Where does Djokovic rank in the all time greats of the open Era?

by socal1976 Wed 01 Feb 2012, 7:42 am

First topic message reminder :

I am going off of his accomplishments right now, and not on his potential or what he could do or not do. Imagine that he decided he wanted to go and be Hare Krishna and sell pencils at the airport tomorrow. In my own list I included laver and newcombe but not Rosewal my apologies he is kind of a pre-open era guy. And while total grandslams do play apart I try not to look at it purely on the basis of total number of grandslams.

1. Roger Federer
2. Pete Sampras
3. Rod Laver
4. Rafa Nadal
5. Bjorn Bjorg
6. Ivan Lendl
7. Andre Agassi
8. Jimmy Connors
9. John Mcenroe
10. Novak Djokovic
11. John Newcombe
12. Mats Wilander
13. Steffan Edberg
14. Boris Becker
15. Jim Courier

Honorable mention: vilas, nastase, Hewitt

The reason I rated Novak a bit higher than his slam totals involves the totality of his accomplishments. He has won a large number of (master's/grand prix/1000 events). He has been ranked in the top 3 for 5 straight years. Has won a Davis Cup title, a year end master's. He has played in a era dominated by 2 of the top 4 players on my list and has managed to carve out his own niche. He already has more weeks at number 1 than Wilander, Edberg, and Becker. Hopefully, he will continue to climb up the list and I don't see any reason he won't. My apologies if I forgot someone's favorite player I did this list in a hurry, while on my coffee break.

by deeznu Wed 01 Feb 2012, 3:52 pm

Josiah Maiestas wrote:
20 Richard Sears NP NP 0-0 7-0 7-0
Who is this Richard Sears? He should be the GOAT.

Great player. thumbsup

by **laverfan** Wed 01 Feb 2012, 4:01 pm

Josiah Maiestas wrote:
20 Richard Sears NP NP 0-0 7-0 7-0
Who is this Richard Sears? He should be the GOAT.

1887 Richard D. Sears def Henry W. Slocum, Jr.61 63 62
1886 Richard D. Sears def R. Livingston Beeckman 46 61 63 64
1885 Richard D. Sears def Godfrey M. Brinley 63 46 60 63
1884 Richard D. Sears def Howard A. Taylor 60 16 60 62
1883 Richard D. Sears def James Dwight 62 60 97
1882 Richard D. Sears def Clarence M. Clark 61 64 60
1881 Richard D. Sears def William E. Glyn 60 63 62

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 01 Feb 2012, 4:10 pm

Simple_Analyst wrote:Exactly Julius but Djokovic is playing above any level has ever played before

But even if that's true, does that make him a greater player than Laver or Borg? Of course the next generation after Fed i.e. Djoko will play at a higher level. In 5 years time some guy we've never heard of yet will probably be playing much better than Djoko.
I'll have to disgree with your assessement of Fed, much as 99% of all tennis playes, fans and pundits do. I'd love to hear why you dislike him so much though.

by noleisthebest Wed 01 Feb 2012, 4:42 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Simple_Analyst wrote:Exactly Julius but Djokovic is playing above any level has ever played before

But even if that's true, does that make him a greater player than Laver or Borg? Of course the next generation after Fed i.e. Djoko will play at a higher level. In 5 years time some guy we've never heard of yet will probably be playing much better than Djoko.
I'll have to disgree with your assessement of Fed, much as 99% of all tennis playes, fans and pundits do. I'd love to hear why you dislike him so much though.

Apart from the number of slams Borg and Laver won (Nole has not retired yet, so realistically speaking he can catch up with them), I don't see what the problem is, really.
Borg was good, but vanishing from the scene under the pressure of competition seriously detracts from his "greatness".

by deeznu Wed 01 Feb 2012, 4:51 pm

noleisthebest wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
Simple_Analyst wrote:Exactly Julius but Djokovic is playing above any level has ever played before

But even if that's true, does that make him a greater player than Laver or Borg? Of course the next generation after Fed i.e. Djoko will play at a higher level. In 5 years time some guy we've never heard of yet will probably be playing much better than Djoko.
I'll have to disgree with your assessement of Fed, much as 99% of all tennis playes, fans and pundits do. I'd love to hear why you dislike him so much though.

