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

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.

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.

Funny words I hilighted.

But to be fair Socal is probably very confused, certainly confusing, cause I am not sure how can one have his "own objectivity". I thought that was against objectivity definition. He probably meant subjectivity...which would make perfect sense.

Tenez wrote:

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.

Funny words I hilighted.

But to be fair Socal is probably very confused, certainly confusing, cause I am not sure how can one have his "own objectivity". I thought that was against objectivity definition. He probably meant subjectivity...which would make perfect sense.

He has subjective objectivity.

socal1976 wrote:... 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 ...

That's how I am beginning to view matters. The thing is, it seems it is this "transitional era" in which the "best", in terms of variety, tennis is played. The other thing is that no-one, as far as I can tell, has been able to beat Federer at his "own game", that is it is a different style (and fitness) that is currently defeating him. However I may be doing Federer a disservice, it is difficult to determine how well he would have done if he had arrived at the same time as Pete Sampras / Andre Agassi during the period when S&V seem to dominate the grass / hard court games.

Nore Staat wrote:

socal1976 wrote:... 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 ...

That's how I am beginning to view matters. The thing is, it seems it is this "transitional era" in which the "best", in terms of variety, tennis is played. The other thing is that no-one, as far as I can tell, has been able to beat Federer at his "own game", that is it is a different style (and fitness) that is currently defeating him. However I may be doing Federer a disservice, it is difficult to determine how well he would have done if he had arrived at the same time as Pete Sampras / Andre Agassi during the period when S&V seem to dominate the grass / hard court games.

I can turn the argument around, NS. By being so dominant, the few players who were good peers, but perhaps not exceptional, were left by the wayside, when Federer started winning.

BTW, I was reading about McIngvales and Houston TMC. It is very interesting reading. I would suggest taking a look at it, if you can.

PS; Waiting for my 'Rafa' book to arrive.

We could say Djok is ruling the last 12 months because his rivals are worn out from years gone by.. we could also say Nadal was fortunate to have no top rival on clay after Coria and Kuerten disappeared... it's so easy to follow other's logic in their attacks on Fed!!!

LF: Are there any analogies / similarities between Roger Federer and Ivan Lendl? What player in the past is Roger Federer most similar to (in terms of the dynamics of the sport as a whole)?

Yes maybe Lendl style (big serve and big FH) with McEnroe's genius and Borg's footwork.

Imagine if Borg was born same year as Rafa.

Who would have more RG's?

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.

During the same time Nadal won his 10 majors, Federer won 11 or 12 (depending on when you want to count- 2005 Nadals 1st major on... so how can you possibly think that Federers Majors don't count and his talent was only good for 4 or 5, while all 10 of Nadals do? They were playing hte same tour!! IF anything, Nadal only had to beat this supposedly weak Federer on his worst surface most of the time, so he's the one who had the weak competitoion. Seriously though, you Nadal nuts just stretch the truth to the limits of reality. Federer's Major wins were weak, but Nadal playing in the same field had strong Major wins....... real fair.

Every single one of the all time greats, Laver, Sampras, Nadal, Djokoic, Borg, Agassi, MCenroe, Conners, Wilander. etc, and to name a few current players- Del Potro, Tsonga, Soderling, Ferrrer, Tomic all have either said Federer is the greatest player ever or the greatest talent ever. Laver last week "Roger continues to amaze me, put him in any time period, any racquet, and he would be the best. He's the only one of the current players I think with a wooden racquet that coudl adapt and be just as good" Sampras: "Federer has things in his arsenal I could only dream of. I got a taste of it hitting with him, and the guy is flawless. He'll go down as the best player ever." So these actual greats think Federer is the elite of the talented. They could say anyones name,but they say Federer-- but you, a Simple Analyst- state as fact that Federers just a good player. That's a debate you will lose.

Doesn't simple analyst remind you of someone Ruffin?

We know who he is... kept writing exactly the same anti-Fed garb on BBC606.

Great quote from Laver there, TRuffin.

Great post TRuffin.

You're not TRuffin from bleacherreport are you btw?

Here's something for Federer fans....Friday night chill....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJVdnMAGIt8&feature=related

NITB, congrats on Nole's continuing success. You must be a proud fan
Has Lydian left 606?

stratocumulus wrote:NITB, congrats on Nole's continuing success. You must be a proud fan
Has Lydian left 606?

