Rank the 'Tier 2' Greats

Time for a subjective question!

Djokovic's eighth win yesterday moves him level with Connors, Lendl and Agassi on the Open Era slam wins league table.

How do rank this sub-group of 'greats'?

	Connors	Lendl	Agassi	Djokovic
Weeks at 1	268	270	101	132*
Tour final wins	1	5	1	4
Masters titles	17	22	17	20
Career slam	No	No	Yes	No

Lendl and Connors are tough to split. I'll give the nod to Jimmy for longevity and amassing his slam total despite hardly ever playing AO and missing RG for 5 of his peak years.

Then Agassi and Djokovic are tough to split.

Agassi has the career slam and won Wimbledon on fast, low bouncing grass in an era of huge servers.

Djokovic leads on weeks at 1, Masters and YEC and is, I would suggest, more dominant than Agassi was.

By a whisker, I'd say Andre.

So for me its:
1) Connors
2) Lendl
3) Agassi
4) Djokovic

How would you rank them?

Interesting, topic I was thinking the same thing. Of course it is a bit premature in that Novak isn't quite done yet, another slam or two and this becomes more tilted to Novak. For me to be honest it is very hard to discern because all of these guys have great resumes.

BUT AS THERE RESUMES STAND NOW WITH NO FUTURE CONSIDERATION:

1)Lendl
2. Connors
3. Djokovic
4. Agassi.

The reason being Agassi gets shorted a little bit is the up and downs he had in his career and because except for a very short period of time he was never unlike the other 3 best player in the world for an extended period of time. Yes he won on all the slams which is a bump up. But the consistent performance of all the other guys kind moves Andre to the back.

I think McEnroe should make this group despite have one less slam, in my mind what he did in the game exceeds what Becker, Wilander and Edberg did. His ridiculous amount of doubles titles as well make him such a complete player. Mac remember didn't play the Aussie nearly as much as Lendl and Agassi did.

In response to your question:

Lendl
Connors
Djokovic
Agassi

I think Agassi went walkabouts for periods and didn't have quite the consistency all year round in my opinion, but had an extremely complete game capable on all surfaces

1. Djokovic 
2. Connors
3. Lendl 
4. Agassi

Lendl was 8-19 in Major finals not even .500 success rate. 
Agassi was always a little overrated. Connors is more about longevity. Djokovic 8 Majors in an era when the two greatest players ever where around. Seals the deal.

For me its

Lendl
Agassi
Connors
Djokovic

For me winning the Career Slam on the 4 surfaces when they were their truest form speaks volumes. No one ever done that before or since before the homogenisation kicked in. I put such a premium on it.

In fairness though they are on par with each other. All have achievements that weigh it in their respective favour. To me winning the career slam in the era prior to 2002 was unthinkable. Many players have been number 1, but not achieved what Agassi did.

I would put Agassi some distance behind the others. His Oz Open titles tended to be against slightly weaker fields. His spells as the best in the world were relatively short and his two slam wins off hard were against weaker opposition than Novak's.

Hard to judge the other three. I would have Lendl narrowly above the other two, with Connors probably edging Novak.

Gerry SA wrote:1. Djokovic 
2. Connors
3. Lendl 
4. Agassi

Lendl was 8-19 in Major finals not even .500 success rate. 
Agassi was always a little overrated. Connors is more about longevity. Djokovic 8 Majors in an era when the two greatest players ever where around. Seals the deal.

I think when it is all said and done Djoko probably will top the list Gerry because I can't see him not adding to his list of slams, weeks at number one etc.

CAS wrote:I think McEnroe should make this group despite have one less slam, in my mind what he did in the game exceeds what Becker, Wilander and Edberg did. His ridiculous amount of doubles titles as well make him such a complete player. Mac remember didn't play the Aussie nearly as much as Lendl and Agassi did.

In response to your question:

Lendl
Connors
Djokovic
Agassi

I think Agassi went walkabouts for periods and didn't have quite the consistency all year round in my opinion, but had an extremely complete game capable on all surfaces

You can make a very good argument in my mind for putting Mac into the conversation and possibly above Agassi. Because again he was the best in the world for quite some time. And he never played the AO at all. Lendl, Agassi, and even connors did and won it. At the time of Mac the AO was really not at the same level as the other four slams. Although by the mid-80s it had really closed the gap. When you look at the year he had in 1984 or all the tournaments he won and his time at year end #1 he probably is very close if not above agassi.

