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 .

Donk

Rookie
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

How can anyone put Roddick ahead of Safin????

Safin has more Davis cups, more slams, and as many masters events, has more big wins, had waaay more injuries, and made the SF in all slams. Safin at #79 beat Roddick at #1 in 2004.

This doesn't make any sense.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
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.
Obviously the 2005 AO final alone is worth all of Hewitt's wins but that was a relatively competitive 4-setter - so not ownage. The one match which was real ownage is the 2002 Paris final, but Hewitt was basically running on fumes at the end of 2002 - he gutted out the YEC through sheer force of will.
 

Towny

Hall of Fame
Sorry, but after seeing him prop up Djokovic's competition so much despite old man Fed owning it, it's kinda hypocritical of him to go down that route.
What are you talking about? DImitrov, Raonic and Nishikori were basically the modern versions of Borg, McEnroe and Connors. In any other era they win upwards of 8 slams each. It's just that Peak Fed was too good for them. And Peak Djokovic was better still, 6-1 against Fed in BIG MATCHES in 2015-16
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
What are you talking about? DImitrov, Raonic and Nishikori were basically the modern versions of Borg, McEnroe and Connors. In any other era they win upwards of 8 slams each. It's just that Peak Fed was too good for them. And Peak Djokovic was better still, 6-1 against Fed in BIG MATCHES in 2015-16
My mistake.
 

upchuck

Professional
Sorry, but after seeing him prop up Djokovic's competition so much despite old man Fed owning it, it's kinda hypocritical of him to go down that route.
Which competition of Djokovic have I hyped up? You gotta be specific because I have certainly not been hyping Djokovic's competition of the last few years.
 

upchuck

Professional
Murray, Stan?
Those are great players who were better than Roddick, Hewitt etc so what's the problem?

Yes Federer this decade has been old like Agassi in the 00s but Federer's baseline level of play was far higher than Agassi's ever was. It's one thing to have had an inferior career to post-30 Federer; it's another thing to have had an inferior career to post-30 Agassi.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Those are great players who were better than Roddick, Hewitt etc so what's the problem?

Yes Federer this decade has been old like Agassi in the 00s but Federer's baseline level of play was far higher than Agassi's ever was. It's one thing to have had an inferior career to post-30 Federer; it's another thing to have had an inferior career to post-30 Agassi.
So basically, Novak's competition was better because you said so.

The problem is that Federer would not lose to Murray and Stan, so who cares if they are better than Hewitt and Roddick?
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Those are great players who were better than Roddick, Hewitt etc so what's the problem?

Yes Federer this decade has been old like Agassi in the 00s but Federer's baseline level of play was far higher than Agassi's ever was. It's one thing to have had an inferior career to post-30 Federer; it's another thing to have had an inferior career to post-30 Agassi.
So basically, 30+ year old Agassi doing well is a sign of weak era.

30+ year old Fed doing well is simply a sign of his greatness.

You can't make this stuff up.
 

George Turner

Hall of Fame
The answer is; none.

Raonic, nishikori and Dimi are all better, they'd be top 3 back then. Hewitt was just another Goffin. Safin was another Bashasvilli. Roddick was another Kyrgios.

Serious answer; Roddick, on account of being competitive for most of the decade.
 

Donk

Rookie
The answer is; none.

Raonic, nishikori and Dimi are all better, they'd be top 3 back then. Hewitt was just another Goffin. Safin was another Bashasvilli. Roddick was another Kyrgios.

Serious answer; Roddick, on account of being competitive for most of the decade.

Please explain how you think Roddick was a better tennis player than Safin?


Do people truly actually believe Roddick and Hewitt were better than Safin? Lol
 

upchuck

Professional
So basically, 30+ year old Agassi doing well is a sign of weak era.

30+ year old Fed doing well is simply a sign of his greatness.

You can't make this stuff up.
Doing well 30+ is a sign of greatness for both Agassi and Federer. But one entered his 30s with a much more impressive resume than the other.
 

