Is Djokovic now in the top ten in tennis history?

If asked to compile a list of the top ten players in tennis history, there are nine names that I think would appear on most people's lists. In no particular order, these are: Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Borg, Laver, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl and Agassi.  

Has Djokovic now earned the right to be the tenth name?

Or does he still need to do more to separate himself from the grouping of Becker/Edberg/Wilander? Or do some names of decades ago such as Emerson, Tilden, Rosewall and Perry deserve the spot more?

What do you think?

Well a few more Slams would do it ! Djoko has got 7 now which takes him clear of Boris and Edberg. I'm sure after yesterday that he will add to the total. Wouldn't put him in the top 10 yet if you're including the pre-Open guys but he's got plenty of time to put himself up there.

As I am biased towards the 80's my loyalty says no.

However, I think his stats and the level of competition are very difficult to argue against.

So that is me sitting on the fence with this one!

If we are talking open era, then yes. I would put him above Agassi even on that list taking into account the quality of competition. It seems likely he will make at least 10 slams - one per year for the next three being conservative.

Above Agassi??

That's a bit over generous if you ask me.

Novak has plenty of time left to elevate his status. I wouldn't say he is quite in the top ten yet of all-time but do firmly believe he will be up there when he finally retires.

Too soon, but I'm (almost) certain it will come in time.

I wouldn't put Djokovic in all-time top 10 just yet but he's closing in. A 2nd Wimbledon win also helps with his mix of slams (4 of his slam wins have come at Aus Open). If he wins Roland Garros I would certainly consider him the equal of Agassi.

Yes an RG will defo put him in the list. And I'm ok with it

Jahu wrote:Yes an RG will defo put him in the list. And I'm ok with it

The user name says Jahu but this doesn't sound like Jahu... 

Jahu wrote:Yes an RG will defo put him in the list. And I'm ok with it

That RG title will continue to elude him unless he can solve the conundrum that is Nadal at RG. In 2013 he had the match on his racquet and blew it with that amateur stumble into the net.
Even if he does not win at RG and goes onto win other things it should not detract from being seen as a great of the game. Sampras' best effort was a semi at RG yet he is right up there.

Varied wins is a good thing to settle the debate. There is no point in winning 10 or 12 of the slam slam and amassing a massive total. If Federer won 12 wimbledon titles but had little success elsewhere it doesn't necessarily show greatness or adaptability.

HM Murdoch wrote:

Jahu wrote:Yes an RG will defo put him in the list. And I'm ok with it

The user name says Jahu but this doesn't sound like Jahu... 

Match was superb. proper fighting, no slugfest, so credit where due

My instinct was to say no, but I'm struggling to get 10 names ahead of him.

Given further hauls anticipated I think it's a certainty.

Don't forget weeks @ #1. At 102 & counting it's very good and only less than a year behind Nadal. Get past him and he easily secures the top 10 place.

A title at RG secures it for sure, a further couple of slams would be equivalent IMO.

7 slams in the times of roger and rafa, and beating both of them on a regular basis...

djoko is huge

he does not need to seperate himself from Becker coz the partnership is doing good.   

I really think he is right up there. Add in the fact he has reached 14 slam finals over all surfaces, has won Davis cup, has won 18 masters series, 3 world tour finals beating federer and nadal in finals. Slam final wins against federer, nadal, Murray. Also to a lesser extent an Olympic medal.

How could you not put him top 10. Also 19 wins against nadal and 17 against federer

I agree with all the above except Davis Cup. I think that's an irrelevance.

The guy in the top 10 I see him close to is Agassi. Maybe past him actually.

He's still got a bit to do to get past Agassi IMO.

Or do some names of decades ago such as Emerson, Tilden, Rosewall and Perry deserve the spot more?

___________________________

Yes, exactly. But let's delete Emerson who won slams when they were second tier amateur and add Pancho Gonzalez. If we're talking professional era there might be a case for Djokovic top 10 but all time...no chance....maybe top 20 or top 30.

I think you have to have Agassi ahead for now. Djokovic surely has to win more total slams or an FO to be considered ahead.

Good comments.

If we limit it to the Open Era, then I think he's definitely top ten. He's in the top ten by slam count and I think his other achievements secure the position.

All time position feels less clear cut. I'd say he's currently a strong contender but not 'nailed on' in the way that Mac (with the same number of slams) is.

An eighth slam would probably seal it.

If you're building a top ten, it has to be 2 different lists for pre-Open Era and Open Era. They're not comparable (Laver probably gets in both though). For me, Djokovic sits about 10th on the list. Another hard court major might bump him up to 9th ahead of Agassi but a RG should bump him ahead of Lendl.

These sorts of lists are purely opinion though. There's absolutely no way any definitive list can ever be drawn up unless a time machine is invented to drag Laver and Tilden back into the year 2012 so they can play with racquets, strings and courts of that year (plus fitness regime etc).

With the "big four" dominating the final stages of Slams, Djoko and his fellow giants have constantly had to beat each other in the GS title matches.
Murray for example has never had a GS final opponent from outside the top four and I think Djoko has only had Tsonga (at the A0 in 08).
Before the arrival of the big four, Fed had the likes of Mark Philly, Baggy and Gonzo and Rafa had Puerta in his first French and has also had Soderling (Fed got him, too) and Berdbrain. But in the main the two finalists have come from the top four which has made the wins even more special.

He's got to be up there at this point. And to be honest, even if he hadn't won Wimbledon again, it wouldn't have mattered to me. His consistency and the more stellar aspects of his game - allied with the handy stats he's accumulating - are more than enough to get him into the argument.

Quality player

Silver Today - take your point but the GS wins ARE important, IMHO. Also Wimbledon is so prestigious, still, that wins there add gloss to a player's record.
Intriguingly, next year will be five years since Rafa won Wimbledon and SIX since he won the Australian. But his fans need not worry. He seems destined to break the GS record by wins at the French alone !

No doubt, sfp! They're hugely important, and 7 definitely makes better reading than 6.

I hadn't thought about Nadal's slams like that before, wow. Six years since that AO win, it seems incredible to think.

S-T . Yes, I was going to write "incredibly" before the six but then it aint so easy to win a Slam with thuis present field around and Rafa did not play at all at Melbourne one year.
  But it does show his reliance on the French. OK, Fed has won seven Wimbledons but he has won three of the four slams at least FOUR times, which isn't bad.
  No doubt Rafa's preference for RG will come into the reckoning when the GOAT debate goes on even AFTER the magic 17 has been passed. Incidentally a national UK paper (OK, it was the Daily Mail) had Novak winning NINE slams already, adding that it was the same number as McEnroe (wrong again). Don't know who cooked that one up.