Apart from the number of slams Borg and Laver won (Nole has not retired yet, so realistically speaking he can catch up with them), I don't see what the problem is, really.
Borg was good, but vanishing from the scene under the pressure of competition seriously detracts from his "greatness".

We still don't know how Nole's career will evolve and conclude. Nothing is a foregone conclusion. We are seeing his peak but after that who knows. His past peak, past prime period will be important as well. Nole has to win slams for many years in a row as the likes of Federer(8 years in a row), Sampras(8 years in a row), Borg(8 years in a row) and Nadal(7 years in a row) did so he can show he is at their level. We have seen he can win slams for 2 years in a row so far. But the players I mentioned won slams for 7/8 years in a row. Let's see if he can win slams for so many years in a row. Not just a couple as we have seen so far(2011-2012). Winning slams for 8 years in a row like Borg, Sampras and Federer did would mean Nole would have to win at least a slam from 2011-2018. Only after he achieves this he would be at the level of the players I mentioned.

by Josiah Maiestas Wed 01 Feb 2012, 4:57 pm

Djokovic is not playing at an unseen level, on the return he's superb but on serve there are a few chinks of the armour. Just because he's beating Nadal regularly, SA seems to think that makes him the greatest ever. The poor little guy! Wink

by newballs Wed 01 Feb 2012, 5:06 pm

Simple_Analyst wrote:Exactly Julius but Djokovic is playing above any level has ever played before and to make it better, playing against Nadal who is also playing better than any level Federer has played before. You see the whole point of weak era for me does not even focus on titles other players won when one player was winning but the level of play of the competition and the quality. These new guys can do everything on court. Attack, defend, serve, volley, return etc. In the past Federer could use a good forehand, a technically poor backhand which has been exposed and lack if
of volleys to win slams simply because others were worst in many regards. Roddick for example, don't get me started.
Make no mistake, Federer is a good player but his talent deserved at most 6 slams.

As many as 6? Why so generous??

You must be feeling in a positive mood towards Roger today so keep taking those pills.

by amritia3ee Wed 01 Feb 2012, 8:09 pm

1. Rafael Nadal
2. Roger Federer
3. Pete Sampras
4. Bjorn Borg
5. Rod Laver
6. John McEnroe
7. Andre Agassi
8. Novak Djokovic
9. Ivan Lendl
10. Jimmy Conners

by Tenez Wed 01 Feb 2012, 8:19 pm

noleisthebest wrote:Apart from the number of slams Borg and Laver won (Nole has not retired yet, so realistically speaking he can catch up with them), I don't see what the problem is, really.
Borg was good, but vanishing from the scene under the pressure of competition seriously detracts from his "greatness".

I think sport was much healthier at that time. He was young rich and famous and he felt he could do many things with the rest of your life. But already then the system was changing. The madness of the fans and the greed of the system already forced the players to play more than they wanted, especially if you were number 1. It became hard work while until then it was a life of fun and good money.

Nowadays, the system is there to squeese every penny of the players and no player can quite afford to retire or even not deliver the results. I suspect that;s why teh system does;t mind much what makes you successful as long as you remain successful and develop a good fan base. Weare there discussing who's great, who is not so, but at the end of the day it's a business for them all. A business controlling the players more than the other way around.

by Simple_Analyst Wed 01 Feb 2012, 8:23 pm

Julius what shows i dislike Federer? Just giving a balanced assessment of the player. Looking at Nadal and Djokovic careers so far suggest Federer had it easy due to weak competition. I mean how hard could it be beating Roddick, Baghdatis, Gonzales, injury troubled Hewitt etc in a slam final? Look at 2009 Wimbledon finals when Roddick for once looks like he could engage in rallies and play more than two shots, see how badly Federer struggled. We saw again 17 year old Nadal beating him with ease, 18 year old Murray a beating him while his so-called competition of Ljubicic, Blake, Roddick, Injury hit Hewitt, Robredo, Fat Dave etc were struggling to even win a set off him.
To be honest i can't see what exactly Federer is more talented at than the currents greats of Nadal and Djokovic and the likes of Murray even. Sure he can hit pretty shots but so can Gasquet. He was just at the right place at the right time to take advantage of weak competition. No shame in that and does not undermine his achievements. He won probably 10 or 11 more slams than his 'talent' deserves.