Thank you.
I AM a really proud fan .

I don't think Lydian left. Probably just resting. Things can get a bit repetitive when there's not much tennis goin' around

noleisthebest wrote:

stratocumulus wrote:NITB, congrats on Nole's continuing success. You must be a proud fan
Has Lydian left 606?

Thank you.
I AM a really proud fan .

I don't think Lydian left. Probably just resting. Things can get a bit repetitive when there's not much tennis goin' around

Even when tennis is going on.

I was really glad that Nole won that final. At one stage I thought maybe Nadal will pull it off but Nole knows that he can beat nadal any day even when is just running on fumes. He had the same look on his face as when he faced 2 match poins against Fed in the 5th set. Even when he was down 2 match points he knew that match was not finished and gave his best.

The thing is that he has pulled off close matches in recent past that has given him this aura of invincibility.
I still think that only one who can beat Nole -Fed.

noleisthebest wrote:I don't think Lydian left. Probably just resting. Things can get a bit repetitive when there's not much tennis goin' around

Even the rallies get repetitive nowadays!

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:I don't think Lydian left. Probably just resting. Things can get a bit repetitive when there's not much tennis goin' around

Even the rallies get repetitive nowadays!

There were plenty of unforced errors too to give points away.

stratocumulus wrote:
I still think that only one who can beat Nole -Fed.

Well both Murray and Nadal nearly beat him last week.
To be honest wow, I remember you said before the Nadal-Federer AO semi how Fed was 'going to hammer Nadal in straights' and how he was going to 'teach him a lesson.' I'm not sure you know what you're on about.

emancipator wrote:Great post TRuffin.

You're not TRuffin from bleacherreport are you btw?

no- if u ever read that guys stuff, you'd know he was a raving Nadal nut.. predicted 7 majors in a row, Federer out of top 10 by now.. reminds me of someone on here.

TRuffin wrote:

emancipator wrote:Great post TRuffin.

You're not TRuffin from bleacherreport are you btw?

no- if u ever read that guys stuff, you'd know he was a raving Nadal nut.. predicted 7 majors in a row, Federer out of top 10 by now.. reminds me of someone on here.

Haha yes, he was a complete Rafanatic

Nore Staat wrote:

socal1976 wrote:... 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 ...

That's how I am beginning to view matters. The thing is, it seems it is this "transitional era" in which the "best", in terms of variety, tennis is played. The other thing is that no-one, as far as I can tell, has been able to beat Federer at his "own game", that is it is a different style (and fitness) that is currently defeating him. However I may be doing Federer a disservice, it is difficult to determine how well he would have done if he had arrived at the same time as Pete Sampras / Andre Agassi during the period when S&V seem to dominate the grass / hard court games.

Nore Staat, good post. I disagree that the late 90s and early 2000s was the best in terms of variety. I found the players level of consistency and big serve tennis to be pretty dull. I would posit that the 80s and early 90s had the best talent both in terms of depth of great champions and in terms of variety. You had power baseliners like Lendl, flat ball strikers like Connors, S and V guys like Becker and Edberg, traditional grinders like Wilander.

Here is the thing though I don't want it to be just about Fed, to a certain extent I think Pete and Andre benefitted as much from the dissappearance of top quality championship rivals at the end of their career as Roger did at the beginning of their career. When Pete and Andre came up the depth at the top was great, but then the couriers, lendls, beckers, and edberg of the world dropped off the scene and were replaced by Hewitt, Roddick, Ferrero, Kuerten, Rafter, and Kafelnikov. Great players no doubt but not of the same caliber as the generation before them.

And again it isn't ever easy to dominate the ATP tour. And I don't really discount Roger's resume of 16 slams in anyway or Pete or Andre's who benefitted at the tail end of their career from a lessening of consistent top notch competition.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:We could say Djok is ruling the last 12 months because his rivals are worn out from years gone by.. we could also say Nadal was fortunate to have no top rival on clay after Coria and Kuerten disappeared... it's so easy to follow other's logic in their attacks on Fed!!!

Coria, please, Kuerten Ok the guy was a top notched clay courter. But Coria couldn't even beat Gaudio in a grandslam final. In the middle of his career he had trouble breaking triple digits on his serve.

socal1976 wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:We could say Djok is ruling the last 12 months because his rivals are worn out from years gone by.. we could also say Nadal was fortunate to have no top rival on clay after Coria and Kuerten disappeared... it's so easy to follow other's logic in their attacks on Fed!!!