FD3S

Hall of Fame
Please explain how you think Roddick was a better tennis player than Safin?
Copying one of my old posts on this:

"Normally I'd say the one with more majors should be the slam dunk answer, but while Safin has the advantage in that category (along with a tie for Masters) Roddick has leads in damn near everything else that's quantifiable, including the H2H. The Russian's deficits might be small in any given area, but he's got enough of them compared to Andy where it's really, really hard to give him the decisive, unquestioned nod over Roddick in spite of his greater major haul, and let's face it - with Safin's natural talent, this shouldn't have been remotely close."

While losing a chunk of his career to injuries is unfortunate, there's no denying Safin being a headcase hurt his career a lot. His consistency just wasn't there even when he was healthy; he'd peak and then seemingly vanish for months on end, and before you bring up Safin at #79 beating Roddick at #1 again, I'd like to point out that it still took a (fully healed, by that point) Safin five sets to put Roddick away despite possessing a far superior BH and playing on a surface that was more friendly to Safin's game than Roddick's. Again, while that one major deficit makes it equally as hard to give the nod to Roddick without hesitation, looking at how Roddick was basically a top ten mainstay for almost a decade that consistently made deep runs in majors, all while possessing significantly less natural talent... it's very close.
 

Donk

Rookie
Copying one of my old posts on this:

"Normally I'd say the one with more majors should be the slam dunk answer, but while Safin has the advantage in that category (along with a tie for Masters) Roddick has leads in damn near everything else that's quantifiable, including the H2H. The Russian's deficits might be small in any given area, but he's got enough of them compared to Andy where it's really, really hard to give him the decisive, unquestioned nod over Roddick in spite of his greater major haul, and let's face it - with Safin's natural talent, this shouldn't have been remotely close."

While losing a chunk of his career to injuries is unfortunate, there's no denying Safin being a headcase hurt his career a lot. His consistency just wasn't there even when he was healthy; he'd peak and then seemingly vanish for months on end, and before you bring up Safin at #79 beating Roddick at #1 again, I'd like to point out that it still took a (fully healed, by that point) Safin five sets to put Roddick away despite possessing a far superior BH and playing on a surface that was more friendly to Safin's game than Roddick's. Again, while that one major deficit makes it equally as hard to give the nod to Roddick without hesitation, looking at how Roddick was basically a top ten mainstay for almost a decade that consistently made deep runs in majors, all while possessing significantly less natural talent... it's very close.
What does Roddick have over Safin? a few more weeks at number 1????


Safin has more Davis Cups, and has made the SF's in all slams. Has victories over Ferrero, Agassi and Kuerten at the FO.

H2H with Safin is dumb; They played mostly in 2004 when Safin was still on the comeback trail. 2007 AO Safin was finished, and Roddick was close to finished.


Safin was fully healed, but you're basically trying to take away credit for a massive achievement. He hardly played at all in 2003, pretty much the entire year, and still made the final. No TUE drugs to get back to full fitness.


It's not close at all. The question is 'who is the better tennis player'. Safin is clearly a better tennis player than Roddick. 2 slams to 1. Roddick didn't have a cakewalk, but Safin's draws are way higher.


Safin has more wins over top opposition in slams than Roddick; Federer/Djokovic/Sampras/Agassi/Kuerten
Safin was also a lot better on clay and carpet than Roddick
Safin was better on HC than Roddick
Roddick was better on grass.
Safin made beating some of those names mentioned look routine. Made Nalbandian and Agassi look lightweight.


I seriously can't fathom how people rank Roddick ahead of Safin????? I'm guessing peak level of play isn't even considered in this conversation?


I can't think of any of those names who have gone out and destroyed Safin the way Safin has destroyed them.
 

FD3S

Hall of Fame
What does Roddick have over Safin? a few more weeks at number 1????


Safin has more Davis Cups, and has made the SF's in all slams. Has victories over Ferrero, Agassi and Kuerten at the FO.

H2H with Safin is dumb; They played mostly in 2004 when Safin was still on the comeback trail. 2007 AO Safin was finished, and Roddick was close to finished.


Safin was fully healed, but you're basically trying to take away credit for a massive achievement. He hardly played at all in 2003, pretty much the entire year, and still made the final. No TUE drugs to get back to full fitness.


