012 US semi vs Fed from the ROFLMAO Robredo match? A little easier than predicting even Nadal's results in the coming clay weeks, I'd wager.

I'm sure we can find some extreme examples such that all agree that Player A would have beaten Player B. Even then, they probably need to be very extreme. If I had told you in early 2014 that the last 4 players at the USO that year would be Federer, Djokovic, Cilic, and Nishikori, and that Roger and Novak were on opposite halves, how many would have predicted the final two players. This is why we play the matches. A lot of results seem very unlikely until they happen. The list is very long.

But let's try to focus on the key issue in this subthread. The reason this comes up over and over again is not just because some posters love to debate hypotheticals, it's because a sub group of posters wants to use this line of reasoning to attack the results of players they don't like. Claims that Player A only won due to when and who he played and claims that some posters simply know that Player B would have won more had he faced the same completion as Player A are made almost daily.

If Fed played in a certain way in year X and Novak in a certain way in year Y even if you think that Fed played better against his competition than Novak did against his (a common type of argument here) you can't deduce from that that Fed from year X would beat Novak from year Y (a very common conclusion among a certain group of fans). Just because Fed had a certain distribution of UEs, winners, serves in, etc.. in the real match does not mean that would repeat in this hypothetical match. That's not how the world works.

That's why I keep repeating that no one here has the tools to look at levels and predict outcomes. If they did they would be rich betting on that info.

 

[nolefam_2024]

How good an athlete is Agassi really at age 34. I find it very weird that he reached slam finals.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

I'm sure we can find some extreme examples such that all agree that Player A would have beaten Player B. Even then, they probably need to be very extreme. If I had told you in early 2014 that the last 4 players at the USO that year would be Federer, Djokovic, Cilic, and Nishikori, and that Roger and Novak were on opposite halves, how many would have predicted the final two players. This is why we play the matches. A lot of results seem very unlikely until they happen. The list is very long.

But let's try to focus on the key issue in this subthread. The reason this comes up over and over again is not just because some posters lobe to debate hypotheticals, it's because a sub group of posters wants to use this line of reasoning to attack the results of players they don't like. Claims that Player A only won due to when and who he played and claims that some posters simply know that Player B would have won more had he faced the same completion as Player A are made almost daily.

If Fed played in a certain way in year X and Novak in a certain way in year Y even if you think that Fed played better against his competition than Novak did against his (a common type of argument here) you can't deduce from that that Fed from year X would beat Novak from year Y (a very common conclusion among a certain group of fans). Just because Fed had a certain distribution of UEs, winners, serves in, etc.. in the real match does not mean that would repeat in this hypothetical match. That's not how the world works.

That's why I keep repeating that no one here has the tools to look at levels and predict outcomes. If they did they would be rich betting on that info.

We're not getting anywhere, so I'll leave it there.

 

[RS]

Right it’s a matter of imposing style on a player and getting them out of their comfort zone to adjust to your game. Who can make the other uncomfortable easier? That player usually wins.

Of course this is not some uniting theory, doesn’t really matter that much, Djokovic doesn’t force anyone to adjust their style, if anything he effectively tells them play their normal game just 20% better and don’t miss or you lose.

But I think such a huge part of tennis is what happens on the drawing board before the match with the coaches and we never hear anything about that.

Could be Agassi was good at imposing his strategy and his movement side to side was better than given credit for too. Maybe both Fed and Blake figured this out.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Could be Agassi was good at imposing his strategy and his movement side to side was better than given credit for too. Maybe both Fed and Blake figured this out.

Or could be that Federer struggled vs Agassi as matchup issue. Instead of saying it would work vs all.

