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

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.

Quite simply socal not in the top 10.

No Rosewall? I find this list disgraceful!

1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Laver
4. Borg
5. Nadal
6. Rosewall
7. Agassi
8. Lendl
9. Connors
10. McEnroe

The reason didn't rate Rosewal was for the reason that I saw him as more of pre-open era guy. But everyone has there own list. So where do you rank him, does he make your top 15?

Djokovic does.

I would rank him 12th on my list behind Becker.

I have only just started to recognise Djokovic as a 'Great' and I think to place him is a little premature. You have to take into account players like Federer and Nadal have shown great sustained success over a course of time. Djokovic has defended his first Slam title and if he continues to do so, we can look at the top and re-evaluate his position. I can understand at the moment it is exciting times for Djokovic fans as 2011 is no longer a 'one' off period of success.

Rosewall was a player for nearly 30 years and sustained a top 20 ranking for 20 years including 10 in the open era. That is a model of consistency.

Yes, I looked at where they had there most success it would be fair to put Rosewal in the list and 12th is a fair rating. I don't know about Becker rating above him. Although Becker has one more slam. He already has less weeks at number and less 1000 point tournaments.

Djokovic is near. Another 3 Slam year I think would put him above the likes of Connors and McEnroe and a top 10 for sure.

I think he's probably just outside the top 10 thus far.

For me the criteria are slam wins, ranking - both No. 1 and longevity in the very top ranks, and other wins in tournaments where a player has had to face his main rivals. Djoko scores decently in all those categories, but the truth is that if Djoko never won another slam and his ranking fell away this year he'd not be in the top 10, until we know that the converse is the case we can't put him in there on potential yet. If he carries on as he is I'd expect to have him in my top 10 by the end of the year.

Fair assesment barrystar, I think rating him just outside the top ten of the best players in the open era. I would rate him above Becker based on superior consistency of Djokovic. Djokovic has been in the top 3 since the second half of 2007, that is nearly 5 years in top 3 that is pretty good.

I woudl not put Nadal above Lendl. Lendl dominated his era. Nadal never did...amazingly Peak Nadal is not even the best on clay!

I think it's too early to start slotting Nole in any historical boxes. You can do that with Federer, and maybe contemplate it with Nadal. Nole has just started his peak.

True NITB, but I wanted to take a snapshot picture and Novak if he continues on the list can rise to the highest levels. Tenez I think that you could put Borg and Lendl over Nadal as well. 4-6 on my list is pretty close a fair argument can made that Lendl should be placed ahead of Nadal or Borg. And I think a fair argument could be made for all three holding the top spot.

I have Nadal behind Borg and v. difficult to separate from Lendl, but certainly ahead of Agassi. I can't really comment on Laver, but the way the pro's see him it would seem to be criminal to leave him out of the top 10 - poor old Rosewell seems to be forgotten or thought of as a bridesmaid. I find it very difficult to Judge between Connors and McEnroe - the former had his lengthy dominant era out of my sight when I don't really know how competitive the pro tour was compared to when McEnroe burst onto the scene. Subjectively I see Mac as infinitely the greater player, and he had to handle Borg and Connors as he came through.

Tenez wrote:I woudl not put Nadal above Lendl. Lendl dominated his era. Nadal never did...amazingly Peak Nadal is not even the best on clay!

Not being funny, but whenever Sampras was classed above Federer we were told that missing out the FO was a big factor. I wouldn't say he was dominant if he was being beaten by McEnroe and Wilander.

legendkillar wrote:

Tenez wrote:I woudl not put Nadal above Lendl. Lendl dominated his era. Nadal never did...amazingly Peak Nadal is not even the best on clay!

Not being funny, but whenever Sampras was classed above Federer we were told that missing out the FO was a big factor. I wouldn't say he was dominant if he was being beaten by McEnroe and Wilander.

But then he was y/e No. 1 for 6 years and no. 1 for longer than anyone else - there's no way of measuring this as we all know.

barrystar wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Tenez wrote:I woudl not put Nadal above Lendl. Lendl dominated his era. Nadal never did...amazingly Peak Nadal is not even the best on clay!

Not being funny, but whenever Sampras was classed above Federer we were told that missing out the FO was a big factor. I wouldn't say he was dominant if he was being beaten by McEnroe and Wilander.