by amritia3ee Wed 01 Feb 2012, 8:28 pm

Simple_Analyst wrote:Julius what shows i dislike Federer? Just giving a balanced assessment of the player. Looking at Nadal and Djokovic careers so far suggest Federer had it easy due to weak competition. I mesn how hard could it be beating Roddick, Baghdatis, Gonzales, injury troubled Hewitt etc in a slam final? Look at 2009 Wimbledon finals when Roddick for once looks like he could enfage in rallies and play more than two shots, see how badly Federer struggled. We saw again 17 year old Nadal beating him with ease, 18 year old Murray a beating him while his so-called competition of Ljubicic, Blake, Roddick, Injury hit Hewitt, Robredo, Fat Dave etc were struggling to even win a set off him.
To be honest i can't see what exactly Federer is more talented at than the currents greats of Nadal and Djokovic and the likes of Murray even. Sure he can hit pretty shots but so can Gasquet. He was just at the right place at the right time to take advantage of weak competition. No shame in that and does not undermine his achievements.

Yes on the whole good post SA.
Nevertheless I do think you are not get giving Federer as much credit he deserves. He beat Murray in their 2 slam finals and has beaten Djokovic many times in slams before too.

by Simple_Analyst Wed 01 Feb 2012, 8:37 pm

Well if there was credit i'll give but unfortunately there is hardly one. While credit can be paid to how fortunate Federer was Murray took out an injured Nadal at AO 10 and an exhausted Nadal at USO 08, Murray himself was to blame for the AO defeat for example. The match was on his racquet.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 01 Feb 2012, 8:41 pm

Simple_Analyst wrote:Julius what shows i dislike Federer?

Nice one

I admire the way you keep your poker face on.

by bogbrush Wed 01 Feb 2012, 9:04 pm

This is a weak era, as proven by the laughable record of the field in making even Slam semis.

Also, they cant even muster a couple of Masters between them! Makeweights!

by amritia3ee Wed 01 Feb 2012, 9:22 pm

Yes that's because we have 4 unbelievable players playing.

by stratocumulus Wed 01 Feb 2012, 11:00 pm

"Where does Djokovic rank?"

Above Nadal Smile

by amritia3ee Wed 01 Feb 2012, 11:11 pm

stratocumulus wrote:"Where does Djokovic rank?"

Above Nadal

Cmon WOW, I expected better Nadal hating standards from you.

by stratocumulus Wed 01 Feb 2012, 11:16 pm

amritia3ee wrote:
stratocumulus wrote:"Where does Djokovic rank?"

Above Nadal
Cmon WOW, I expected better Nadal hating standards from you.

I don't hate or dislike Nadal. I just don't like his brand of tennis and his on court demeanours. And there is no harm in saying that Djoko is above nadal as Djoko got his number.
Djoko owns the moonballer Laugh

by bogbrush Wed 01 Feb 2012, 11:33 pm

amritia3ee wrote:Yes that's because we have 4 unbelievable players playing.

Measured by wht?

by stratocumulus Wed 01 Feb 2012, 11:38 pm

bogbrush wrote:
amritia3ee wrote:Yes that's because we have 4 unbelievable players playing.
Measured by wht?

well I can say about thre. By the virtue of their net play Headscratch

by amritia3ee Wed 01 Feb 2012, 11:38 pm

Yes Fed's net exploits in the AO semi were highly commendable.

by stratocumulus Wed 01 Feb 2012, 11:39 pm

amritia3ee wrote:Yes Fed's net exploits in the AO semi were highly commendable.

At least he plays tennis and not a slugfest.

by amritia3ee Wed 01 Feb 2012, 11:40 pm

Still seething wow Sad

by amritia3ee Wed 01 Feb 2012, 11:40 pm

Sour grapes and bitter excuses Sad

by socal1976 Thu 02 Feb 2012, 5:05 am

bogbrush wrote:This is a weak era, as proven by the laughable record of the field in making even Slam semis.

