Is Djokovic one of the worst players to ever win multiple grand slams?

Dreadful Volleys
Dreadful Technique with his slice
Average Serve
The only thing he has is sheer determination, a great return and good groundstrokes

TopoftheChops wrote:The only thing he has is sheer determination, a great return and good groundstrokes

So, in other words, he's pretty good.

No

Yes he is and thought he can lick now Beckers hair to a full shine, thats not going to help it that no one likes Djoko.

The man who broke the Fedal duopoly - he's obviously a mug.

yeah Djokovic is awful. Though how bad that makes the rest of the field is anyone's guess

on a sidenote, while there are plenty of contenders for "one slam wonders", who would people actually rate the worst player to have won two or more? Since about 97, the list of people who have won two or more slams off the top of my head:
Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Agassi, Djokovic, Rafter, Hewitt, Murray, Kuerten, Safin. Don't think any of these deserve a "worst" title.

I see Bruguera won the French a couple of times, he might be worth a shout.

Andrés Gómez ?

Jahu wrote:Andrés Gómez ?

only won one according to Wiki...

Mad for Chelsea wrote:yeah Djokovic is awful. Though how bad that makes the rest of the field is anyone's guess

on a sidenote, while there are plenty of contenders for "one slam wonders", who would people actually rate the worst player to have won two or more? Since about 97, the list of people who have won two or more slams off the top of my head:
Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Agassi, Djokovic, Rafter, Hewitt, Murray, Kuerten, Safin. Don't think any of these deserve a "worst" title.

I see Bruguera won the French a couple of times, he might be worth a shout.

Kafelnikov, you overlooked him.

Yes, forgot the OP is about multiple. I counted Gomez as a one shot GS guy.

Rafter by some distance out of those. Only 11 career titles, very limited game. Poor man's version of Tim Henman in a lot of ways. Did play very well to win bis two slams though.

barrystar wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:yeah Djokovic is awful. Though how bad that makes the rest of the field is anyone's guess

on a sidenote, while there are plenty of contenders for "one slam wonders", who would people actually rate the worst player to have won two or more? Since about 97, the list of people who have won two or more slams off the top of my head:
Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Agassi, Djokovic, Rafter, Hewitt, Murray, Kuerten, Safin. Don't think any of these deserve a "worst" title.

I see Bruguera won the French a couple of times, he might be worth a shout.

Kafelnikov, you overlooked him.

keep forgetting Kafelnikov won the AO as well, it was when I was too young to follow it much

Born Slippy wrote:Rafter by some distance out of those. Only 11 career titles, very limited game. Poor man's version of Tim Henman in a lot of ways. Did play very well to win bis two slams though.

I think you are right that Rafter is the least good of that group, but I wouldn't call him a poor man's Tim Henman, I'd think that it's more likely the other way around. Don't forget Rafter is also a x2 Wimbledon finalist in years when Henman was at his peak but still not getting through.

Born Slippy wrote:Rafter by some distance out of those. Only 11 career titles, very limited game. Poor man's version of Tim Henman in a lot of ways. Did play very well to win bis two slams though.

Rafter at least won his titles faily evenly across grass and hardcourt though. Bruguera pretty much only won on clay (one title on hard).

Wow, the Djokovic bashing has started quickly here - lost a tight match to someone who manages to play his most inspired tennis against him. The guy has managed to win multiple slams at a time when 2 of the v greatest of all time have been around, so he can't be that bad.

Going onto the side-topic, I agree that Rafter did well to win 2 slams with his game. Winning 2 US Opens is no mean feat, at a time when Agassi and Sampras were still around.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:Rafter by some distance out of those. Only 11 career titles, very limited game. Poor man's version of Tim Henman in a lot of ways. Did play very well to win bis two slams though.

Rafter at least won his titles faily evenly across grass and hardcourt though. Bruguera pretty much only won on clay (one title on hard).

Depends how you view matters I guess. Bruguera was the king of clay at a time when there were a lot of specialists. I would give him more kudos for that.