But then he was y/e No. 1 for 6 years and no. 1 for longer than anyone else - there's no way of measuring this as we all know.

Good point. I think I made a weak argument with my last post.

I think Nadal can be classed as dominant, he has made 14 Slam finals. 10 Slams to his name too. It becomes too easy to detract from his achievements if people bring the Clay aspect into it which would then be the same for Sampras.

legendkillar wrote:

barrystar wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Tenez wrote:I woudl not put Nadal above Lendl. Lendl dominated his era. Nadal never did...amazingly Peak Nadal is not even the best on clay!

Not being funny, but whenever Sampras was classed above Federer we were told that missing out the FO was a big factor. I wouldn't say he was dominant if he was being beaten by McEnroe and Wilander.

But then he was y/e No. 1 for 6 years and no. 1 for longer than anyone else - there's no way of measuring this as we all know.

Good point. I think I made a weak argument with my last post.

I think Nadal can be classed as dominant, he has made 14 Slam finals. 10 Slams to his name too. It becomes too easy to detract from his achievements if people bring the Clay aspect into it which would then be the same for Sampras.

I just don't think that 'dominant' fits the bill other than for very specific periods - summer of 2010, or very specifically on clay each season. Even though he's basically consistent, I'd say Nadal has been more a type of peak and trough player accumulating an amazing series of wins than a 'dominant' one. He has not sat there comfortably at No. 1 swatting away all comers for lengthy periods. Apart from the summer of 2010 he has worn that mantle a little bit too uneasily to be described as 'dominant'. After the US Open he did not win a tournament until MC, and it took him 5 months to win a tournament when he was first No. 1 in 2008-2009.

It's not to decry his achievements, more to look for an appropriate word for his career.

I disagree Barry, at worst Nadal has been ranked #2 and he has healthy number of weeks as #1 as well. I mean the guy has finished the year either as 1 or 2 for every year since 2004. There aren't any players that have had that kind of consistency outside the most elite. He has the most weeks at #2 of any player, and two year end #1 finishes.

I'm in the business of comparing consistent excellence with dominance - with Nadal I see the former in spades but not the latter save for specific periods

I see dominance in Fed for 2004-2007, Nadal on clay generally and more widely in the summer of 2010, Djokovic in 2011, Sampras for 1993-1994, Mac for 1984, and Lendl for 1986-1987.

I guess I would argue that there is a thin line between dominance and consistent excellence. But I see your drift you are talking about a period when said player was head and shoulders above everyone else. Honestly, though you would have to include 2008 and 09 till the french open as a period when he was untouchable. In that period he won french in 08, wimby in 08, and the AO in 09. In fact, i would say Nadal at the 09 AO was about as untouchable as any player I have seen in recent memory, and I don't think he ever got back to that good, even when you take his success in 2010 into consideration.

At the risk of being pedantic I can't agree - Nadal won the Olympics in 2008 and got to No. 1 shortly afterwards (I think).

Then as I recall he didn't win a tournament until the AO 2009 when I agree he had a fantastic tournament. He had a very good run after that until Madrid, and then disappeared back into his shell (relatively speaking) until April 2010 when he started a round of true 'dominance' until September 2010 after which he won nothing until MC.

His 'dominance' during the earlier periods was probably April - August 2008 and January to May 2009 (both heavily but not exclusively dependant on clay), but you can't call him dominant during lengthy periods when he's not winning anything - usually the 2nd half of the year.

His career is a blend of short bursts of dominance surrounded by consistency but not dominance - overall that's not dominance of the sort I describe in my view.

barrystar wrote:At the risk of being pedantic I can't agree - Nadal won the Olympics in 2008 and got to No. 1 shortly afterwards (I think).

Then as I recall he didn't win a tournament until the AO 2009 when I agree he had a fantastic tournament. He had a very good run after that until Madrid, and then disappeared back into his shell (relatively speaking) until April 2010 when he started a round of true 'dominance' until September 2010 after which he won nothing until MC.

His 'dominance' during the earlier periods was probably April - August 2008 and January to May 2009 (both heavily but not exclusively dependant on clay), but you can't call him dominant during lengthy periods when he's not winning anything - usually the 2nd half of the year.

His career is a blend of short bursts of dominance surrounded by consistency but not dominance - overall that's not dominance of the sort I describe in my view.

Nadal 2008 dominance corresponds to Fed's mono....coincidence?