It's not close at all. The question is 'who is the better tennis player'. Safin is clearly a better tennis player than Roddick. 2 slams to 1. Roddick didn't have a cakewalk, but Safin's draws are way higher.


Safin has more wins over top opposition in slams than Roddick; Federer/Djokovic/Sampras/Agassi/Kuerten
Safin was also a lot better on clay and carpet than Roddick
Safin was better on HC than Roddick
Roddick was better on grass.
Safin made beating some of those names mentioned look routine. Made Nalbandian and Agassi look lightweight.


I seriously can't fathom how people rank Roddick ahead of Safin????? I'm guessing peak level of play isn't even considered in this conversation?


I can't think of any of those names who have gone out and destroyed Safin the way Safin has destroyed them.
Peak level of play goes to Safin, he's clearly a more skilled tennis player than Roddick (and yes, he put the work in to fully heal up after 2003, but that has no bearing on the discussion of how their games matched up on Rebound Ace). But at a certain point, it has to be asked; what did you do with those skills when you weren't hurt?

He got some awesome clay court scalps, sure. Did he capitalize and win consistently once he smoked the big names?

His talent was trumpeted from the moment he got on tour. Did he try to maximize it when he was fully healthy?

He was better on carpet and clay and (slow, Roddick takes fast) HC. Wonderful. Why then did it seem like a crapshoot as to whether or not he would beat himself when he was 100% even on those surfaces, whereas you always knew that Roddick would go out and work his ass off, even if he wasn't favored?

In a vacuum, skill should decide everything. Safin had - and probably still has, to be honest - a lot more skill than Roddick, and yet has a very similar career barring the one additional major (which again, is quite large) and DC (large depending on who you talk to) when really, he should have had far, far more, even taking his injuries and the eventual rise of the Big Four into account. There's a reason tennis matches are contested on court and not paper; Safin could and did look like a worldbeater on some days, but he had so many off days for whatever reason that it hurt him greatly in evaluating his overall career, which should be measured in more than just highs. Roddick did almost as well with significantly less in his arsenal; like you enjoy pointing out, there's no doubting who the more skilled tennis player was, and it's because of the skill gap and the lack of achievements that came in spite of it that make me unable to give Safin the full nod.
 

Donk

Rookie
Peak level of play goes to Safin, he's clearly a more skilled tennis player than Roddick (and yes, he put the work in to fully heal up after 2003, but that has no bearing on the discussion of how their games matched up on Rebound Ace). But at a certain point, it has to be asked; what did you do with those skills when you weren't hurt?

He got some awesome clay court scalps, sure. Did he capitalize and win consistently once he smoked the big names?

His talent was trumpeted from the moment he got on tour. Did he try to maximize it when he was fully healthy?

He was better on carpet and clay and (slow, Roddick takes fast) HC. Wonderful. Why then did it seem like a crapshoot as to whether or not he would beat himself when he was 100% even on those surfaces, whereas you always knew that Roddick would go out and work his ass off, even if he wasn't favored?

In a vacuum, skill should decide everything. Safin had - and probably still has, to be honest - a lot more skill than Roddick, and yet has a very similar career barring the one additional major (which again, is quite large) and DC (large depending on who you talk to) when really, he should have had far, far more, even taking his injuries and the eventual rise of the Big Four into account. There's a reason tennis matches are contested on court and not paper; Safin could and did look like a worldbeater on some days, but he had so many off days for whatever reason that it hurt him greatly in evaluating his overall career, which should be measured in more than just highs. Roddick did almost as well with significantly less in his arsenal; like you enjoy pointing out, there's no doubting who the more skilled tennis player was, and it's because of the skill gap and the lack of achievements that came in spite of it that make me unable to give Safin the full nod.

But career aside, Safin is a better tennis player. The question is 'who was the best tennis player from 00-09'. Not 'who had the best career'.

I would still say Safin had the better career. He partied, made #1, won 2 slams, beat the best players ever.

Safin should go down as a legend of tennis for stopping Hewitt winning the AO. That man was insufferable at times.
 