 

[GabeT]

This video has 7.8 million views. If the match was so awful, surely someone, anyone would have chimed in and said so, but none, zero, of the top-voted comments state this was a poorly played match. I mean, I know you know more about tennis than anyone on Earth and so everyone else's opinions are invalidated just because you say so, but I guess thousands of people who watched this match don't know anything about tennis or reality and are just lying to themselves.

even if you focus on just TTW it’s relatively easy to find examples of matches that some posters think terrible or at least mediocre today that in the match thread at the time were being highly praised.

we have a lot of people that enjoy tennis in TTW. But most are just crappy tennis analysts

 

[nolefam_2024]

even if you focus on just TTW it’s relatively easy to find examples of matches that some posters think terrible or at least mediocre today that in the match thread at the time were being highly praised.

we have a lot of people that enjoy tennis in TTW. But most are just crappy tennis analysts

That's very true. These people actually enjoy the matches but when other members start celebrating, they change the tune. Otherwise they would have left the sport long long ago when Roger effectively retired in 2020.

 

[Angrybirdstar]

Yea cannot agree more. Have said that several times, some posters on TTW say player X's peak level from match Y would beat every other player in history while in reality it does not prove much more than that it would beat the opponent in that particular match. Krajicek in Wimbledon Quarter 96, or Safin in USO 2000 played out of their mind, but matchups exist for a reason and it could well be that had they played the exact same day against a different opponent they might have lost.

Fed destroyed Hewitt in USO 2004 and looked invincible but would the match have turned out same had he played a less convenient match-up opponent like Nadal the same day? Impossible to know, so just counting errors, winners, aces and presume a player could just copy that level against any potential other opponent is not the best way of analysis.

how long have you felt this way?

You can exaggerate weak era claims, but the fact is, you still missed your guess by 7 slams even allowing for luck for Djokovic to reach a mere 4 instead of the 11 he got. Missing a guess by 7 slams, 7!, the entire career of a McEnroe or Wilander, just means that Djokovic vastly, vastly outperformed your estimation of him. But when that happens, it can't remotely be because you underestimated Djokovic. It has to be that his competition just kept getting worse even as clear ATGs like Alcaraz and Sinner have arisen.

Rosewall's post-age 30 competition: Laver, Gonzalez and Gimeno, then Newcombe, Ashe, and Emerson coming in to replace the old pros

Connors' post-age 30 competition: Lendl and McEnroe, and Edberg, Becker, Wilander coming in to replace the latter

Agassi's post-age 30 competition: Sampras and Rafter, then Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero, Roddick and Federer

Federer's post-age 30 competition: Djokovic, Nadal, Murray, del Potro, Wawrinka, Berdych, Thiem, and Zverev

Djokovic's post-age 30 competition: Nadal, Federer, and del Potro, then Thiem, Zverev, Medvedev, and Tsitsipas, then Alcaraz and Sinner

between these longevity GOATs, would say the other four were pretty clearly disadvantaged more than Djokovic was by opponents' level and age

This video has 7.8 million views. If the match was so awful, surely someone, anyone would have chimed in and said so, but none, zero, of the top-voted comments state this was a poorly played match. I mean, I know you know more about tennis than anyone on Earth and so everyone else's opinions are invalidated just because you say so, but I guess thousands of people who watched this match don't know anything about tennis or reality and are just lying to themselves.

argumentum ad populum, bud

Djokovic doesn’t force anyone to adjust their style

? Nadal serve and forehand strategy, Thiem groundstroke technique on hard courts, Medvedev forehand shot tolerance and potency, Alcaraz play style from RG to Wimbly, Sinner backhand dtl and forehand consistency...

 

[Neptune]

Rosewall's post-age 30 competition: Laver, Gonzalez and Gimeno, then Newcombe, Ashe, and Emerson coming in to replace the old pros

Connors' post-age 30 competition: Lendl and McEnroe, and Edberg, Becker, Wilander coming in to replace the latter

Agassi's post-age 30 competition: Sampras and Rafter, then Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero, Roddick and Federer

Federer's post-age 30 competition: Djokovic, Nadal, Murray, del Potro, Wawrinka, Berdych, Thiem, and Zverev

Djokovic's post-age 30 competition: Nadal, Federer, and del Potro, then Thiem, Zverev, Medvedev, and Tsitsipas, then Alcaraz and Sinner

between these longevity GOATs, would say the other four were pretty clearly disadvantaged more than Djokovic was by opponents' level and age

Clueless, list a few names and you have conclusion?
And, how about pre-age 30??