John Mac had it tougher, when first he had Connors and Borg to deal with during his early career, then Lendl and Wilander during his mid career, and then Becker and Edberg during his late career and finally young Sampras and Agassi at the end of his career. When Novak came into his own in 2011, Fed was past his prime, or almost. It's only Rafa standing in his way, and then Murray briefly from USO2012 to Wimbledon 2013, during that period Rafa was absent. We shall see how things go from here, can Kei or Dimi the younger guys pose more problems for Novak in the future.

I would say Rafa wasn't absent during Wimbledon 2013 but was a non threat on grass.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:John Mac had it tougher, when first he had Connors and Borg to deal with during his early career, then Lendl and Wilander during his mid career, and then Becker and Edberg during his late career and finally young Sampras and Agassi at the end of his career.   When Novak came into his own in 2011, Fed was past his prime, or almost.  It's only Rafa standing in his way, and then Murray briefly from USO2012 to Wimbledon 2013, during that period Rafa was absent.  We shall see how things go from here, can Kei or Dimi the younger guys pose more problems for Novak in the future.  

Djokovic won his first slam 2008, He was on tour and suffered several big defeats to Roger in his prime. IE like the 2007 USO final which frankly he choked away from inexperience having set points in every set and pushing Roger the distance but losing it. Rafa was on his way out, you could have fooled me with the way he played in 2012 and 2010. Sampras and Agassi came around Mac was not even in contention for slams and hadn't been for years. So why are Sampras and Agassi relevant to analyzing Mac's competition? Mac never won a slam after 1984, so really he was hardly even a rival of Becker or Edbergs either. Mac's competition was Borg, Vilas, and Connors. He wasn't prevented from winning any slams by Sampras or Agassi and not by edberg, Wilander, or Becker either. Those guys came up and started winning after Mac was basically done.

Sampras and Agassi beat John Mac at the slam SF, not in R1! I did say end of John Mac's career, so please wait till its end of Novak's career then we compare them at end of their career.

I said Novak came into his own in 2011. He won his first slam in 2008, but thereafter, he only managed four SFs and one F at the slams in the next eleven slams he played in right up to USO2010. So, effectively, he was in slam winning mode only from 2011 onwards when he hit his peak. John Mac was already in a few slam finals and winning some during Borg/Connors time. Like I said, John Mac had to deal with many multiple slam winners and all time greats during his career, I mean, who had it tougher than him, when he had to deal with players of that caliber at different stages of his career.

Check, during 2007-2010, Novak played Fed five times at the slams, all on the HCs and he's 1-4. He played Rafa four times and he's 0-4, so he lost to seven others during that period, at the slams. From 2011-2014, he lost only twice to players outside of the big four. He's 4-2 vs Fed and 3-4 vs Rafa during this period at the slams, so there's no argument that Novak peak only after 2010.

Like I said, we have to see how Novak's career goes from here, whether any young players could beat him at the slams and are in the caliber of a multiple slam winner(s). He's just mid way through his career, who knows whether he's going to win some more slams or just stops at eight? Btw, somebody mentioned that Lendl is 8/19 in slam finals. Novak is now 8/15, and nobody knows how many more slam finals Novak is going to reach and how many he'll win or lose. So, let's wait and see...

I don't dispute your rankings of them here, Novak at no.3 is about right at the moment.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:Sampras and Agassi beat John Mac at the slam SF, not in R1!  I did say end of John Mac's career, so please wait till its end of Novak's career then we compare them at end of their career.

I said Novak came into his own in 2011.  He won his first slam in 2008, but thereafter, he only managed four SFs and one F at the slams in the next eleven slams he played in right up to USO2010.  So, effectively, he was in slam winning mode only from 2011 onwards when he hit his peak.  John Mac was already in a few slam finals and winning some during Borg/Connors time.   Like I said, John Mac had to deal with many multiple slam winners and all time greats during his career, I mean, who had it tougher than him, when he had to deal with players of that caliber at different stages of his career.

Check, during 2007-2010, Novak played Fed five times at the slams, all on the HCs and he's 1-4.  He played Rafa four times and he's 0-4, so he lost to seven others during that period, at the slams.  From 2011-2014, he lost only twice to players outside of the big four.  He's 4-2 vs Fed and 3-4 vs Rafa during this period at the slams, so there's no argument that Novak peak only after 2010.

Like I said, we have to see how Novak's career goes from here, whether any young players could beat him at the slams and are in the caliber of a multiple slam winner(s).   He's just mid way through his career, who knows whether he's going to win some more slams or just stops at eight?  Btw, somebody mentioned that Lendl is 8/19 in slam finals.  Novak is now 8/15, and nobody knows how many more slam finals Novak is going to reach and how many he'll win or lose.  So, let's wait and see...

