Who was the third best player in the 2000s (2000-2009) behind Fedal?

Who was the third best player of the 2000's?

  • Lleyton Hewitt

    Votes: 18 15.8%
  • Andre Agassi

    Votes: 32 28.1%
  • Marat Safin

    Votes: 8 7.0%
  • Novak Djokovic

    Votes: 23 20.2%
  • Gustavo Kuerten

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • Andy Roddick

    Votes: 27 23.7%
  • David Nalbandian

    Votes: 2 1.8%
  • Pete Sampras

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • Nikolay Davydenko

    Votes: 2 1.8%
  • Other (please specify)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    114
  • Poll closed .

clout

Hall of Fame
Roger Federer dominated the field in the 2000s by record margins, while Rafa Nadal was unbeatable on clay, and overall, was the slam dunk second best player of this decade by a large separation over everyone else...so who was the distant third in this era?

I think Hewitt has the best claim due to his time at number one stats, although Andre actually has the most slams during the first decade of the new millennium outside Fedal
 
Last edited:

NatF

Bionic Poster
Agassi or Hewitt. Probably Hewitt, one less slam but two years at #1 and two YEC.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
Because of your time limit, I'm going to say Djokovic. Look at 2008, lost to Nadal at RG. No one did better back then, and he did not get to face Nadal in the finals because his ranking was not there yet. Then in the USO he went down to Federer in a match that was hardly a walk in the park. Already ranked #3 when Fedal were ruling the world between them. This on top of his first AO where he had to take out Fed. I know Fed was way below his peak that year, but still. Then again taken out by Fed at the USO.

I remember NONE of these details. I have the world's worst memory and have to look things up again, but I think it's only fair to give the Devil his due. ;)

But this is all 20/20 hindsight. It probably did not appear the same way back then...
 

Towny

Hall of Fame
Agassi or Hewitt I guess.

I'd lean towards Agassi. 3 slams with 5 total finals. 7 masters tournaments.

That said, Hewitt has 2 YEC and 2 YE#1. Plus he was blocked from winning more by Federer more than Agassi was. But the extra slam and the 5 extra masters for Agassi swings it for me
 

DerekNoleFam1

Professional
Probably Hewitt overall, similar reasons as above.
He was never a really dominant Number 1, but the best of that time.
 

rUDin 21

Rookie
Agassi then Hewitt.Agassi defended GS title, won masters on clay, was no.1 in 2000 I believe.He was relevant until 2006.Hewitt is close though 2 YEC, finished no.1 two straight years,won his slams on two surfaces unlike Agassi.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
Agassi: 3 slams, 2 more slam finals, 6 masters titles, was no.1 at 33 and was competing well with the younger generations after him, both of which were much better than the last 2 younger generations of today.
 
Last edited:

Donk

Rookie
Clearly Safin. Let me explain.

Agassi's slam wins were due to enjoying really weak draws. At no point did Agassi have to go through a prime Federer or Sampras for his slam wins. Safin did, as well as a handful of other grand slam champions. Safin also had waaaay tougher draws in the slams. His victory over Hewitt in the AO final was epic. Hewitt being a mental giant playing at his absolute max in his own back yard lost to headcase Safin, who came out as a walking nightmare to win in 4 sets.

How do people even consider Hewitt being a better tennis player than Safin? Do people not care about skill? Hewitt considered winning a set against Federer a morale victory. Lol.


Safin has beaten literally every single name listed in the slams during this time. Djokovic couldn't even beat Safin at W08. 2008!!!!!!


Safin made Agassi and Nalbandian look lightweight from the baseline.




The question was, 'who was the better player', not 'who was the most successful player'.
 

Djokodalerer31

Hall of Fame
For each year:
2000 - 1.Agassi, 2.Hewitt, 3.Safin
2001 - 1.Hewitt, 2.Agassi, 3.Safin
2002 - 1.Hewitt, 2.Agassi, 3.Federer
2003 - 1.Federer, 2.Roddick, 3.Hewitt
2004 - 1.Federer, 2.Ferrero, 3.Roddick
2005 - 1.Federer, 2.Nadal, 3.Safin
2006 - 1.Federer, 2.Nadal, 3.Roddick
2007 - 1.Federer, 2.Nadal, 3.Djokovic
2008 - 1.Federer, 2.Nadal, 3.Djokovic
2009 - 1.Federer, 2.Nadal, 3.Del Potro
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
Because of your time limit, I'm going to say Djokovic. Look at 2008, lost to Nadal at RG. No one did better back then, and he did not get to face Nadal in the finals because his ranking was not there yet. Then in the USO he went down to Federer in a match that was hardly a walk in the park. Already ranked #3 when Fedal were ruling the world between them. This on top of his first AO where he had to take out Fed. I know Fed was way below his peak that year, but still. Then again taken out by Fed at the USO.