Nadal 2010 dominance under Federer, Djoko, Delpo,Davydenko and Murray all injured or really off form...with a Soderling, Berdych and exhausted Djoko as his main slam final opponents.

Tenez - you may be right about the reasons for the dominance, I am trying to identify whether there was dominance in the first place, which I think you agree with me that there was.

barrystar wrote:Tenez - you may be right about the reasons for the dominance, I am trying to identify whether there was dominance in the first place, which I think you agree with me that there was.

Certainly. And likewise I am not saying that had federer been 100% in 08 or the others had been in better shape in 2010 Nadal woudl not have dominated.

I am just pointing to some circumstances. One thing for sure is that A real great like Pete, Laver, Federer and others, they have an extended invicibility period. They don't struggle against like Petzchner, Haase and Schuttler in those periods.

Nadal above Lendl every single day of the week, for me.

Context is key, in my opinion. It's all well and good saying that Nadal hasn't had an extended period of dominance in the way that Lendl had, but I'd also firmly add that Lendl's greatest rivals between 1985 and 1988 (a shopworn McEnroe, old man Connors, Becker and Wilander) represent a notably lesser quality than Federer, who has as solid a claim to the number one spot as anyone and who Nadal has twice had to dislodge from the number one ranking. Moreover, Nadal managing to keep one step ahead of Djokovic over a four year period (2007-2010) is looking a better feat all the time, given that Djokovic in his own right is carving out a place amongst the aforementioned greats.

Nadal has won more at the highest level than Lendl, and has done it in a tougher era - simple as that, really. Tenez, can you honestly say you'd take Lendl's career over Nadal's if someone offered you the choice? I seriously doubt it myself.

Lendl's achievements were staggering. Nadal's, I believe, are even greater still.

Nadal a tougher era?

Lendl had Borg, Connors and McEnroe in the beginning and then Becker, Wilander, Edberg. No mugs by any stretch of the imagination. Their acheivements stand higher than today's crop. so let's be realistic when making comparisons.

Like Barry said earlier, 6 YE number 1 finishes.

Lendl was the blueprint for players such as Nadal, Murray and Djokovic.

It is tight to measure the 2, but to dismiss the 80's talent is silly.

legendkillar wrote:Nadal a tougher era?

Lendl had Borg, Connors and McEnroe in the beginning and then Becker, Wilander, Edberg. No mugs by any stretch of the imagination. Their acheivements stand higher than today's crop. so let's be realistic when making comparisons.

Yeah, because I really 'dismissed' the eighties period, didn't I?

Borg was long gone by the time Lendl began his period of 'dominance', which was the point in debate as well you know. In fact, Lendl won not a single Slam during Borg's first (and only significant) incarnation.

Connors in the mid eighties, while still a very fine player, obviously wasn't the force he'd been a few years before. Likewise, McEnroe's best years were notably behind him before Lendl had any claims of 'domination.' Out-performing Becker, Wilander and Edberg is a marvelous achievement by Lendl, of course, but the fact is that none of them can match Federer, and the likelihood is that Djokovic will outstrip the three of them, too.

Besides, even forgetting all of that, Nadal has the career golden Slam, not a bad proverbial tie breaker to have over the likes of Lendl.

88Chris05 wrote: can you honestly say you'd take Lendl's career over Nadal's if someone offered you the choice? I seriously doubt it myself.

Probably not, but that's not really the deciding point. Nadal has those Wimbledon wins and Lendl's career was beset with disappointing defeats - he lost 11/18 slam finals for goodness sake - not to mention horrible press.

However, when we stand back in about 10 years time and their careers are considered in the round, including the question of who had a more lasting impact on the game, I think that consideration of those two will be closer than the pure number of slam wins suggests.

Your point about rivals is well-made, but it serves to show how subjective these arguments become.

All-time greats who had effective parts of their carrer during Lendl's career at the top echelons (i.e. high ranking and slam finalist/winner) were:

Pre 1982 Mac, Connors, Borg
82-85 Connors, Mac, Wilander
86-88 Wilander, Becker, Edberg
88-91 Becker, Edberg, Agassi, Sampras - latterly Courier

Not to mention Mecir, Noah, Chang, Stich, Leconte, Cash as extremely dangerous slam winners/multiple finalists on their day

You point to Federer and Djokovic for Nadal - some will say that concentration of the prizes in a few hands shows how weak everyone else was, others will say the converse. Ultimately it's close to unwinnable - I see Lendl's long career as spanning a partiuclarly tough set of opponents, but you can say that someone like Federer would have made his opponents look less impressive and neither of us has any means of disproving the other.