 

[Sputnik Bulgorov]

I wasn‘t even comparing with Agassi. The further you go back the less relevant the comparisons are since you have changes to tech, surface and training.

I’m simply pointing out that you can’t each conclusions on absolute levels based on relative comparisons. If Tsitsipas was inconsistent in this era that does not mean he would be equally inconsistent in every era. For that you’d need some way to compare absolute levels across time. Unfortunately that doesn’t exist.

Conclusions are a very strong world. Obviously, there’s no space for absolutes when it comes to hypotheticals, but making suggestions based on actual performances has its time and place. Not in a peer reviewed research paper, but in a tennis forum, absolutely. If I say that 2015 Djokovic has a strong likelihood of beating Alcaraz in the 2023 Wimbledon final, that is reasonable, is it not? After all, 2023 Djokovic was older, less explosive, and had a terrible service performance, while 2015 Djokovic had one of his best days on grass ever.

 

[GabeT]

Clueless, list a few names and you have conclusion?
And, how about pre-age 30??

It just never ends with this group. Over and over just listing names as if that’s supposed to mean something.



Just let it go. Yes, it’s easy to imagine alternative scenarios where Novak doesn’t win as much. It’s also easy to imagine scenarios where he wins even more. That’s true for all players.

 

[Angrybirdstar]

Clueless, list a few names and you have conclusion?

your entire shtick is rote memorization and regurgitation of the same few stats about vs top 10 win % and Elo ratings to reach a conclusion; i'd tone down this energy if i were you

how about pre-age 30??

the conversation was about competition strength as it relates to how many slams Djokovic could have been expected to win, and ended up winning, upon his '18 resurgence

this group

what group am i in

 

[DSH]

It hasn't been strong, but nowhere near as weak as it is made out to be. Nadal, Sinner, Alcaraz, Medvedev, Zverev, etc were around at one point or the other. Until Wimbledon 2022 Nadal was a threat. Since early 2022 Alcaraz has been a threat. Medvedev has been a threat for a long time even if only at the HC slams. Zverev is a guy who has won the Olympic Gold, many M1000 and TWO YECs. If he wins a slam (only one) he will have one of the best CVs this century outside the Big 3+2. Djokovic had to face Sinner the last two Wimbledons.

Last year Djokovic beat Medvedev at the USO, Sinner at Wimbledon and YEC and Alcaraz at RG, Cinci and YEC. He didn't face much competition at the AO but he destroyed everyone (faced two TOP 5 players) and lost only one set in a tiebreak. I agree competition matters, if one is winning but is struggling against weakish competition it is possible to say that he would be losing to stronger rivals. But if you are destroying the lesser competition it is not your fault that they are not good enough. You are doing your part. Djokovic won 12 out of the 14 matches he played last year at USO and AO in straights. And then beat Alcaraz and Sinner back to back to win the YEC.

Alcaraz suffered cramps and from that moment the victory was already decided in favor of the Serbian player.
Before that incident, everything was very even and it seemed that they were going to go to five sets, with the wonder boy being a slight favorite to win.
By the way, Alcaraz choked in Cincinnati.
Only in Turin, Djokovic demonstrated his clear superiority over the Spanish player in equal physical conditions between both players.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Alcaraz suffered cramps and from that moment the victory was already decided in favor of the Serbian player.
Before that incident, everything was very even and it seemed that they were going to go to five sets, with the wonder boy being a slight favorite to win.
By the way, Alcaraz choked in Cincinnati.
Only in Turin, Djokovic demonstrated his clear superiority over the Spanish player in equal physical conditions between both players.

Alcaraz choked the second set. Djokovic choked the first.

The third one decided the match.

And even if you think Alcaraz choked that one then Djokovic choked Wimbledon.

In the end, they played 4 times and Djokovic won 3. Alcaraz could have won Cinci and Djokovic could have won Wimbledon.

 

[DSH]

Alcaraz choked the second set. Djokovic choked the first.