I remember NONE of these details. I have the world's worst memory and have to look things up again, but I think it's only fair to give the Devil his due. ;)

But this is all 20/20 hindsight. It probably did not appear the same way back then...
both Agassi and Hewitt achieved significantly more than Djokovic in the 2000s.
Safin, Roddick also achieved clearly more.
 

Donk

Rookie
Hewitt and Agassi has weak draws.

Safin and Djokovic is the only conversation here. They had to go through tough players in their slams. Safin had to go through hell in 04 and 05 AO, as well as a prime Sampras in 00. Djokovic literally had to play Federer and Nadal in every slam from 07-09. What the hell? Hewitt doesn't even make a final with those draws.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Hewitt and Agassi has weak draws.

Safin and Djokovic is the only conversation here. They had to go through tough players in their slams. Safin had to go through hell in 04 and 05 AO, as well as a prime Sampras in 00. Djokovic literally had to play Federer and Nadal in every slam from 07-09. What the hell? Hewitt doesn't even make a final with those draws.
Hewitt's USO 2001 draw wasn't weak. And your argument sucks, Hewitt lost to the eventual winner in every slam in 2004-2005 including 5x to GOAT'ing Fed.
 

Towny

Hall of Fame
Hewitt and Agassi has weak draws.

Safin and Djokovic is the only conversation here. They had to go through tough players in their slams. Safin had to go through hell in 04 and 05 AO, as well as a prime Sampras in 00. Djokovic literally had to play Federer and Nadal in every slam from 07-09. What the hell? Hewitt doesn't even make a final with those draws.
Djokovic only won one slam with one additional final in this period and was only a factor for 3 years. Agassi had to go through Sampras in the AO and was blocked by Fed in the USO 04, AO 05 and USO 05, 2 of which he had a decent chance winning. Plus he also lost to Sampras at the USO in 2001 and 2002. I get the argument for Safin, but not Djokovic
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
both Agassi and Hewitt achieved significantly more than Djokovic in the 2000s.
Safin, Roddick also achieved clearly more.
I'm not about to debate this. I have no strong feelings at all. Agassi certainly did amazing things. I have mixed feelings about Hewitt. I loved his game and his fighting spirit, but I'm not so sure about his competition. At this point I don't know what I think about anything. How can the Big Three be 1, 2 an 3 again at the ages they now are? I'm divided on the point about "weak eras". Can we ever say that tennis was weaker just because a couple people are not dominating? How do we know objectively that all the other players weren't playing on a higher group level than we realize? There is no way to objectively measure, as in track or swimming where times tell a huge story.
 
Lleyton Hewitt mate.

Aussie Aussie Aussie, oi oi oi.

PS. It's definitely not Novak Djokovic - who barring his single slam, was considered a nobody and renowned for his retirements during the 2000s.
 

Donk

Rookie
Djokovic only won one slam with one additional final in this period and was only a factor for 3 years. Agassi had to go through Sampras in the AO and was blocked by Fed in the USO 04, AO 05 and USO 05, 2 of which he had a decent chance winning. Plus he also lost to Sampras at the USO in 2001 and 2002. I get the argument for Safin, but not Djokovic
The title was 'best player'. Not 'most successful'.
 

Donk

Rookie
It's definitely not Novak Djokovic. Lol.


Djokovic resided in the era specified
Djokovic is the only player who legitimately has a case for being GOAT in the above mentioned.

It could very well be Djokovic. He is the best player in that list.


Comparing Hewitt's joke draws and Agassi's joke draws to Safin/Djokovic's is a joke.
 

Donk

Rookie
Hewitt's USO 2001 draw wasn't weak. And your argument sucks, Hewitt lost to the eventual winner in every slam in 2004-2005 including 5x to GOAT'ing Fed.
The point is, Djokovic and Safin made it past Federer, all be it once, it's still once more than Hewitt managed.
 

Towny

Hall of Fame
The title was 'best player'. Not 'most successful'.
So what do you define as best player of the decade? The guy who played the highest level in a single tournament? In which case, Djokovic might qualify for 3rd with his fantastic Australian Open 2008 run. But that seems like a very narrow definition
 

Donk

Rookie
So what do you define as best player of the decade? The guy who played the highest level in a single tournament? In which case, Djokovic might qualify for 3rd with his fantastic Australian Open 2008 run. But that seems like a very narrow definition
Djokovic made the SF's or better in all slams during this time
Djokovic didn't lost 6-0 7-6 6-0 in a slam final either
Djokovic won a slam and made another final
Djokovic also won WTF


@NatF
Hewitt's USO 2001 draw wasn't weak.