I don't dispute your rankings of them here, Novak at no.3 is about right at the moment.

How many slam semis did mac lose to Sampras and Agassi, not nearly the number Djokovic lost to fed and Nadal. Fed and Nadal were Djokovic's competition for slams. Sampras and Agassi really weren't Mac's competition. By the time Samprass won his first slam Mac hadn't won a slam for like 6 years and Agassi I think was even after that. So your argument that Fed and Nadal were passed it therefore not really Novak's era and that Sampras and Agassi kept Mac from winning more slams is really specious. That is my point. By your own estimates he lost 8 times to Nadal and Fed at the later stages of slams from 2007-2011, yet they weren't really an impediment to Novak winning slams but Sampras and Agassi stopped Mac from winning more? The fact is Mac wouldn't have been winning slams if those guys weren't around he hadn't won for years before they came around. Again I don't dispute your ranking I just think it is completely wrong to say that Mac competed for slams with Sampras and Agassi and then simultaneously say that Djokovic came up after Federer was done and Rafa was on his way out. Mac hadn't won slams for ages before Agassi and Sampras won their first. Yet you claim that Mac had to compete against them, while you diminish Novak's competition with Fed and Nadal by claiming that Fed and Nadal were passed it by the time Novak came up. The year before Novak came up Nadal won absolutely everything and the year Novak won everything in 2011 Nadal played him in pretty much every final he won, so Nadal of 2011 and 2012 was not passed it.

You're comparing a Novak in his prime to a John Mac at the end of his career? As I said, wait till Novak is nearing the end of his career then we can compare about their competition at the end of their respective careers.

You keep mentioning about Fed and Rafa, do you think Fed is in his prime now, and how many more years Fed is going to be there at the slams? Who else now, other than Rafa who's about Novak's age, to stop Novak at the slams? Murray had shown some promises during 2012-2013, I'm not sure now after this AO, that Murray will be in the same calibre as Lendl who became a major obstacle to John Mac at the slams.

This 'Novak has the toughest competition in having to beat Fedal the two all time greats' talk is overblown IMO. When Novak peak from 2011 onwards, Fed was past his prime. If you ask me, I'll say that Rafa had/has it tougher, in that he peaked earlier than Novak and had to deal with a Fed still in his peak or nearing his peak, and then had/has to deal with a peak Novak now. Fed had won most of his slams before Rafa and then Novak reached their respective peak. Murray too has it tough, as he's now dealing with both Novak and Rafa in their peak or near their peak.

There is some extreme irony in Socal having to defend Novak in a kind of weak era debate.

There is some truth that Novak will win many more slams because Federer is well into his 30s, Nadal there is a question mark over and Murray his only seemingly competent rival all year round?

I like Kei and Dimi but Novak will have it easier than Federer did with dealing with a new generation younger than him, so if Federer had an 'easy' start but an extremely tough end in his late 20s and early 30s but managed to squeak in a few extra slams, then Novak had an extremely tough stuff but might get the chance to make up for it in his late 20s with perhaps lesser competition than Federer faced at this stage in his career? Kind have gone full circle and evened out over the course of a career, but gone a bit off topic, apologies.

Djokovic IMO will finish on 11/12 slams and will be in the 'tier 1' section by the end of his career

If you believe in weak era theory we're well into one now. Unless you think Federer looks like he did in 2007 and Nadal like he did in 2008.

Bogbrush, this isn't a binary discussion, things aren't black and white.
As Emancipator said, the competition and difficulty of winning Slams at the top is always fluctuating. Things aren't either 'weak era' or 'golden era'. Infact I remember you talking about a few weeks ago about how competition can mean that it is easier sometimes to get to world number 1, if you I want I can bring out the quote.

As for the level of competition in the future... we'll have to wait and see. It could be the young guns do fire and rise, and Djokovic, Murray, Nadal all manage to stay at their peak form with Federer playing well too; on the other hand the young guns could continue to play badly, Fedal could decline totally, and Murray could go back to his 2014 level- this would make it much easier for Djokovic. I did a list of players he had to beat to win Grand Slams so far in another thread on here.

From the other thread:

In order from 1st Slam he won:

1st- Federer
2nd- Federer & Murray
3rd- Nadal
4th- Federer & Nadal
5th- Murray & Nadal
6th- Murray
7th- Federer
8th- Murray

What a player Djokovic is, wow.

Should Murray be on that list? It's like saying, wow Federer beat Roddick/Hewitt - and we know what happens if anyone tries to do that.