FD3S

Hall of Fame
But career aside, Safin is a better tennis player. The question is 'who was the best tennis player from 00-09'. Not 'who had the best career'.

I would still say Safin had the better career. He partied, made #1, won 2 slams, beat the best players ever.

Safin should go down as a legend of tennis for stopping Hewitt winning the AO. That man was insufferable at times.
I would say the the career is still at least arguable given his status as a headcase (beating Federer and Sampras were two insane highs, being Fabrice Santoro's whipping boy was not) but yes; Safin was undoubtedly a more skilled tennis player than Roddick. That's not up for debate - he brought it from both wings, was lethally dangerous from everywhere and moved like a goddamn gazelle for someone his size. With his head on straight - a very important qualifier because an uninvested or upset Safin wasn't exactly the toughest out - he has a career leagues better than what he actually did. That said, IMO it's hard to call him the third best when he didn't show up a lot of time, and saying 'third best of 2000 to 2009 when he was healthy and focused' doesn't have the same ring to it.
 

Donk

Rookie
I would say the the career is still at least arguable given his status as a headcase (beating Federer and Sampras were two insane highs, being Fabrice Santoro's whipping boy was not) but yes; Safin was undoubtedly a more skilled tennis player than Roddick. That's not up for debate - he brought it from both wings, was lethally dangerous from everywhere and moved like a goddamn gazelle for someone his size. With his head on straight - a very important qualifier because an uninvested or upset Safin wasn't exactly the toughest out - he has a career leagues better than what he actually did. That said, IMO it's hard to call him the third best when he didn't show up a lot of time, and saying 'third best of 2000 to 2009 when he was healthy and focused' doesn't have the same ring to it.

Regardless of his underachieving, he won 2 slams. Only other multi slam champion who underachieved was Murray, but his game was lightweight compared to Safin's.
 
Copying one of my old posts on this:

"Normally I'd say the one with more majors should be the slam dunk answer, but while Safin has the advantage in that category (along with a tie for Masters) Roddick has leads in damn near everything else that's quantifiable, including the H2H. The Russian's deficits might be small in any given area, but he's got enough of them compared to Andy where it's really, really hard to give him the decisive, unquestioned nod over Roddick in spite of his greater major haul, and let's face it - with Safin's natural talent, this shouldn't have been remotely close."

While losing a chunk of his career to injuries is unfortunate, there's no denying Safin being a headcase hurt his career a lot. His consistency just wasn't there even when he was healthy; he'd peak and then seemingly vanish for months on end, and before you bring up Safin at #79 beating Roddick at #1 again, I'd like to point out that it still took a (fully healed, by that point) Safin five sets to put Roddick away despite possessing a far superior BH and playing on a surface that was more friendly to Safin's game than Roddick's. Again, while that one major deficit makes it equally as hard to give the nod to Roddick without hesitation, looking at how Roddick was basically a top ten mainstay for almost a decade that consistently made deep runs in majors, all while possessing significantly less natural talent... it's very close.
Safin's ranking vs a lot of players is debateable, but I find it utterly impossible to rank Roddick over Hewitt (or probably Agassi) which completely rules him out of a vote in this thread for me. Remember pretty much all of Hewitt's success is in the 2000s, so ranking Roddick over Hewitt in the 2000s is like saying Roddick had a better career than Hewitt which I could never comprehend anyone thinking for the life of me.

Just noticed Roddick has 1 more vote than Hewitt, cant believe that, LOL! Even funnier than that is Djokovic with the 2nd most votes though, WTF! In the 2000s alone 1 slam win, 1 other slam final, a few Masters, no time at #1 or even #2, and a nobody until 2007, the 3rd last year of the decade. Obviously people skewed by the all time great player Djokovic is now.
 

Donk

Rookie
Safin's ranking vs a lot of players is debateable
It's not debatable at all, he has beaten most people on that list in grand slam play. He had some of the toughest draws in tennis.