Coria, please, Kuerten Ok the guy was a top notched clay courter. But Coria couldn't even beat Gaudio in a grandslam final. In the middle of his career he had trouble breaking triple digits on his serve.

Hmm Guillermo Coria - two slam semi appearances both on clay and outwith the red stuff his best slam performance was a couple of quarter-final performances in slams mixed with a number of First Round slam exits.

In fact in 2005 his French Open ended with defeat (in four sets) against Nikolay Davydenko - a clay courter who always came up short against Nadal.

Every single one of the all time greats, Laver, Sampras, Nadal, Djokoic, Borg, Agassi, MCenroe, Conners, Wilander. etc, and to name a few current players- Del Potro, Tsonga, Soderling, Ferrrer, Tomic all have either said Federer is the greatest player ever or the greatest talent ever. Ruffin

Djokovic actually called Nadal the greatest ever last year, and the year before he called fed the greatest ever. In subtle shift this year he doesn't bestow greatest ever on either of them. When talking about them he says they are two of the greatest or one of the greatest when talking about either man.


I found this subtle yet telling shift in Djokovic's compliments of Fed and Nadal interesting. Maybe he is subconsciously trying to leave himself room to jump into the conversation with them. Is it a reflection that he isn't as willing to defer to them anymore.

TRuffin wrote:

emancipator wrote:Great post TRuffin.

You're not TRuffin from bleacherreport are you btw?

no- if u ever read that guys stuff, you'd know he was a raving Nadal nut.. predicted 7 majors in a row, Federer out of top 10 by now.. reminds me of someone on here.

You forgot how Soldelring and Berdych would over take him in grand slams
A no 1 streak by Nadal never seen in the history of tennis before and how half of BR's posters would leave the forum when Nadal won the Rafa slam.Turned out the only person who left the forum was himself
At least he got the number right,might not have been 7 majors in a row,but nonetheless still 7 loses in a row
Wonder what usernme he is now commenting under..

socal1976 wrote:Every single one of the all time greats, Laver, Sampras, Nadal, Djokoic, Borg, Agassi, MCenroe, Conners, Wilander. etc, and to name a few current players- Del Potro, Tsonga, Soderling, Ferrrer, Tomic all have either said Federer is the greatest player ever or the greatest talent ever. Ruffin

Djokovic actually called Nadal the greatest ever last year, and the year before he called fed the greatest ever. In subtle shift this year he doesn't bestow greatest ever on either of them. When talking about them he says they are two of the greatest or one of the greatest when talking about either man.


I found this subtle yet telling shift in Djokovic's compliments of Fed and Nadal interesting. Maybe he is subconsciously trying to leave himself room to jump into the conversation with them. Is it a reflection that he isn't as willing to defer to them anymore.

Social: You've got the facts a little wrong. Djokovic actually called Federer the "greatest player in the history of our sport" then the next DAY called Nadal " the greatest ever'... but he later explained that..... This is how it went down. Djokovic beat Fed in the semis and in the oncourt after match interview said "Roger is the greatest player in the history of our sport", then he BEATs NADal in the finals and calls his "the greatest ever"... so obviously a contradiction that people laughed about. Nadal fans were going on and on about it on Bleacher about how Djokovic thinks Nadal is the best.. 1 day after calling Fed the greatest... so what was up? Well, Djokovic was asked and explained in several press conferences that he recognizes Federer as the greatest or best player in the history of tennis, but Rafa is his personal friend, same age, so to him--Rafa is the greatest- not greatest player ever, but jsut a compliment.. like saying to a friend "you're the best" .. Djokovic later at the US Open said many times Federer is the best player ever.. so it's clear how he feels.

At the same time, ur point is telling.. kind of funny Djokovic is calling Federer greatest player ever AFTER Djokovic beats him. In a way that lifts him up-- maybe conciously or subconcioulsy, similiar in the way Nadal lathers Federer up with praise even though he owns their head to head matchup. "I beat the best ever" is an ego boost for these guys.
This year- I'm not sure if Djokovic has really had the chance to talk about Federer and he usually doesn't say those type things about Nadal- except for that spur of the moment "greatest" comment that he later backtracked a little. So I'm not sure if he's feeling any differetn this year, but he does have an ego..and his camp certainly does.. No one can forget his mom saying "the King is dead" when he beat Federer at the Austrailan.. incredibly tacky.