The third one decided the match.

And even if you think Alcaraz choked that one then Djokovic choked Wimbledon.

In the end, they played 4 times and Djokovic won 3. Alcaraz could have won Cinci and Djokovic could have won Wimbledon.

Are you going to deny that before Alcaraz's physical incident at RG, things were even between both of them and there was a great possibility that the match would go to five sets?

 

[GabeT]

Conclusions are a very strong world. Obviously, there’s no space for absolutes when it comes to hypotheticals, but making suggestions based on actual performances has its time and place. Not in a peer reviewed research paper, but in a tennis forum, absolutely. If I say that 2015 Djokovic has a strong likelihood of beating Alcaraz in the 2023 Wimbledon final, that is reasonable, is it not? After all, 2023 Djokovic was older, less explosive, and had a terrible service performance, while 2015 Djokovic had one of his best days on grass ever.

Absolutely. I don’t disagree with this. My issue is with posters that go beyond this and pretend to know how whole careers would shape up if their favorite player had only faced a different competition

 

[nolefam_2024]

@Hitman why did Federer struggle vs Agassi ( relatively, he still won 8 in a row so hardly struggled).

I don't think in modern game its good enough to take the ball early. Still why great versions of Federer suffered vs Andre Agassi?

 

[zvelf]

argumentum ad populum, bud

Uh, you know that the debate is about how this Cincy match is viewed, right? That it is popular is exactly the point! Duh.

 

[Hitman]

@Hitman why did Federer struggle vs Agassi ( relatively, he still won 8 in a row so hardly struggled).

I don't think in modern game its good enough to take the ball early. Still why great versions of Federer suffered vs Andre Agassi?

Because Agassi was one of the only players who could actually take time away from Federer, rushing him by taking the ball just as early as Federer himseld could. He was also the GOAT at controlling the center of the baseline, moving you side to side, and with a solid forehand and backhand, he could just stand there and hit alternate corners all day.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

20-0 Ali for the question asked earlier in this thread.

 

[Angrybirdstar]

Uh, you know that the debate is about how this Cincy match is viewed, right? That it is popular is exactly the point! Duh.

it's about whether the match was a "classic" as you originally put it, with people disagreeing because of its perceived quality. it's one thing to argue that it's a classic purely because of popularity, never mind that the definition And the connotation of the word have to do with quality. it's another thing to say this kind of thing:

If the match was so awful, surely someone, anyone would have chimed in and said so, but none, zero, of the top-voted comments state this was a poorly played match.

there's plenty of alternative reasons for the comments to be this way, such as comment sections stemming from strong early opinions and doubling down thanks to dissenters facing extra work and opposition, a maximally dramatic ending with momentum shifts leading into a third-set tiebreaker, and the desire for a great rivalry between the two top players in the world who'd just met in the previous two slams. it is entirely possible for a majority opinion to be wrong, or even for a dissenting opinion to merely be viable

Stats don't tell the whole story.

"Djokovic's playstyle is simply too advanced and giga-brain for any eye test or stats to comprehend [yet it can be noticed and explained by Roddick]. unlike Agassi and Safin, who are very neatly captured as players by stats like rankings and scorelines of distinct matches"

"look at these stats about hold and break rate and events Djokovic won, which require no further context. also Medvedev had a 1.71 DR at USO '21 and won Rome so he's better than USO '06 Federer and Federer over his career at Rome"

these are definitely coherent arguments for a single person to make and not merely a different brand of mythologizing a favored player...

 

[RS]

20-0 Ali for the question asked earlier in this thread.

Not sure anybody would go 20-0 vs Foreman.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I'm sure we can find some extreme examples such that all agree that Player A would have beaten Player B. Even then, they probably need to be very extreme. If I had told you in early 2014 that the last 4 players at the USO that year would be Federer, Djokovic, Cilic, and Nishikori, and that Roger and Novak were on opposite halves, how many would have predicted the final two players. This is why we play the matches. A lot of results seem very unlikely until they happen. The list is very long.