, but I find it utterly impossible to rank Roddick over Hewitt (or probably Agassi) which completely rules him out of a vote in this thread for me. Remember pretty much all of Hewitt's success is in the 2000s, so ranking Roddick over Hewitt in the 2000s is like saying Roddick had a better career than Hewitt which I could never comprehend anyone thinking for the life of me.
The only reason Hewitt had the success he did was because his draws were soft. Nalbandian in the final of Wimbledon???? The fact that I am writing this is wrong on so many levels. Obviously, Nalbandian was at times, a sick degen of tennis, but not on grass. Roddick of 04 cleans up nicely at W02, and that includes beating Hewitt. He also has a winning record over Hewitt on grass.


Just noticed Roddick has 1 more vote than Hewitt, cant believe that, LOL! Even funnier than that is Djokovic with the 2nd most votes though, WTF! In the 2000s alone 1 slam win, 1 other slam final, a few Masters, no time at #1 or even #2, and a nobody until 2007, the 3rd last year of the decade. Obviously people skewed by the all time great player Djokovic is now.
Djokovic was playing Nadal/Federer in every slam from 07/08 aside from Safin once. He was clearly the third best player from 07-10 in terms of results yielded and potential. Remind me, who was Hewitt playing in 01/02? Grandpa Sampras and Grass novice Nalbandian. Easy to win slams when the conditions get made easier for you.

Djokovic should be voted for. And Safin. Out of the list, they are the best two players from a technical standpoint. The only player who could potentially live with them at their absolute best is Roddick due to having, at his peak, two massive weapons.

In terms of peak level of play, Soderling needs to be added to the list. Beating Nadal at FO is more impressive than winning the FO imo. It's a trophy in itself.
 
@Donk this is about who had the 3rd best career during the 2000s - not who had the highest peak. By this standard, Hewitt clearly beats Safin. Roddick vs Safin is debatable, but I can understand how some would rank the American higher.

Btw if you think this thread is about which guys playing in the 2000s had the 3rd highest peak, you’d have to consider Nalbandian. Which is obviously silly.
 

Donk

Rookie
@Donk this is about who had the 3rd best career during the 2000s - not who had the highest peak. By this standard, Hewitt clearly beats Safin. Roddick vs Safin is debatable, but I can understand how some would rank the American higher.

Btw if you think this thread is about which guys playing in the 2000s had the 3rd highest peak, you’d have to consider Nalbandian. Which is obviously silly.
I said peak level of play is an aspect to consider; Not the be all and end all.

No, Nalbandian doesn't have a higher peak than Safin or Djokovic. Nalbandian's 07 runs were mainly due to Federer/Nadal/Djokovic being fatigued and Nalbandian pretty much slumming it for the majority of the year.



No, the question is 'who is the best player from 00-09', not 'who had the best career'. How many times do I need to say this?????



No one seems to have read the title accurately.
 
I said peak level of play is an aspect to consider; Not the be all and end all.

No, Nalbandian doesn't have a higher peak than Safin or Djokovic. Nalbandian's 07 runs were mainly due to Federer/Nadal/Djokovic being fatigued and Nalbandian pretty much slumming it for the majority of the year.



No, the question is 'who is the best player from 00-09', not 'who had the best career'. How many times do I need to say this?????



No one seems to have read the title accurately.
You didn’t write the OP. If you read it, you’ll clearly see it’s referring to the 3rd best achievements in the decade.

And yes, Nalbandian’s peak in the 2000s was comparable to Safin’s and Novak Djokovic’s (in that decade).
 

Donk

Rookie
You didn’t write the OP. If you read it, you’ll clearly see it’s referring to the 3rd best achievements in the decade.

And yes, Nalbandian’s peak in the 2000s was comparable to Safin’s and Novak Djokovic’s (in that decade).
Nalbandian is clearly underrated on the internet.........
 
B

BrokenGears

Guest
Sorry, but after seeing him prop up Djokovic's competition so much despite old man Fed owning it, it's kinda hypocritical of him to go down that route.
Given the amount of complaining you’ve been doing in match threads, do you really want to go down the route of accusing other people of being hypocritical?
 