Oh god... The downside of an upset against one of the big boys is then getting articles like this. One defeat = "one of the worst multi slam winners ever".... Brilliant.

Danny_1982 wrote:Oh god... The downside of an upset against one of the big boys is then getting articles like this. One defeat = "one of the worst multi slam winners ever".... Brilliant.

Agreed. Pity socal's not here to chew him up and spit him out.

TopoftheChops wrote:Dreadful Volleys
Dreadful Technique with his slice
Average Serve
The only thing he has is sheer determination, a great return and good groundstrokes

No.

Next!

Edit: Agree that we need socal here. Where are you, buddy?

I do hope Novak takes heed of the OP's expert assessment in the wake of this seismic defeat, and realises that there really is no future for him now on the ATP tour.

Just as Brian Epstein should really have listened more carefully to the guy from Decca Records who assured him that "there is no future for the Beatles in showbusiness" and that "guitar groups are on the way out"

Shortly before they were signed to Parlophone records ...........

I see the djokovic bashing has arrived. Djokovic will go down as one of the 10 greatest players of all time...........so to answer your question, no !!

He has only won 6 slams, 13 masters series, 40 career titles, 3 world tour finals, 1 davis cup, olympic medal, world number one for over 100 weeks, beaten Nadal in 3 slam finals, beaten federer 5 times in slams. Has also reached the French open final and nearly beaten Nadal at Rolland Garros not to mention more wins against him on clay than anybody else.

Yeah he is pretty awful ! all this after losing to an inspired wawrinka. How quickly people forget that wawrinka has beaten Murray twice at the US open including last year, hardly a mug !

REally hope wawrinka goes on to win it, such a good player.

Dreadful volleys the one thing he was doing well in the match was volleying and coming in. And average serve are you crazy. He is a very good serve. And maybe the best returner of all time and up there with his two handed backhand and movement. Yes terrible multislam winner who has something like 35 tour level and slam wins against Federer and Nadal widely considered the two best players of all time. If Djokovic is so terrible than that makes Fed and Nadal looking pathetic as well losing so many times to such a limited player.

You may have posted one of the stupidest threads of all time so congratulations.

getting under the skin of novak fans ey socal

Courier has to be the worst multislam winner. Great interviewer though.

LuvSports! wrote:getting under the skin of novak fans ey socal

Not really, it is a laughable post and obvious wind up. The funny thing is that I am really much less upset after this loss than many others.

lydian wrote:Courier has to be the worst multislam winner. Great interviewer though.

Are you for real?

Courier won consecutive Australian Opens and consecutive French Opens. And he's also the last man to win Melbourne and Paris in the same year(1992). 

Hardly the worst.

Yes I am for real.
Technically trust me he was the worst - that BH rivalled Granollers for beauty.
Won slams in the 'wilderness' years between the 80s greats and Sampras & Agassi true slam emergence.

lydian wrote:Yes I am for real.
Technically trust me he was the worst - that BH rivalled Granollers for beauty.
Won slams in the 'wilderness' years between the 80s greats and Sampras & Agassi true slam emergence.

So why didn't every tom, dick and harry win 4 slams and get to world number 1?

Are you for real?
You understand the theory of relativity right...?

E=MC Hammer?

lydian wrote:Are you for real?
You understand the theory of relativity right...?

Courier beat Agassi in the 1991 French Open Final. 

Courier beat Edberg in the 1992 & 1993 Australia Open Final. 

Courier beat Korda in the 1992 French Open Final

So Courier beat players that won a combined 15 majors. 

Yeah some real stiffs in your book...

cant touch this.

JuliusHMarx wrote:E=MC Hammer?

I'm so going to nick that and pass it off as my own!

Thread of the year!

Rod Laver is the worst multi-slam winner. Shocking unforced errors.

JuliusHMarx wrote:E=MC Hammer?

May the Mass x Acceleration be with you.