Can't even tell if people are being serious at this point. Didn't he get taken to the brink by Roddick who was playing his first year on tour???? Sampras was awful in 2001. Did anyone see the results he yielded? Why are Hewitt fans building 01 Sampras up to be some kind of force.
 

Towny

Hall of Fame
Djokovic made the SF's or better in all slams during this time
Djokovic didn't lost 6-0 7-6 6-0 in a slam final either
Djokovic won a slam and made another final
Djokovic also won WTF
Bar his impressive AO run, in the other 7 occasions he played against Nadal and Federer, he won 2 sets total. He played one great match, against a Federer recovering from mono. He didn't come close to winning any of the others. Agassi on the other hand took Fed to 5 as well as actually beating Sampras. Djokovic's one great AO run isn't enough to make up for Agassi winning 3 times the slams, one of which going through Sampras.
 

Donk

Rookie
Bar his impressive AO run, in the other 7 occasions he played against Nadal and Federer, he won 2 sets total. He played one great match, against a Federer recovering from mono. He didn't come close to winning any of the others. Agassi on the other hand took Fed to 5 as well as actually beating Sampras. Djokovic's one great AO run isn't enough to make up for Agassi winning 3 times the slams, one of which going through Sampras.
He beat Nadal at Miami 07
He beat Federer at Montreal 07

That's 4 sets right there.

Also won a set on one leg against Nadal at Wimbledon, pushed Nadal close at the Olympics.


Djokovic also stopped Nadal's streak in Cincy.



Would you like me to continue?
 

Towny

Hall of Fame
He beat Nadal at Miami 07
He beat Federer at Montreal 07

That's 4 sets right there.

Also won a set on one leg against Nadal at Wimbledon, pushed Nadal close at the Olympics.


Djokovic also stopped Nadal's streak in Cincy.



Would you like me to continue?
I'm talking about at the slams. Outside the slams, he was a lot more successful. I was only talking about slams because you were talking about slams earlier:
The point is, Djokovic and Safin made it past Federer, all be it once, it's still once more than Hewitt managed.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
@NatF
Hewitt's USO 2001 draw wasn't weak.


Can't even tell if people are being serious at this point. Didn't he get taken to the brink by Roddick who was playing his first year on tour???? Sampras was awful in 2001. Did anyone see the results he yielded? Why are Hewitt fans building 01 Sampras up to be some kind of force.
I didn't say it was particularly strong, just that it wasn't weak. I don't think Blake, Haas, Roddick, Kafelnikov and Sampras is a weak draw, Kafelnikov and Sampras were bad otherwise it would have been very tough. Sampras brought his A-game to the USO, he was just a bit tired in the final and up against Hewitt at his absolute best. Roddick was young but playing very well despite his age and Haas/young Blake in the early rounds is no walk in the park.

So yeah decent draw but not as tough as it could have been.
 

Donk

Rookie
I didn't say it was particularly strong, just that it wasn't weak. I don't think Blake, Haas, Roddick, Kafelnikov and Sampras is a weak draw, Kafelnikov and Sampras were bad otherwise it would have been very tough. Sampras brought his A-game to the USO, he was just a bit tired in the final and up against Hewitt at his absolute best. Roddick was young but playing very well despite his age and Haas/young Blake in the early rounds is no walk in the park.

So yeah decent draw but not as tough as it could have been.
Sampras was crap throughout 2001. Safin managed to pull a Safin and managed to beat Sampras at sucking.

Haas and Blake are good, but come on, we are talking about Djokovic and Safin beating Federer (amongst other names). You can't really gloss over how big a Federer victory is during this timeline. Beating kaf and Nalbandian is nice, but they aint no Federer.


Also, are people forgetting that Safin owned Hewitt? A lot. It was like a dad playing with his son out there at times.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Sampras was crap throughout 2001. Safin managed to pull a Safin and managed to beat Sampras at sucking.

Haas and Blake are good, but come on, we are talking about Djokovic and Safin beating Federer (amongst other names). You can't really gloss over how big a Federer victory is during this timeline. Beating kaf and Nalbandian is nice, but they aint no Federer.


Also, are people forgetting that Safin owned Hewitt? A lot. It was like a dad playing with his son out there at times.
That's some cr*p.
Sampras was playing phenomenal at that USO before the final. Beat rafter convincingly, then that classic no breaks 4-set TB match vs agassi, then beat Safin convincingly in the semi.