IMBL, I can also list out Rafa's. Do you know that with the exceptions of FO and Wimbledon 2010, Rafa has to beat either Novak or Fed, or both to win his slams, ie 12 of them? His first at the FO2005, he had to beat Fed in the SF.

1st (FO2005) Federer in SF
2nd (FO2006)Federer
3rd (FO2007) Novak & Federer
4th (FO2008) Novak & Federer
5th (Wim 2008) Federer
6th (AO2009) Federer
9th (USO2010) Novak
10th (FO2011) Murray & Federer
11th (FO2012) Novak
12th (FO2013) Novak
13th ((USO2013) Novak
14th (FO2014) Novak


So you see, it's not only Novak who doesn't have it easy, Rafa too! In an era where we have three all time greats, it's hard to win slam(s) when almost always you have to run into at least one of them.

It Must Be Love wrote:Bogbrush, this isn't a binary discussion, things aren't black and white.
As Emancipator said, the competition and difficulty of winning Slams at the top is always fluctuating. Things aren't either 'weak era' or 'golden era'. Infact I remember you talking about a few weeks ago about how competition can mean that it is easier sometimes to get to world number 1, if you I want I can bring out the quote.

As for the level of competition in the future... we'll have to wait and see. It could be the young guns do fire and rise, and Djokovic, Murray, Nadal all manage to stay at their peak form with Federer playing well too; on the other hand the young guns could continue to play badly, Fedal could decline totally, and Murray could go back to his 2014 level- this would make it much easier for Djokovic. I did a list of players he had to beat to win Grand Slams so far in another thread on here.

Note the "if you believe in....." lead-in.

I don't, I think it's all pointless nonsense designed to make people happy by association.

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Bogbrush, this isn't a binary discussion, things aren't black and white.
As Emancipator said, the competition and difficulty of winning Slams at the top is always fluctuating. Things aren't either 'weak era' or 'golden era'. Infact I remember you talking about a few weeks ago about how competition can mean that it is easier sometimes to get to world number 1, if you I want I can bring out the quote.

As for the level of competition in the future... we'll have to wait and see. It could be the young guns do fire and rise, and Djokovic, Murray, Nadal all manage to stay at their peak form with Federer playing well too; on the other hand the young guns could continue to play badly, Fedal could decline totally, and Murray could go back to his 2014 level- this would make it much easier for Djokovic. I did a list of players he had to beat to win Grand Slams so far in another thread on here.

Note the "if you believe in....." lead-in.

I don't, I think it's all pointless nonsense designed to make people happy by association.

So who is it you think believes something contradictory to what I said ? On this one I can speak for both myself and Socal atleast saying we agree that the difficulty of play always fluctuates, and can be harder for certain years, and not for certain years.
And clearly you agree, given what you said about how it being easier to get to world number 1 in certain years because of easier competition...

Belovedluckyboy wrote:IMBL, I can also list out Rafa's.  Do you know that with the exceptions of FO and Wimbledon 2010, Rafa has to beat either Novak or Fed, or both to win his slams, ie 12 of them?  His first at the FO2005, he had to beat Fed in the SF.

1st (FO2005) Federer in SF
2nd (FO2006)Federer
3rd (FO2007) Novak & Federer
4th (FO2008) Novak & Federer
5th (Wim 2008) Federer
6th (AO2009) Federer
9th (USO2010) Novak
10th (FO2011) Murray & Federer
11th (FO2012) Novak
12th (FO2013) Novak
13th ((USO2013) Novak
14th (FO2014) Novak


So you see, it's not only Novak who doesn't have it easy, Rafa too!  In an era where we have three all time greats, it's hard to win slam(s) when almost always you have to run into at least one of them.

Considering adding you to my Christmas card list.

CAS wrote:There is some extreme irony in Socal having to defend Novak in a kind of weak era debate.

There is some truth that Novak will win many more slams because Federer is well into his 30s, Nadal there is a question mark over and Murray his only seemingly competent rival all year round?

I like Kei and Dimi but Novak will have it easier than Federer did with dealing with a new generation younger than him, so if Federer had an 'easy' start but an extremely tough end in his late 20s and early 30s but managed to squeak in a few extra slams, then Novak had an extremely tough stuff but might get the chance to make up for it in his late 20s with perhaps lesser competition than Federer faced at this stage in his career? Kind have gone full circle and evened out over the course of a career, but gone a bit off topic, apologies.