"I remember where I was when Nadal's very best wasn't enough to finish off Djokovic".

Djokovic will always be a stain on Nadal's legacy, in fact if he beats Federer a few times this year convincingly, same COULD happen, but because Federer's in his twilight, no-one will use it against him like they can against Rafa.

Both Senor Nadal and Mr Djokovic, said that Federer and Laver were probably the greatest ever (since the beginning of time), at this years Australian Open.

But really who gives a fig? What is it that draws people to watch sport ... rather than say reading literature, going to the opera, engaging in politics, etc?

@ Ruffin
I think theres a clash of cultures,While I agree Djokvics family don't always handle themselves in a classy manner,and that comment Djokovic's mom made was tacky but if you look at how Djokovics camp celebrated his win over Nadal in Madrid its quite clear that its a cultural difference.Tennis is supposedly Serbias no1 sport and those tennis fans don't really act much different to football fans across Europe
In fact El Toro was seen humping a bus when Spain won the world cup in South Africa and he is really the last one to feel upset at how Djokovic celebrate his win over him in his home country when the Nadal camp act the way they do
Wasnt uncle Tony involved in some scandal during the last Fedal match? Something about him putting t-shirt on with a classless message?

Haven't read entire thread so forgive me if I repeat earlier posts. Of course, far too early to assess Djoko's place in the game but apart from the Tsonga final in 08 he has had to beat the best to get his slams and has now beaten his nearest rival seven times in a row.
With five slams - and let's face it, it's the GS that we have to judge when considering greatness- Djoko is on his way. A win at the French - if not this year then in the future - will also help as will a good spell at number one.
With big challenges coming in from the rest of the fab four, Nole has really had to earn his titles. It's not as if the others are getting injured or falling early in a freak result. Big question is - can Nole sustain form given that he's gonna have to take out the others in REALLY LONG matches?

I woudl like to see How Djoko handles the Raonic, Harrson and Tomic in a few months...aswell as Delpo.


To me what really lacks is teh fact he is still too close to Federer for being at his peak. Federer could have beaten him twice out of 3 times they played in slam last year. When great champions take off,they dn't look back. Djoko wins but not as easily as Borg,Lendl or Federer did in their prime.

That's is soft spot. Had he won Federer and the others like he did in last years' AO, then he would have make a great stride towards "GOATess" but I have not seen an amazing tennis that sets him apart from the rest...besides excellent returns and a flexible body. There is nothing clinincal about him.

If Djokovic wins the French Open this year, then it will be Djokovic, Laver and Budge who will be listed when discussing "Grand Slams" - holding all four titles at the same time, but everyone knows this.

Nore Staat wrote:If Djokovic wins the French Open this year, then it will be Djokovic, Laver and Budge who will be listed when discussing "Grand Slams" - holding all four titles at the same time, but everyone knows this.

Yes, but as you can win on the 4 surfaces playing the same tennis...it takes a lot away from the achievement.

Borg Lendl and Federer made their era look weak...McEnroe in 84 too. Besides AO11, Djoko hasn't had it easy.

Djoko wins but not as easily as Borg,Lendl or Federer did in their prime.

Tbh he did beat Murray easily last years final.

Djoko is playing good tennis at the moment. The reason he won the match against Nadal despite of being tired was that he kept on attacking even when he hardly had energy left. It took longer than usual because Nole was not very fresh or else the mauling would have been similar to the US open final.

Fed never looked like winning FO because of his bad match up to Nadal and inability to tackle moonballs on backhand corner. This is where the difference comes in the h2h of nadal- fed and nadal-djoko. If Andy gets his FH more stable then the result will be same like Nadal-djoko match up.
I think it's very much there anyway as Andy demolished in the last encounter they have had. I am sure if Andy plays Nadal again Andy will be winning it hands down.
Worrying time for Nadal and his fans.

stratocumulus wrote:
Worrying time for Nadal and his fans.

Yes I was also extremely worried when you predicted Fed will 'hammer Nadal in straights' and 'teach him a lesson' before the AO semi-final.

amritia3ee wrote:

stratocumulus wrote:
Worrying time for Nadal and his fans.