There are a lot of guys that I would say are worse than Courier, Kafelnikov and Rafter are definite candidates for worst multislam winners. Courier had a short period of dominance but he had both a big serve and a very strong return. And his fitness and forehand were out of this world. Plus he was a tough competitor and mentally very tough. I can't agree that he is the worst multi-slam winner ever.

socal1976 wrote:There are a lot of guys that I would say are worse than Courier, Kafelnikov and Rafter are definite candidates for worst multislam winners. Courier had a short period of dominance but he had both a big serve and a very strong return. And his fitness and forehand were out of this world. Plus he was a tough competitor and mentally very tough. I can't agree that he is the worst multi-slam winner ever.

Finally someone on my wavelength  

Gerry SA wrote:

socal1976 wrote:There are a lot of guys that I would say are worse than Courier, Kafelnikov and Rafter are definite candidates for worst multislam winners. Courier had a short period of dominance but he had both a big serve and a very strong return. And his fitness and forehand were out of this world. Plus he was a tough competitor and mentally very tough. I can't agree that he is the worst multi-slam winner ever.

Finally someone on my wavelength  

I don't know why but he has never been a guy who gets a lot of respect, even as a junior at Bolletteri he was always in Andre's shadow and later as a pro in Pete's shadow as well.

socal1976 wrote:There are a lot of guys that I would say are worse than Courier, Kafelnikov and Rafter are definite candidates for worst multislam winners. Courier had a short period of dominance but he had both a big serve and a very strong return. And his fitness and forehand were out of this world. Plus he was a tough competitor and mentally very tough. I can't agree that he is the worst multi-slam winner ever.

quite agree. Courier was a fine player, just not on the level of Sampras and Agassi (there's no great shame in that). Won multiple slams, was n°1 for a while, etc. Rafter I think was a very good player, he suffered from playing in the same era as Sampras and thus didn't win Wimbledon (yes there's the Ivanisevic triumph, but Rafter was past his best then in any case - in his prime Sampras was always in the way).

Bruguera was the least rounded of the multi-slammers (the others are all competitive on at least two surfaces), while Kafelnikov is another contender: he sort of sneaked his slams while no one was looking: the French when Sampras imploded in the semi-final (and Kafelnikov then had to beat the mighty clay courter Michael Stich in the final, who himself had beaten the equally mighty clay-courter and fellow contender Pat Rafter in his semi - must have been a real weak era for clay-courters that one ). He also won the AO, but like I said I was too young to remember much of what happened there (this being before the days of the internet). In his favour is that he did win a whole load of tour events and had a fine doubles record too.

For me it's between Bruguera and Rafter.

socal1976 wrote:

Gerry SA wrote:

socal1976 wrote:There are a lot of guys that I would say are worse than Courier, Kafelnikov and Rafter are definite candidates for worst multislam winners. Courier had a short period of dominance but he had both a big serve and a very strong return. And his fitness and forehand were out of this world. Plus he was a tough competitor and mentally very tough. I can't agree that he is the worst multi-slam winner ever.

Finally someone on my wavelength  

I don't know why but he has never been a guy who gets a lot of respect, even as a junior at Bolletteri he was always in Andre's shadow and later as a pro in Pete's shadow as well.

Might be because Courier's best surface was clay, whereas most Americans are most dominating on grass/HC. 

Clay is pretty unfashionable in many Americans eyes.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

socal1976 wrote:There are a lot of guys that I would say are worse than Courier, Kafelnikov and Rafter are definite candidates for worst multislam winners. Courier had a short period of dominance but he had both a big serve and a very strong return. And his fitness and forehand were out of this world. Plus he was a tough competitor and mentally very tough. I can't agree that he is the worst multi-slam winner ever.

quite agree. Courier was a fine player, just not on the level of Sampras and Agassi (there's no great shame in that). Won multiple slams, was n°1 for a while, etc. Rafter I think was a very good player, he suffered from playing in the same era as Sampras and thus didn't win Wimbledon (yes there's the Ivanisevic triumph, but Rafter was past his best then in any case - in his prime Sampras was always in the way).

