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.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:maybe you amrit could spend time talking about the game

If you want, and there is demand for it I was thinking of doing a:
'Federer vs Sampras The Final Verdict' thread.

1/ Basically I would pose the question to the v2ers asking who would win if Fed and Sampras played a match on a grass court, but with one side being 2006 grass (medium pace) and one side of the court being 1999 grass (quick pace).
2/ Then I would then provide research and do some in depth analysis on the strengths and weaknesses of each player. eg Fed forehand, Sampras S+V
3/ After that I would compare the conditions they were playing in- perhaps some youtube clips to show the difference in pace.
4/ Fourthly I could compare the titles they have won and the players that have beaten.
5/ Lastly I would make my verdict, which at the top of my head would probably be Roger Federer in 4 sets, but I will still keep my research as unbiased as possible, to not skew the facts, so posters can come to a fair conclusion.
Does that sound good to you?

So you would spend all your time talking about Federer when you don't like Federer fans mentioning Nadal.

That is what you do already though...

Well I would do a Nadal thread, but I'm a Nadal fan, so I would be biased.
To create topic and discussion I don't want to be biased but still have a thread that is creates debate.
I think a in-depth of Sampras vs Federer would be perfect for that. As I said, my verdict will probably be Federer to win in 4 sets, but I will try not to be biased.

And btw I do not mind if Federer fans talk about Nadal its just the arrogant attitude of 'Only Fed fans are true tennis fans' that I don't like.

Sampras couldn't beat that many people in these slower conditions...of course if Sampras was in today's game he'd be ranked 7th or 8th maximum. Still if Nadal or Federer played in the early to late 90's they would be struggling to get into the top 5.

Simple obviously for a wise man that you are!

That's why I'm saying, have half the court 1999 conditions and half the court in the 2006 conditions. The dividing line (between the different surfaces) would be the net.

Who would win in that case Josiah?
I remember Nadal-Federer playing in a half clay/grass court- Nadal won but they weren't playing seriously.

Edit: Do you think it's a good idea for a thread.

I think Sampras was unbeatable on grass in his prime, so yea i'd pick him. Not for hardcourts though.

Yes but half the court would be a bit slower 2006 grass. Fed would kill him on some of his returns.
Edit: When he is returning on the 2006 side.

OK I'll probably set up the thread tomorrow.

I think we've yet to see where Djokovic ranks in the all-time greats. You have to consider that he's only going to get better and has another 10 years to prove it. I wonder where his favorite tennis surfaces are.

tammywilson52 wrote:I think we've yet to see where Djokovic ranks in the all-time greats. You have to consider that he's only going to get better and has another 10 years to prove it. I wonder where his favorite tennis surfaces are.

"another ten years...." Really ?? Gosh you ARE optmistic, and you've got me wondering just how long you might have been following the sport.....

Djokovic undoubtedly has a lot of fine tennis left in him for some time to come. But .... he will turn 25 in a matter of weeks and I'd say he has - at best - five 'prime' years after that, not ten ! Certainly not in terms of major titles.

Going way back to 1985, a total of 109 Slams have been played and just FIVE of these have been won by players aged beyond thirty. Age catches up with everyone - even for players as talented as Djoker. And you have to go back even further - to 1970 in fact - to find a Slam winner aged 35. I think most folk would agree the game was significantly less physically demanding back then.