Yes I was also extremely worried when you predicted Fed will 'hammer Nadal in straights' and 'teach him a lesson' before the AO semi-final.

Change the record dude. You need to change the tune at times. Ofcourse I will say that I am a fedfan. Is it that hard for you to understand. I also said that Andy was going to win the slam. Andy nearly took djoko out which not a lot of people were expecting either.

stratocumulus wrote:
Ofcourse I will say that I am a fedfan. Is it that hard for you to understand.

Precisely. As a Fed fan who does not like Nadal of course you will say negative things about him.
Why should I be worried about that?

amritia3ee wrote:

stratocumulus wrote:
Ofcourse I will say that I am a fedfan. Is it that hard for you to understand.

Precisely. As a Fed fan who does not like Nadal of course you will say negative things about him.
Why should I be worried about that?

Exactly I told you before only that you should not be taking these debates seriously.

But I respect your opinion so much

amritia3ee wrote:But I respect your opinion so much

Do I care? I am not here to get respected. I come here to increase my understanding of the sport and interact with people who know about tennis. To put you into that bracket is slightly difficult. And you are not civil either. You confront too much. You can say whatever from the comfort of your computer desk but whatever you say reflects on the type of person you are.

Eman is not entirely wrong about Nadal's fan following, a lot of the fans are/were just because of his muscles. On this forum itself, there are only two nadal fans which explains it pretty much.

stratocumulus wrote: On this forum itself, there are only two nadal fans which explains it pretty much.

I would make a comment like 'learn to count mate ' but I won't.

Anyway we must remember there were many in July and then they all randomly evaporated. Just after some guy personally attacked them. What a big coincidence.

stratocumulus wrote:
Interact with people who know about tennis. To put you into that bracket is slightly difficult.

I've probably watched more tennis matches than you have.

Veejay wrote:@ Ruffin
I think theres a clash of cultures,While I agree Djokvics family don't always handle themselves in a classy manner,and that comment Djokovic's mom made was tacky but if you look at how Djokovics camp celebrated his win over Nadal in Madrid its quite clear that its a cultural difference.Tennis is supposedly Serbias no1 sport and those tennis fans don't really act much different to football fans across Europe
In fact El Toro was seen humping a bus when Spain won the world cup in South Africa and he is really the last one to feel upset at how Djokovic celebrate his win over him in his home country when the Nadal camp act the way they do
Wasnt uncle Tony involved in some scandal during the last Fedal match? Something about him putting t-shirt on with a classless message?

Yes I agree-much of it's cultural.. jsut as the Fed camp has the calm Swiss demeanor.
Yeah, Uncle Tony was his usual classless self-- well I will give him credit that he applauds the opponents good shots- but at the Fed/Nadal match as Nadal was serving for the match- Tony pulled off his jacket at that moment to reveal a tshirt that said- "You've been served"-- basically a celebration tshirt- it's so tacky- similiar to in the USA singing "hey,hey goodbye" to the loser............... The funny thing was when Fed started getting to break points- Tony covered the message with his jacket! lol..

Along with the even more blatant coaching at this years tournament- that camp has really started to lose credibility and class.

Uncle Toni is a legend and an institution! Nobody touch Uncle Toni!

noleisthebest wrote:Uncle Toni is a legend and an institution! Nobody touch Uncle Toni!

But uncle Toni has failed to solve the riddle of Nole! I will say Marian is an institution.

The only Nadal fan with any actual tennis knowledge round this place is hawkeye, maybe you amrit could spend more time talking about the game and less about "Nadal hatahs"?

Who are you to decide how much 'actual' tennis knowledge I have.
As far as you know I could have tennisTV and watch the tournaments (including 250s) all round the year. For example are you watching Montpellier this week. Do you actively follow smaller tournaments.

On MTL there was a tennis game a bit like the ATPworldtour game, except that it was played every week throughout the year (so smaller tournaments as well as bigger ones!), and you had to pick a player to win in each round. On average around 30 people played each week, each week you got ranking points depending how far you got in that specific tournament. Come back to me when you do some research and find out who was ranked number 1 for 2011 before making insulting and unfounded allegations.
http://www.mytennislounge.com/comments/index.php?shell=2252