Bruguera was the least rounded of the multi-slammers (the others are all competitive on at least two surfaces), while Kafelnikov is another contender: he sort of sneaked his slams while no one was looking: the French when Sampras imploded in the semi-final (and Kafelnikov then had to beat the mighty clay courter Michael Stich in the final, who himself had beaten the equally mighty clay-courter and fellow contender Pat Rafter in his semi - must have been a real weak era for clay-courters that one ). He also won the AO, but like I said I was too young to remember much of what happened there (this being before the days of the internet). In his favour is that he did win a whole load of tour events and had a fine doubles record too.

For me it's between Bruguera and Rafter.

Agree with this post, little known fact Courier played in every single slam final very few players have done that. For him to get to wimby final on a surface that he was never comfortable on is a huge accomplishment in and of itself. His backhand was not the best but it actually was pretty consistent and it was not all that terrible to put up with all those huge spinning forehands at the FO. Plus he played in 3 straight RG finals, very hard to vote him worst or even near it.

Gerry SA wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

Gerry SA wrote:

socal1976 wrote:There are a lot of guys that I would say are worse than Courier, Kafelnikov and Rafter are definite candidates for worst multislam winners. Courier had a short period of dominance but he had both a big serve and a very strong return. And his fitness and forehand were out of this world. Plus he was a tough competitor and mentally very tough. I can't agree that he is the worst multi-slam winner ever.

Finally someone on my wavelength  

I don't know why but he has never been a guy who gets a lot of respect, even as a junior at Bolletteri he was always in Andre's shadow and later as a pro in Pete's shadow as well.

Might be because Courier's best surface was clay, whereas most Americans are most dominating on grass/HC. 

Clay is pretty unfashionable in many Americans eyes.

I don't think it was that, he was just not as glamorous as Andre (or as good) and he was just nowhere near as dominant or talented as Pete. There just was not a lot of room in the American consciousness for a third wheel of tennis. And he was hurt by not really being at that level for a very long period. Agassi had the star power and Pete was the GOAT of that era and Courier was a ginger guy with a great game, but he just was not that marketable.

It's all about opinions. I just didn't care for Jim's dour on court demeanour or style of play but liked the guy and his determination for a period was great. Kafelnikov was greatly talented, should have done more than he did but he constantly overplayed in the pursuit of making money. Yes Rafter is down near the bottom too along with Kriek.

lydian wrote:It's all about opinions. I just didn't care for Jim's dour on court demeanour or style of play but liked the guy and his determination for a period was great. Kafelnikov was greatly talented, should have done more than he did but he constantly overplayed in the pursuit of making money. Yes Rafter is down near the bottom too along with Kriek.

kriek is a good shout because he won two AOs in a period when the AO was really not on equal footing with other slams. In fact the fields in those two AOs were worse than what you would get at your average Masters level event in the US or Europe.

Anyway, there is no doubt in my mind that Sampras is THE worst player to win 14 slams... teyve won slams, period

falzy21 wrote:Anyway, there is no doubt in my mind that Sampras is THE worst player to win 14 slams... teyve won slams, period

Very funny, and Federer is the worst to win 17 in my mind. It kind of puts this whole nonsense thread into perspective. I mean considering of all the millions who have played tennis about 20 or 30 male players have managed the feat in the open era it is a silly and negative way to approach the topic.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

socal1976 wrote:There are a lot of guys that I would say are worse than Courier, Kafelnikov and Rafter are definite candidates for worst multislam winners. Courier had a short period of dominance but he had both a big serve and a very strong return. And his fitness and forehand were out of this world. Plus he was a tough competitor and mentally very tough. I can't agree that he is the worst multi-slam winner ever.

quite agree. Courier was a fine player, just not on the level of Sampras and Agassi (there's no great shame in that). Won multiple slams, was n°1 for a while, etc. Rafter I think was a very good player, he suffered from playing in the same era as Sampras and thus didn't win Wimbledon (yes there's the Ivanisevic triumph, but Rafter was past his best then in any case - in his prime Sampras was always in the way).