B

BrokenGears

Guest
At any rate, probably Hewitt or Agassi, leaning towards Agassi
 
He beat Sampras at the AO in 2000. Sampras was playing at prime level there and that AO was actually USO speed.
Sampras had played great in late 99, including in the final of the tour finals. But he was slightly below par all event at the 2000 AO. Yes, the courts suited him more than they did Agassi and it was a great win for Agassi in those conditions. Still, it wasn’t a surprise. The Agassi fans on the board I posted on then were pretty bullish going into the match.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
So basically, Novak's competition was better because you said so.

The problem is that Federer would not lose to Murray and Stan, so who cares if they are better than Hewitt and Roddick?
Except that he did (semis of 2013 AO and 2015 FO).
 

Donk

Rookie
You're an idiot. Safin had a worse career than them both.
But did he though? The numbers might say so, but only an idiot would argue Safin's draws were weaker than Hewitt/Agassi. Schuettler and Nalbandian??? Rofl.


Agassi couldn't even beat Safin at the FO or beat Safin at the AO 04 when Safin didn't even play for a year and was ranked 79. Safin made Hewitt look like a lightweight. A lot of Hewitt's wins over Safin came in the smaller events.



Safin can say he beat a prime Djokovic, Federer, Kuerten, Agassi, Roddick on surfaces which usually favoured the other opponent, as well as a 2000 Sampras who was still quite good

Hewitt beat a slumping Sampras and Nalbandian to win his two slams.

Agassi also played nobodies at AO 03.




On the surface, yes, Safin had the weakest career, but he was a far better tennis player than both of these guys. The question was 'who was the better player from 00-09'


Starting to really think people didn't go to school in this place. They simply didn't read the question yet come out all guns blazing.
 
Sampras had played great in late 99, including in the final of the tour finals. But he was slightly below par all event at the 2000 AO. Yes, the courts suited him more than they did Agassi and it was a great win for Agassi in those conditions. Still, it wasn’t a surprise. The Agassi fans on the board I posted on then were pretty bullish going into the match.
How were the Samprassi fanwars at the time, were they any close to the current Beak3 sasspool?
 

BGod

Legend
Roddick. On top of his single Slam he was essentially denied 6 probable Majors by Federer. Nobody in that decade can really say the same. Agassi probably wins USO 05 but that's not enough considering his gift draws at AO.
 

Donk

Rookie
Roddick. On top of his single Slam he was essentially denied 6 probable Majors by Federer. Nobody in that decade can really say the same. Agassi probably wins USO 05 but that's not enough considering his gift draws at AO.
Roddick isn't better than Safin
2 slams > 1 slam
 

Grampa

Semi-Pro
Agassi or Hewitt. The former has one more slam, the latter has more weeks at numbers 1, more YEC and ye1. Tough too choose.
 
How were the Samprassi fanwars at the time, were they any close to the current Beak3 sasspool?
I wouldn't say they were as bad, but they were heated, definitely. I think the women's tour had much of the cesspool stuff we see now on the men's, given the rivalry between Hingis and the Williams sisters, and given the lingering resentment between Graf and Seles even though Graf had retired the previous year and Seles was a shadow of her former self.
 
The lack of votes for Hewitt in this poll is almost disturbing. Maybe some need a refresher what he achieved in the 2000s:

-won both Wimbledon and U.S Open
-back to back YE#1s
-back to back YEC wins

Agassi I can possibly see, but Roddick or even Djokovic (based on his 2000s results) having more votes than him is ridiculous. Considering Roddick and Hewitt's entire career of any results worth squat came from 2000-2009 (well Roddick loses a Miami title in fact now) a vote for Roddick before Hewitt is like saying you think Roddick had the better career of the two which is pretty :-D And remember Hewitt was victimized by Federer too, in 2004-2005 he lost to the eventual winner of 7 of 8 slams, 5 of those times Federer.
 