Safin owned Hewitt with a 7-7 h2h ? lol !
People aren't forgetting. You are in your own world.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Sampras was crap throughout 2001. Safin managed to pull a Safin and managed to beat Sampras at sucking.

Haas and Blake are good, but come on, we are talking about Djokovic and Safin beating Federer (amongst other names). You can't really gloss over how big a Federer victory is during this timeline. Beating kaf and Nalbandian is nice, but they aint no Federer.


Also, are people forgetting that Safin owned Hewitt? A lot. It was like a dad playing with his son out there at times.
The Federer at the AO in 2008 wasn't playing great, so while it was a good win I don't find Djokovic's AO 2008 as impressive as Safin's 2005 win - nor do I think it places him on a much higher pedestal than players that achieved more than him in that time period. I do think on the whole Djokovic in 2008 was very good, not too far off his form in 2012-2014 but it was just one year., 2007/2009 were good as well but not better than Hewitt's best years IMO.

And Safin didn't really own Hewitt, they had a fairly competitive h2h - though when Safin was in form he was the one guy from that period apart from Fed who could really take the racquet out of Hewitt's hand.

Also pre final Sampras was awesome at the USO in 2001, better than Fed at the AO in 2008 ;)
 
I would pick Safin over Agassi only since Safin won his slams at 2 different venues, while Agassi's 3 were all Australian Opens; the least prestigious slam. 1 of Safin's 2 was at the Australian Open too, but he combined it with a different and more prestigious slam- the U.S Open. His win at the Australian Open also featured a win over peak Federer.

That plus Safin was the real #1 of 2000 so I pretend like he ended that year at #1 even though technically he did not, which pushes him over Agassi for me.
 
That's some cr*p.
Sampras was playing phenomenal at that USO before the final. Beat rafter convincingly, then that classic no breaks 4-set TB match vs agassi, then beat Safin convincingly in the semi.

Safin owned Hewitt with a 7-7 h2h ? lol !
People aren't forgetting. You are in your own world.
I think Sampras's real prime was 93-97. In 98 he already showed visible decline. By 2000 he was still great, and near the top of the game, but I think definitely past his prime by then. Still a great win for Safin, especialy in straight sets, but I would not put it on par with his win over say Federer at the 2005 Australian Open while Federer was at his total peak. I am pretty sure following the trajectory of his career there is no way Sampras was at his peak, probably not even fully in his prime, by the 2000 U.S Open.
Remember even Hewitt beat Sampras in straight sets in the final the next year, which diminishes some of the value of Safin also doing it, obviously Sampras was not the king of the sport by then anymore.

I still voted Safin in the poll anyway.
 
Probably Roddick

He was winning lots of matches. Lots of masters. Lots of deep slam runs.

Agassi was more of a bridge on the front end and Djokovic was a bridge on the back end

In 2000-2009 Roddick comes up in every year
 

Sosuke Aizen

New User
I'm not about to debate this. I have no strong feelings at all. Agassi certainly did amazing things. I have mixed feelings about Hewitt. I loved his game and his fighting spirit, but I'm not so sure about his competition. At this point I don't know what I think about anything. How can the Big Three be 1, 2 an 3 again at the ages they now are? I'm divided on the point about "weak eras". Can we ever say that tennis was weaker just because a couple people are not dominating? How do we know objectively that all the other players weren't playing on a higher group level than we realize? There is no way to objectively measure, as in track or swimming where times tell a huge story.
This can't be said any better.
 

Start da Game

Professional
"behind fedal" would eliminate all the years before 2005 by default and the automatic winner is djokovic for finishing 3rd twice........
 

Donk

Rookie
The Federer at the AO in 2008 wasn't playing great, so while it was a good win I don't find Djokovic's AO 2008 as impressive as Safin's 2005 win - nor do I think it places him on a much higher pedestal than players that achieved more than him in that time period. I do think on the whole Djokovic in 2008 was very good, not too far off his form in 2012-2014 but it was just one year., 2007/2009 were good as well but not better than Hewitt's best years IMO.

And Safin didn't really own Hewitt, they had a fairly competitive h2h - though when Safin was in form he was the one guy from that period apart from Fed who could really take the racquet out of Hewitt's hand.

Also pre final Sampras was awesome at the USO in 2001, better than Fed at the AO in 2008 ;)

When you consider the magnitude of high events which resulted in Safin beating Hewitt, it's owning. 7-7 doesn't tell the whole story, you would clearly want to have Safin's wins than Hewitt's wins in the 14 matches.
 
Top