If Rosewall is dismissed as a pre-open Era, how does one explain him playing till 1980.

Another one I would include is Roy Emerson.

Pancho Gonzales, IMVHO, is a glaring omission.

Laver seems to be the only pre-1970s player in this list.

Heavily biased towards 1973+ players.

88Chris05 wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Nadal a tougher era?

Lendl had Borg, Connors and McEnroe in the beginning and then Becker, Wilander, Edberg. No mugs by any stretch of the imagination. Their acheivements stand higher than today's crop. so let's be realistic when making comparisons.

Yeah, because I really 'dismissed' the eighties period, didn't I?

Borg was long gone by the time Lendl began his period of 'dominance', which was the point in debate as well you know. In fact, Lendl won not a single Slam during Borg's first (and only significant) incarnation.

Connors in the mid eighties, while still a very fine player, obviously wasn't the force he'd been a few years before. Likewise, McEnroe's best years were notably behind him before Lendl had any claims of 'domination.' Out-performing Becker, Wilander and Edberg is a marvelous achievement by Lendl, of course, but the fact is that none of them can match Federer, and the likelihood is that Djokovic will outstrip the three of them, too.

Besides, even forgetting all of that, Nadal has the career golden Slam, not a bad proverbial tie breaker to have over the likes of Lendl.

Wow one player equates an era

laverfan wrote:If Rosewall is dismissed as a pre-open Era, how does one explain him playing till 1980.

Another one I would include is Roy Emerson.

Pancho Gonzales, IMVHO, is a glaring omission.

Laver seems to be the only pre-1970s player in this list.

Heavily biased towards 1973+ players.

It's all time greats of the Open Era. Emerson was an all-time great of the amateur era, Gonzales and Rosewall of the professional era. The latter, for all his longevity, did not make a splash in the open era in the same way as the others on the OP's list. Maybe Laver did not too - I can't pretend to remember.

How can 1 rank Djokovic ahead of Becker and Wilander? I can only assume that OP thinks beating Nadal in finals is worth 2 slams. Premature to think that Djokovic is to be ranked 10th all time with only 5 slams, he will need another 2 or 3 to achieve that accolade.

88Chris05 wrote: Tenez, can you honestly say you'd take Lendl's career over Nadal's if someone offered you the choice? I seriously doubt it myself.

In Nadal's favour he has 2 Wimbledon. That's the most prized slam and I woudl have loved to have won it....except that he won it playing his clay game. So Wimbledon is a very prestigious tournament but frankly it's not Wimbledon as I and Lendl have known it.

All other arguments lean in Lendl's favour. He learnt his tennis with a small framed wooden racquet but ended up dominatiing and being as good as the new generation having learnt their tennis with a big frame. He has a multi slams on Clay, USO and AO plus 2 WImbledon finals. He was at the top for a good 4 years and that makes him many times better than Nadal who simply had quick stretches of slam grabbing thanks to fitness but his game will never be remembered to have brought tennis to new higher spheres...Takes his fitness away and he is one of the worst stricker of the ball.

So yes Lendl any time for me...I'd rather be McEnroe too instead of Nadal cause I'd rather live one day like a lion than a 100 like a sheep.

barrystar wrote:

laverfan wrote:If Rosewall is dismissed as a pre-open Era, how does one explain him playing till 1980.

Another one I would include is Roy Emerson.

Pancho Gonzales, IMVHO, is a glaring omission.

Laver seems to be the only pre-1970s player in this list.

Heavily biased towards 1973+ players.

It's all time greats of the Open Era. Emerson was an all-time great of the amateur era, Gonzales and Rosewall of the professional era. The latter, for all his longevity, did not make a splash in the open era in the same way as the others on the OP's list. Maybe Laver did not too - I can't pretend to remember.

Agree Barrystar. Laver is here to justify this being an Open Era only list, because he won a GS in 1969.

Regarding Rosewall and making a 'splash', perhaps this list may serve as a reminder.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Ro/K/Ken-R-Rosewall.aspx?t=tf

Look at 1971-1972. He did not make as big a splash as Nadalovic's 5:53 marathon, but he was pretty good.