Also, they cant even muster a couple of Masters between them! Makeweights!

You mean like number 3 Ljubi of the real weak era who managed one slam semi in his career. Or Blake who finished 06 as #4 in the world who never got a slam semi. Berdy has been to 1 grandslam final and has won a masters. Soderling has been to 2 grandslam finals. Tsonga has a masters and a grandslam final. Juan Martin has actually won a slam.

by socal1976 Thu 02 Feb 2012, 5:10 am

Back to the original thread, laverfan you make a valid point about Rosewall, Pancho, and Emerson. But I drew the line at players who made at least as big as splash in the open era as before. I think most people would consider Pancho, Emerson, and Rosewall to have had their best years before the open era. While that might be the case for Rod Laver as well, Rod did have the one huge monumental accomplishment of winning the grandslam that year and being the only open era guy to come up with that accomplishment.

It is easy to criticize my list, but I really would like everyone to post their own list it is easy to criticize if you don't go through the exercise yourself and expose yourself to the critique of others.

by **JuliusHMarx** Thu 02 Feb 2012, 8:40 am

1st equal - Laver, Sampras, Federer, Henman (ok, maybe not Henman)
2nd equal - Borg, Agassi, Nadal
3rd equal - Connors, McEnroe, Lendl

I don't see a need, or a method, to separate them out, and I'm quite happy to recognise it's just personal opinion.

by Tenez Thu 02 Feb 2012, 8:45 am

JuliusHMarx wrote:1st equal - Laver, Sampras, Federer, Henman (ok, maybe not Henman)
2nd equal - Borg, Agassi, Nadal
3rd equal - Connors, McEnroe, Lendl

I don't see a need, or a method, to separate them out, and I'm quite happy to recognise it's just personal opinion.

Wow...what a coincidence to have so many equal results.

I cannot honestly see Nadal being that high. He is the same age of Djoko more or less but got creamed 7 times in a row on all surfaces. None of those players in your list have had such humiliations against a player of their age....not even Henman I believe!

by socal1976 Thu 02 Feb 2012, 8:46 am

Fair enough, interesting though that you put Lendl in tier 3 and Agassi in tier 2. I might switch those two in thier tiers. Lendl was a dominant long term #1 while Andre wasn't. Lendl does have a bit more consistency and more grandslam finals and tournament wins than Agassi. Agassi has the career slam.

by Tenez Thu 02 Feb 2012, 8:48 am

And Borg was invincible from 76 to 80 on grass and clay....10 times better than Nadal.

by **JuliusHMarx** Thu 02 Feb 2012, 9:00 am

Like I say, just my personal opinion. I don't really care enough about it to a) work out e.g. if Laver is better than Sampras or b) argue if people disagree.
I place more importance on Agassi's career slam, but if other people don't, then OK.
I only posted it because socal asked people to post.

by Tenez Thu 02 Feb 2012, 9:04 am

Ok...but Nadal above Borg? At the time where grass and clay were different Borg got 6 FO and 5 Wimbledon...a 5 year domination!

by legendkillar Thu 02 Feb 2012, 9:07 am

Julius has Nadal equalled to Borg.

Borg didn't win on the hard stuff whereas Nadal did.

Seems an equal footing to me.

by Tenez Thu 02 Feb 2012, 9:16 am

legendkillar wrote:Julius has Nadal equalled to Borg.

Borg didn't win on the hard stuff whereas Nadal did.

Seems an equal footing to me.

No...Though he would have liked to win there....Borg was facing tennis legends on american soil. Federer faced Agassi but Nadal only faced a dimisnished Djoko on a slow court. YOu have to compare apples with apples.

Getting a lucky USO is maybe not as good as getting to the final of 4 USO....This winning on 4 surfaces has little meaning nowadays as the courts all play teh same. Was Nadal serve volleying to win USO or Wimbledon like Borg did then fine....but no....the same loopy FH CC wins on all slow surface.

And it's not only Nadal that is consistent on all surfaces....it's all physical players...which proves the point very well.

by slashermcguirk Thu 02 Feb 2012, 10:51 am

How could the opening list have edberg on place ahead of Becker!!! Becker owned edberg, played 36 times and Becker won 26 of those meetings!!! He also won far more tournaments and had a better all round game.