Bruguera was the least rounded of the multi-slammers (the others are all competitive on at least two surfaces), while Kafelnikov is another contender: he sort of sneaked his slams while no one was looking: the French when Sampras imploded in the semi-final (and Kafelnikov then had to beat the mighty clay courter Michael Stich in the final, who himself had beaten the equally mighty clay-courter and fellow contender Pat Rafter in his semi - must have been a real weak era for clay-courters that one ). He also won the AO, but like I said I was too young to remember much of what happened there (this being before the days of the internet). In his favour is that he did win a whole load of tour events and had a fine doubles record too.

For me it's between Bruguera and Rafter.

Not to make it sound like I am bashing Rafter but for most of his career he was extremely ordinary at Wimbledon. Whilst he was a phenomenal athlete his volleying could be a bit clunky when compared with the likes of Henman and he was a bit stiff on return. He most definitely was not the second best grass player during the 90s as seems to be implied. My poor man's Henman comment was only half tongue in cheek - a list of top grass courters on the late 90s would probably read Sampras, Goran, Henman, Krajicek with Rafter down about 6th or 7th. He did improve markedly in his last few years (1999-2001 were his peak years despite the shoulder issues).

Kafelnikov I would place above Rafter and Bruguera. A talented player who probably could have had an even better career.

Born Slippy wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

socal1976 wrote:There are a lot of guys that I would say are worse than Courier, Kafelnikov and Rafter are definite candidates for worst multislam winners. Courier had a short period of dominance but he had both a big serve and a very strong return. And his fitness and forehand were out of this world. Plus he was a tough competitor and mentally very tough. I can't agree that he is the worst multi-slam winner ever.

quite agree. Courier was a fine player, just not on the level of Sampras and Agassi (there's no great shame in that). Won multiple slams, was n°1 for a while, etc. Rafter I think was a very good player, he suffered from playing in the same era as Sampras and thus didn't win Wimbledon (yes there's the Ivanisevic triumph, but Rafter was past his best then in any case - in his prime Sampras was always in the way).

Bruguera was the least rounded of the multi-slammers (the others are all competitive on at least two surfaces), while Kafelnikov is another contender: he sort of sneaked his slams while no one was looking: the French when Sampras imploded in the semi-final (and Kafelnikov then had to beat the mighty clay courter Michael Stich in the final, who himself had beaten the equally mighty clay-courter and fellow contender Pat Rafter in his semi - must have been a real weak era for clay-courters that one ). He also won the AO, but like I said I was too young to remember much of what happened there (this being before the days of the internet). In his favour is that he did win a whole load of tour events and had a fine doubles record too.

For me it's between Bruguera and Rafter.

Not to make it sound like I am bashing Rafter but for most of his career he was extremely ordinary at Wimbledon. Whilst he was a phenomenal athlete his volleying could be a bit clunky when compared with the likes of Henman and he was a bit stiff on return. He most definitely was not the second best grass player during the 90s as seems to be implied. My poor man's Henman comment was only half tongue in cheek - a list of top grass courters on the late 90s would probably read Sampras, Goran, Henman, Krajicek with Rafter down about 6th or 7th. He did improve markedly in his last few years (1999-2001 were his peak years despite the shoulder issues).

Kafelnikov I would place above Rafter and Bruguera. A talented player who probably could have had an even better career.

Lydian had a good shout with Kriek he only won the AO when the field was extremely depleted. Rafter was not as good on grass as one would think. And Brugera only won on one surface. I probably would go with this order with the #1 being the worst

1. kriek
2. Rafter
3. Brugera
4. kafelnikov
5. Safin

Safin basically was a great player for 4 weeks of his career. Did win 5 masters though and that gives him the edge on his countrymen.

Am I right though in saying that Rafter, Kafelnikov and Safin all reached world n°1? Genuinely no idea who Kriek is, so happy to go with him. Should Murray be a part of this discussion? He hasn't (yet?) reached n°1 after all

On a more serious note I always find the "world player to have won x or more slams" somewhat amusing, since ultimately it's a bit ridiculous anyway. While there's the odd player who has fluked one slam, I don't think anyone can fluke more than one...