Gonzales had many achievements post OE as well.

Courier gets listed but not Vilas (just an honourable mention).

I wouldnt be surprised if Djokovic gets beaten before the customary semi finals, if he gets Del Potro or Monfils by the 4th/QF it could well be curtains.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:I wouldnt be surprised if Djokovic gets beaten before the customary semi finals, if he gets Del Potro or Monfils by the 4th/QF it could well be curtains.

I would be very surprised I must say - but I agree that an older head on the shoulders of the del Potro who played Fed in the 2009 SF would be a handful for anyone. Question is whether we'll see that again.

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.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:How can 1 rank Djokovic ahead of Becker and Wilander? I can only assume that OP thinks beating Nadal in finals is worth 2 slams. Premature to think that Djokovic is to be ranked 10th all time with only 5 slams, he will need another 2 or 3 to achieve that accolade.

If you take wilander and becker's weeks at number #1 and combine them Novak has got as many weeks at #1 right now. Neither player ever dominated the tour approaching what Novak did. Novak's best year is significantly better than either player's best year. Wilander was a great slow court player, but he was like a much less interesting version of Nadal. Fast, fit, solid would never make a mistake. But he might be the dullest player to watch of any of the players on this list. If you found last night boring than you would have loved any wilander match on clay. As for Becker he was a great player but, he never attained a consistent streak of finishing in the top 3 for 5 straight years like Novak. I love Becker but Novak is a much more overall consistent and dominant player.

And as for your odd fascination with claiming that del po will beat Djoko, it is just funny to me because i don't think Del Po has ever beaten Novak in 5 or 6 attempts. Del Po is not that tough of a matchup for Novak.

socal1976 wrote:If you take wilander and becker's weeks at number #1 and combine them Novak has got as many weeks at #1 right now. Neither player ever dominated the tour approaching what Novak did. Novak's best year is significantly better than either player's best year. Wilander was a great slow court player, but he was like a much less interesting version of Nadal. Fast, fit, solid would never make a mistake. But he might be the dullest player to watch of any of the players on this list. If you found last night boring than you would have loved any wilander match on clay. As for Becker he was a great player but, he never attained a consistent streak of finishing in the top 3 for 5 straight years like Novak. I love Becker but Novak is a much more overall consistent and dominant player.

And as for your odd fascination with claiming that del po will beat Djoko, it is just funny to me because i don't think Del Po has ever beaten Novak in 5 or 6 attempts. Del Po is not that tough of a matchup for Novak.

I do believe Del Potro was easing past Djokovic in the recent Davis Cup clash, a match in which he made Djokovic cry...

socal1976 wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:How can 1 rank Djokovic ahead of Becker and Wilander? I can only assume that OP thinks beating Nadal in finals is worth 2 slams. Premature to think that Djokovic is to be ranked 10th all time with only 5 slams, he will need another 2 or 3 to achieve that accolade.

If you take wilander and becker's weeks at number #1 and combine them Novak has got as many weeks at #1 right now. Neither player ever dominated the tour approaching what Novak did. Novak's best year is significantly better than either player's best year. Wilander was a great slow court player, but he was like a much less interesting version of Nadal. Fast, fit, solid would never make a mistake. But he might be the dullest player to watch of any of the players on this list. If you found last night boring than you would have loved any wilander match on clay. As for Becker he was a great player but, he never attained a consistent streak of finishing in the top 3 for 5 straight years like Novak. I love Becker but Novak is a much more overall consistent and dominant player.

And as for your odd fascination with claiming that del po will beat Djoko, it is just funny to me because i don't think Del Po has ever beaten Novak in 5 or 6 attempts. Del Po is not that tough of a matchup for Novak.

Hmmm - Becker had 11 years in the top 6, 9 in the top 10, won 49 titles, had a span of 6 slam wins from 1985-1996 (with 4 other finals) and was still beating Sampras in big finals in 1996. He never had a year like 2011, granted, but I don't think Djoko is clearly ahead of either Becker or Wilander - the test at the moment is where you'd rank Djoko against those guys if his career fell off a cliff tomorrow. My answer would be behind both of those men, but at the end of 2012 if he has a year close to 2011 I'd start to budge. At the end of his career I fully expect him to be close to 10 slams and a real all-time great, but let's wait and see eh?