Djokovic certainly making his way up the list, particularly given his accomplishments on all surfaces

by socal1976 Thu 02 Feb 2012, 11:00 am

Slasher, duly noted. I am becker fan myself. And until you just mentioned that I didn't realize I switched the two. My mistake I did this in a rush on my break. i won't edit it now but I actually would rate Becker as being better than edberg. Although Edberg is a bit more consistent, becker had more gifits.

by amritia3ee Thu 02 Feb 2012, 11:18 am

Tenez wrote:

No...Though he would have liked to win there....Borg was facing tennis legends on american soil.

Yes Nadal only played against amateur journeymen like Federer Rolling Eyes

by coolpixel Thu 02 Feb 2012, 12:30 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:1st equal - Laver, Sampras, Federer, Henman (ok, maybe not Henman)
2nd equal - Borg, Agassi, Nadal
3rd equal - Connors, McEnroe, Lendl

I don't see a need, or a method, to separate them out, and I'm quite happy to recognise it's just personal opinion.

i will go with this. i have long held that the title of greatest is stupid. but a club of the truly greats, now that is something worth creating. JHM i dont have much to pick in your list, though i would think Nadal is shading to join the 1st club

by slashermcguirk Thu 02 Feb 2012, 1:04 pm

No worries socal, would agree with a lot of your list. Will be so interesting to see what tally the current players end up with.

by amritia3ee Thu 02 Feb 2012, 1:14 pm

coolpixel wrote:
i will go with this. i have long held that the title of greatest is stupid. but a club of the truly greats, now that is something worth creating. JHM i dont have much to pick in your list, though i would think Nadal is shading to join the 1st club

Indeed

by **laverfan** Thu 02 Feb 2012, 1:25 pm

Tenez wrote:And Borg was invincible from 76 to 80 on grass and clay....10 times better than Nadal.

There is an Italian named Adriano Panatta who has some say in this. Wink

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=B058&oId=P059

by invisiblecoolers Thu 02 Feb 2012, 1:31 pm

Good question, but the answer is no idea as of now.

IF Djoko goes at this rate for next 5 years then he will end up as GOAT, right now he will be in top 20 coz he just have 5 slams.

by Tenez Thu 02 Feb 2012, 1:35 pm

laverfan wrote:
Tenez wrote:And Borg was invincible from 76 to 80 on grass and clay....10 times better than Nadal.

There is an Italian named Adriano Panatta who has some say in this.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=B058&oId=P059

Panatta was a FO champion...Soderling isn't!

by Guest Thu 02 Feb 2012, 1:57 pm

Where does Djokovic rank in the all time greats of the open Era?

This is a portion of my all time talent list for the open era:

...
12391. Alexei Filenkov
12392. Alex Bogdanovic
12393. Novak Djokovic
12394. Roger Dee
12395. Rafael Nadal

I am prepared to argue ten ranking places either way thumbsup

by socal1976 Thu 02 Feb 2012, 6:18 pm

very funny Nore Staat, i would take Rafa and Novak and their bank accounts over the other three guys, but call me crazy.

by Guest Thu 02 Feb 2012, 8:18 pm

It's a form of reductio ad absurdum, but you knew that thumbsup

by TRuffin Thu 02 Feb 2012, 9:08 pm

Simple_Analyst wrote:First of all, both Djokovic and Nadal wil lgo down as Alll time greats ranked higher than Federer to start with. Infact Djokovic needs just 3 or 4 more slams to be ranked higher than Federer and certainly more than most players on that list.

So far, my list goes like

1. Sampras
2. Nadal
3. Borg
4. Laver
5. Federer

Make no mistake, Federer would be rank somewhere from 6-10 but the fact of the case is, he is just a good player who took advantage of weak competiton and lack of quality to amass his slams. We saw with the emergence of great players, he has struggled against them badly in the form of Nadal, Djokovic and even Murray.
For me winning x number of slams does not even tell the full story and i look at the competition more than any. The quality of slams will always outweight the quantity but not quality. If you see what Djokovic is doing now, you see a player having to play his absolute best because his opponents is playing his as well. We never had that in the weaker periods of the 2003-2007 where the competition was just not good. Like someone wrote in the other thread, replace the current crop of players with the likes of Fat Dave, Ljubicic, Baghdatis, Davydenko, Roddick all as slam competition and Federer will be winning slams again. Fortunately, we have great players now.