I wouldn't say they were as bad, but they were heated, definitely. I think the women's tour had much of the cesspool stuff we see now on the men's, given the rivalry between Hingis and the Williams sisters, and given the lingering resentment between Graf and Seles even though Graf had retired the previous year and Seles was a shadow of her former self.
Graf and Seles fans hate each other to this day. It is almost comical. On youtube the Chris Evert fan who posts tons of Evert videos had to close comments on any match of Chris-Graf since the Seles fans cant resist coming on and taking a giganatic dump there. There was even a Hana-Chris video that by some miracle from god turned into a crazy Graf-Seles war initiated by both sides crazy ass fans (mostly Seles fans) and had the comments closed. It is equally frighteningly ridiculous yet entertaining all at once.
Graf and Seles never liked each other either, which is another reason the stabbing sucked so much. My favorite rivalries are the ones were the people genuinely dislike each other, and I preferred their rivalry of hatred and intense passion to win over the other, to the huggy wuggy lovefest of Evert-Navratilova.

The Williams rivalry with each other sucked most of all. Venus feeling guilty to beat her baby sister most of the time, Papa Williams ordering Serena to tank the 2000 Wimbledon semi to Venus since Venus didnt have a slam yet and would never recover if she lost there, *puke* I loved Serena-Henin, now there was some massive tension especialy after the 2003 RG debacle. If you look on video of Henin's win over Serena at the 2007 U.S Open Serena actually mouthes "b1tch" while waiting for a serve down 7-6, 5-1. Love it. Wish it had lasted longer, instead it was a return to boring Williams vs Williams "I wuve my sister and hate beating her" duals. Serena-Sharapova would be amazing if Maria actually had enough game to threaten Serena.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
The lack of votes for Hewitt in this poll is almost disturbing. Maybe some need a refresher what he achieved in the 2000s:

-won both Wimbledon and U.S Open
-back to back YE#1s
-back to back YEC wins

Agassi I can possibly see, but Roddick or even Djokovic (based on his 2000s results) having more votes than him is ridiculous. Considering Roddick and Hewitt's entire career of any results worth squat came from 2000-2009 (well Roddick loses a Miami title in fact now) a vote for Roddick before Hewitt is like saying you think Roddick had the better career of the two which is pretty :-D And remember Hewitt was victimized by Federer too, in 2004-2005 he lost to the eventual winner of 7 of 8 slams, 5 of those times Federer.
Hewitt continues to be criminally underrated.
 
I changed my vote from Safin to Hewitt since Hewitt has way too few votes here, and thinking it over some more I dont think Safin deserves it anyway.
 

SystemicAnomaly

Talk Tennis Guru
Roddick isn't better than Safin
2 slams > 1 slam
I completely agree... if we ONLY consider slam count and ignore the larger body of work = career accomplishments. Marat was undoubtedly extremely talented, perhaps more talented than everyone but Rog & Rafa, but accomplished less than ARod, Andre or Lleyton in the 00 decade. If Safin had Roddick's (or Hewitt's) drive and work ethic, he might have had an even more impressive career.

Safin had 15 ATP singles titles -- half of Hewitt's 30 singles titles and less than half of Roddick's 32 titles. (In addition -- 2 doubles titles for Safin, 3 for Hewitt and 4 for Roddick). Safin won a respectable 61% of his singles matches. But this pales in comparison to 70% for Hewitt and 74.2% for ARod. This, despite the longer careers of Hewitt and Roddick (going past their prime years).

Important to note that ARod remained in the top 10 for most of a decade. An accomplishment surpassed but only a handful of individuals -- notably, the Big 3 -- Federer, Nadal & Djoko. And Andy had more competition, more interactions with the Big 3 during their the peak years. Safin was not in the top 10 much more than 4 years (if that).

While Safin had 2 slam titles to 1 for Roddick, A-Rod actually has a more impressive resume in Slam & Masters events than Marat if you are willing to take more than just a superficial look at their careers.

Roddick's 2009 Wimbledon loss to Federer was easily more impressive than either of Safin's slam title wins. (In many important respects), Roddick actually outplayed Federer in that loss. Andy broke Roger 2x prior to their epic 5th set. It took Roger 4.25 hrs to finally break Andy (only once) -- on the 68th game of the match (the 30th game of that epic 5th set).

In light of all this, 2 slams > 1 slam tells a very incomplete story...
 
Top