You've got to look at all the factors in the round - Hewitt had 75 weeks at No. 1, but that doesn't put him above these guys.

Hewitt played in the transitional era his best year in terms of one slam and 5 tournament wins would probably get him the #3 ranking nowadays. As for becker he never had 5 straight top 3 finishes. Top 3 is at the very elite. Becker was a great player one of my favorites of all time. But he was neither ever as dominant as Djokovic or as consistent.

How can you call Djokovic "dominant"? Being dominant is the win big tournaments without dropping a set, maybe for you it's winning no matter what the score was? Federer and Nadal have won slams without dropping sets, Djokovic has yet to achieve that.

1 Roger Federer 4-1 1-4 6-1 5-1 16-7
2 Pete Sampras 2-1 0-0 7-0 5-3 14-4
3 Roy Emerson 6-1 2-1 2-0 2-1 12-3
4 Rod Laver 3-1 2-1 4-2 2-2 11-6
5 Björn Borg 0-0 6-0 5-1 0-4 11-5
6 Rafael Nadal 1-1 6-0 2-3 1-1 10-5
= Bill Tilden NP 0-2 3-0 7-3 10-5
8 Ivan Lendl 2-2 3-2 0-2 3-5 8-11
9 Ken Rosewall 4-1 2-1 0-4 2-2 8-8
10 Andre Agassi 4-0 1-2 1-1 2-4 8-7
= Jimmy Connors 1-1 0-0 2-4 5-2 8-7
12 Henri Cochet NP 5-1 2-2 1-0 8-3
13 Fred Perry 1-1 1-1 3-0 3-0 8-2
14 John McEnroe 0-0 0-1 3-2 4-1 7-4
= Mats Wilander 3-1 3-2 0-0 1-1 7-4
16 René Lacoste NP 3-2 2-1 2-0 7-3
= John Newcombe 2-1 0-0 3-1 2-1 7-3
18 William Larned NP NP 0-0 7-2 7-2
19 William Renshaw NP NP 7-1 NP 7-1
20 Richard Sears NP NP 0-0 7-0 7-0
21 Jack Crawford 4-3 1-1 1-1 0-1 6-6
22 Stefan Edberg 2-3 0-1 2-1 2-0 6-5
23 Boris Becker 2-0 0-0 3-4 1-0 6-4
24 Don Budge 1-0 1-0 2-0 2-1 6-1
= Laurie Doherty NP NP 5-1 1-0 6-1
= Tony Wilding 2-0 NP 4-1 NP 6-1
27 Frank Sedgman 2-1 0-1 1-1 2-0 5-3
28 Novak Djokovic 3-0 0-0 1-0 1-2 5-2

Josiah Maiestas wrote:How can you call Djokovic "dominant"? Being dominant is the win big tournaments without dropping a set, maybe for you it's winning no matter what the score was? Federer and Nadal have won slams without dropping sets, Djokovic has yet to achieve that.

Don't usually agree with JM (partially for his dislike of AM)

He makes a valid point. When mentioning 'dominance' maybe aside from H2H's, the manner of how a Slam or major tournament is won also adds it's weight to one's legacy.

20 Richard Sears NP NP 0-0 7-0 7-0

Who is this Richard Sears? He should be the GOAT.

The manner means nothing if Djokovic won every slam in straight sets you guys would come out and say he had no competition. JM seems to be really into style points he highly rates Fat Dave and doesn't rate Novak very much.

As I said earlier socal, he is not far off from the top 10. If he did the Grand Slam this year, he would be knocking the door of the top 5.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:How can you call Djokovic "dominant"? Being dominant is the win big tournaments without dropping a set, maybe for you it's winning no matter what the score was? Federer and Nadal have won slams without dropping sets, Djokovic has yet to achieve that.

Seriously? Not dropping a set is a nice footnote, but it's the 'W's that count, not the sub-plots.

Ironically, if Fed was playing/winning like Djoko is now, and Djoko was at Fed's current level of play and at No. 3, then the 'weak era' argument would be extending into 2012, despite the overall level of tennis in the top 4 being the same. Because of the points I raised in my very first reply on the other 'era' topic - it's not really about the era, it's about the players you like/don't like and constructing an argument based on that.

Well Federer at his peak dominated USO for 5 straight years, let's see Djokovic do something similar on AO or USO. I don't see Djokovic winning any tournament 3 in a row. Nevermind 5!

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.