But let's try to focus on the key issue in this subthread. The reason this comes up over and over again is not just because some posters love to debate hypotheticals, it's because a sub group of posters wants to use this line of reasoning to attack the results of players they don't like. Claims that Player A only won due to when and who he played and claims that some posters simply know that Player B would have won more had he faced the same completion as Player A are made almost daily.

If Fed played in a certain way in year X and Novak in a certain way in year Y even if you think that Fed played better against his competition than Novak did against his (a common type of argument here) you can't deduce from that that Fed from year X would beat Novak from year Y (a very common conclusion among a certain group of fans). Just because Fed had a certain distribution of UEs, winners, serves in, etc.. in the real match does not mean that would repeat in this hypothetical match. That's not how the world works.

That's why I keep repeating that no one here has the tools to look at levels and predict outcomes. If they did they would be rich betting on that info.

You keep driving the point that we don't know anything for a fact in these comparisons, which is correct, but what of it? You don't know that Djokovic is really the best or the greatest either yet seem to believe it, don't you? And when I say how disgusting it is that he is perceived as such and how deplorable people that follow that viewpoint, it's not something that can be proven right or wrong either, but I do posit a moral person should be bothered by the possibility of that... what it tells us?

 

[zvelf]

it's about whether the match was a "classic" as you originally put it, with people disagreeing because of its perceived quality. it's one thing to argue that it's a classic purely because of popularity, never mind that the definition And the connotation of the word have to do with quality. it's another thing to say this kind of thing:

there's plenty of alternative reasons for the comments to be this way, such as comment sections stemming from strong early opinions and doubling down thanks to dissenters facing extra work and opposition, a maximally dramatic ending with momentum shifts leading into a third-set tiebreaker, and the desire for a great rivalry between the two top players in the world who'd just met in the previous two slams. it is entirely possible for a majority opinion to be wrong, or even for a dissenting opinion to merely be viable

First, you don't even understand the nature of opinions, which cannot be objectively right or wrong. I mean, even elementary school kids learn this. The quality of the match is partly what makes it popular and the opinions cited directly state they are in awe precisely because of the observed quality of the match! I will isolate the comments as pertaining to the observed quality:

"playing at a high level" - 10,000 likes
"greatest non-slam final I've watched" - 8,100 likes
"What a match this was." - 2,500 likes
"Astounding feat of grit and determination. Wow." - 1,500 likes
"still be playing at such a high level" - 1,300 likes
"Match was amazing" - 1,200 likes
"Seriously, this was the greatest 3-set non-slam final in history. The level has been raised like never before." - 1,000 likes

"Djokovic's playstyle is simply too advanced and giga-brain for any eye test or stats to comprehend [yet it can be noticed and explained by Roddick]. unlike Agassi and Safin, who are very neatly captured as players by stats like rankings and scorelines of distinct matches"

"look at these stats about hold and break rate and events Djokovic won, which require no further context. also Medvedev had a 1.71 DR at USO '21 and won Rome so he's better than USO '06 Federer and Federer over his career at Rome"

these are definitely coherent arguments for a single person to make and not merely a different brand of mythologizing a favored player...

Since I didn't say any of these things, kudos for the strawman argument.

 

[GabeT]

You keep driving the point that we don't know anything for a fact in these comparisons, which is correct, but what of it? You don't know that Djokovic is really the best or the greatest either yet seem to believe it, don't you? And when I say how disgusting it is that he is perceived as such and how deplorable people that follow that viewpoint, it's not something that can be proven right or wrong either, but I do posit a moral person should be bothered by the possibility of that... what it tells us?

No, I don’t think he’s the best. At most I will say he appears to have won the slam race.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

No, I don’t think he’s the best. At most I will say he appears to have won the slam race.

Then I don't get what's the fun for you to partake in all this stuff really :~o

 

[Pheasant]

What do you think?

I think Ali vs Holmes would be a great matchup that might be close to a even split.

1960s Ali 14-6 over 1980s Holmes. All of these fights would go the distance. Both had iron jaws. Ali's footwork would be the difference.