Djokovic is an all time great and i agree just outside the top 10 but that should not last long at the rate he is going.

Federer being this good while outside of his prime doesn't lead you to believe during his prime he would have been dominant?
When Nadal is 30 and outside of top 10, will Federer's abilities be more appreciated by you?
If Federer is "just a good player" then how does Nadal leapfrog people like Laver on your list who have far greater accomplishments than Nadal? The H2h over Goat Federer is the only thing Nadal has that could rank him higher than some of those guys, but if Federer isn't all that, than Nadals achievement in beating him so often isn't all that either.
People who want to elevate Nadal and lower Federer make no sense, because in order for Nadal to be that great, beating Federer has to be an incredible acheivement. Otherwise, all we know of Nadal is he owned a "good" player who was 5 years older, mostly on clay, and Nadal can't in his prime beat another top player named Djokovic.

by Veejay Thu 02 Feb 2012, 9:25 pm

TRuffin wrote:
Simple_Analyst wrote:First of all, both Djokovic and Nadal wil lgo down as Alll time greats ranked higher than Federer to start with. Infact Djokovic needs just 3 or 4 more slams to be ranked higher than Federer and certainly more than most players on that list.

So far, my list goes like

1. Sampras
2. Nadal
3. Borg
4. Laver
5. Federer

Make no mistake, Federer would be rank somewhere from 6-10 but the fact of the case is, he is just a good player who took advantage of weak competiton and lack of quality to amass his slams. We saw with the emergence of great players, he has struggled against them badly in the form of Nadal, Djokovic and even Murray.
For me winning x number of slams does not even tell the full story and i look at the competition more than any. The quality of slams will always outweight the quantity but not quality. If you see what Djokovic is doing now, you see a player having to play his absolute best because his opponents is playing his as well. We never had that in the weaker periods of the 2003-2007 where the competition was just not good. Like someone wrote in the other thread, replace the current crop of players with the likes of Fat Dave, Ljubicic, Baghdatis, Davydenko, Roddick all as slam competition and Federer will be winning slams again. Fortunately, we have great players now.

Djokovic is an all time great and i agree just outside the top 10 but that should not last long at the rate he is going.

Federer being this good while outside of his prime doesn't lead you to believe during his prime he would have been dominant?
When Nadal is 30 and outside of top 10, will Federer's abilities be more appreciated by you?
If Federer is "just a good player" then how does Nadal leapfrog people like Laver on your list who have far greater accomplishments than Nadal? The H2h over Goat Federer is the only thing Nadal has that could rank him higher than some of those guys, but if Federer isn't all that, than Nadals achievement in beating him so often isn't all that either.
People who want to elevate Nadal and lower Federer make no sense, because in order for Nadal to be that great, beating Federer has to be an incredible acheivement. Otherwise, all we know of Nadal is he owned a "good" player who was 5 years older, mostly on clay, and Nadal can't in his prime beat another top player named Djokovic.

LOOOOL!!!
is that you Ruffin...?? Very Happy

by socal1976 Fri 03 Feb 2012, 5:44 am

Agree, with Ruffin on others can't possibly see how you could rate fed lower than 2 or 3 could be a credible rating. I think Fed did benefit from coming up during a transitional era in tennis talent with no other really great star to challenge him until the rise of Nadal and later Djoko. But Roger still at nearly 31 is 3rd best player on tour. And you can't really discount the man he beat the competition that was put in front of him. SA, I know that the Fed extremist continually disrespect Nadal and his accomplishments but don't let that taint your own objectivity, don't join the on the dark side.

by **JuliusHMarx** Fri 03 Feb 2012, 8:55 am

socal1976 wrote:SA, I know that the Fed extremist continually disrespect Nadal and his accomplishments but don't let that taint your own objectivity, don't join the on the dark side.

I've always thought of S_A more as Jarjar Binks than Darth Vader

by Sponsored content