I got to see most of Holmes' peak on live TV. That dude was a legit fighter, albeit boring during his latter years. There were times where I felt that the he was helped by the judges scorecards; much like Ali was vs Ken Norton.

I prefer knockout artists like Foreman and Tyson.

 

[GabeT]

Then I don't get what's the fun for you to partake in all this stuff really :~o

My focus on this topic (the hypothetical debates) is pretty narrow, I think. I tend to respond to posters that are simply using this line of arguments to diminish what players they don’t like have done.

Other than that I actually find some of the hypothetical debates interesting. When the focus isn’t on simply “weak era, my fav player better” type of arguments there are some nice discussions

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

My focus on this topic (the hypothetical debates) is pretty narrow, I think. I tend to respond to posters that are simply using this line of arguments to diminish what players they don’t like have done.

Other than that I actually find some of the hypothetical debates interesting. When the focus isn’t on simply “weak era, my fav player better” type of arguments there are some nice discussions

Isn't all of this about who is stronger in a given context? What nice discussions can there be otherwise?

 

[GabeT]

Isn't all of this about who is stronger in a given context? What nice discussions can there be otherwise?

I think there’s a diff between “player A was better against his competition than Player B” and “player A would have beaten Player B” (the latter of which tends to devolve to “Player B vultured his wins”)

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I think there’s a diff between “player A was better against his competition than Player B” and “player A would have beaten Player B” (the latter of which tends to devolve to “Player B vultured his wins”)

But is that not a logical consequence? If player A was better but player B won more, then player B has vultured relative to player A. It seems common these days for worse players to win more than better players of the past.

 

[GabeT]

But is that not a logical consequence? If player A was better but player B won more, then player B has vultured relative to player A. It seems common these days for worse players to win more than better players of the past.

We can measure if player A won more than player B. But that doesn’t mean player A would beat player B (for a whole host of reasons). All we can really say is which player won the most given the competition he faced.

 

[TMF]

But is that not a logical consequence? If player A was better but player B won more, then player B has vultured relative to player A. It seems common these days for worse players to win more than better players of the past.

Depth and level of competition fluctuate over time and never stays constant. Strong era and there are weak era, Djokovic's competition was a joke in the CIE.

Peak/prime Djokovic in his 20s couldn't win more because of the better competition. No one ever expected(even his fans) a post 30s Djokovic wins many more slams and stay at the #1 for such a long time. That's because no one ever expected the NextGen and 90s born players were this bad.

Not all slam wins are equally impressive and high quality. There are great and subpar slams wins because it depends how good the field brings to the table.

Of course lol!

13 slams after turning 28... no other ATG in the open era has won more slams after 28 than before apart from Agassi and that was mostly because Andre skipped a lot of AOs and went on drugs...

Yet here we are, the Bosnian pyramid resident has already racked up a Sampras like career after 28...

Federer: 15 slams before 28, 5 after
Nadal: 13 slams before 28 + 1 pretty much on his 28th bday, 8 after
Sampras: 12 slams before 28, 2 after
McEnroe: 7 slams before 28, 0 after
Lendl: 6 slams before 28, 2 after
Connors: 5 slams before 28, 3 after
Wilander: 7 slams before 28, 0 after
Edberg: 6 slams before, 0 after
Becker: 5 slams before 28, 1 after

Djok: 8 slams before 28, 13 after

Why is it that he was nowhere near as successful during age 20-27?

Nah can't be because it was a stronger era... no, no in the ********'s mind it's because he's getting better as he's getting older... absolutely ridiculous

At the time of this post, Djokovic won 13 slams after his 28th birthday, it is now 16 slams won after his 28th !
There's no way one can say all of his slams titles are equally valued/impressive because that's intellectually dishonest.

Djokovic's effectiveness winning Major titles:
12/40 in his 20s.
12/24 in his 30s
What does that tell you?

Another good example. Old, past prime Djokovic vultured slams in his 30s. Notice his much higher win rate than when he was in his peak/prime years, only due to stiffer competition.