Djokovic IMO will finish on 11/12 slams and will be in the 'tier 1' section by the end of his career

I am doing no such thing. My point is very specific and has nothing to do with weak era. Belovedlucky, is big upping Mac by saying he had to compete against Sampras and Agassi for slams. Sampras won his first slam 6 years after Mac won his last. At the same time he is claiming that Nadal was passed when Djokovic hit his peak and that Djokovic came up after Federer. How can you simultaneously give Mcenroe credit for competing against Sampras and Agassi while dismissing the notion that Djokovic deserves credit for competing against Federer and Nadal? Djokovic lost 8 times at the semi stages or later than in 2007-2011 to Nadal and Fed, I think if they weren't around he maybe would have won a couple of those. Federer and Nadal are much more Djokovic's contemporaries than Sampras and Agassi are Mcenroe's. That is my specific point and it has nothing to do with weak era.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:You're comparing a Novak in his prime to a John Mac at the end of his career?  As I said, wait till Novak is nearing the end of his career then we can compare about their competition at the end of their respective careers.  

You keep mentioning about Fed and Rafa, do you think Fed is in his prime now, and how many more years Fed is going to be there at the slams?  Who else now, other than Rafa who's about Novak's age, to stop Novak at the slams?  Murray had shown some promises during 2012-2013, I'm not sure now after this AO, that Murray will be in the same calibre as Lendl who became a major obstacle to John Mac at the slams.  

This 'Novak has the toughest competition in having to beat Fedal the two all time greats' talk is overblown IMO.  When Novak peak from 2011 onwards, Fed was past his prime.  If you ask me, I'll say that Rafa had/has it tougher, in that he peaked  earlier than Novak and had to deal with a Fed still in his peak or nearing his peak, and then had/has to deal with a peak Novak now.  Fed had won most of his slams before Rafa and then Novak reached their respective peak.   Murray too has it tough, as he's now dealing with both Novak and Rafa in their peak or near their peak.  

How can Rafa have it tougher than Djokovic and Murray have it tougher when the three of them came up at the same time and are all born roughly within a year of each other. So Rafa has it tough competing against Novak and Novak doesn't have it tough for competing against Nadal? Sorry, you give credit to Mac for competing against Sampras and Agassi but deny Novak credit for competing against Rafa and Federer. Hypocrisy if you ask me.

If anything comparing Djokovic now to Mac is a favorable look at Mcenroe. According to you Djokovic is in his prime so he will add slams and weeks at number 1 and Mac won't. So comparing a Mac who is 100 percent done with his career with the accomplishments of a Djokovic who is 65 percent done with his if anything is favorable analysis to Mac and not the other way around.

SoCal,

1) I said, it's only Rafa now who's standing in Novak's way, when Fed has already passed his prime! I didn't say that Rafa was already passed it!
2) Sampras and Agassi appeared at the end of John Mac's career, and he only played them once each. He played Sampras at USO 1990 in the SF and Sampras won the USO title that year. He played Agassi at Wimbledon 1992 in the SF and Agassi went on to win the title that year. Like I said, until Novak is at the end of his career, and is facing some potential multi slam winners the likes of Sampras and Agassi, then we can compare Novak to John Mac at end of their respective career.
3) We are talking about who faces/faced tougher competition during their careers, not comparing achievements. You can't deny that John Mac had to deal with many multi slam winners during his career. For Novak, we have to wait and see, when Fed is done, and Rafa may not outlast Novak, so who else to stop Novak. Is Murray in the same league as Lendl ? Are Delpo, Cilic, Kei and Dimi the likes of Wilander, Becker or Edberg?
4) Rafa started at the slams in 2003, Novak in 2005, so they don't start at the same time. Rafa peaked earlier than Novak, during 2008 and he was already making slam final in 2005 and had to deal with Fed since. By 2007, Fedal had met five times in slam finals, Novak/Fed once at USO that year. It's obvious that Novak peaked later than Rafa, unless you wish to think that Novak also peaked in 2008. And what hypocrisy are you talking about, when I've already mentioned that Novak had met Rafa 4 times during 2007-2010 and lost all four times? However, just compare Novak's 2007-2010 and his 2011-2014 and you would see the difference. He lost to seven other players at various stages of the slams from 2007-2010; vs losing only twice to others and twice to Murray, other than to Fedal during 2011-2014.and had not lost before the QF.
5) Fed is always a tough opponent to anyone, even Rafa, however to think that he's still the same Fed of the past is being unrealistic. Ther's no dispute thst Novak is at a different level now than prior to 2011, just check his records vs all players and we would know, We're now discussing or arguing about how tough his competition is compared to John Mac. Like you or I said, Novak is now at mid career, and at this point Novak has Fedal. John Mac had Borg, Connors and then Lendl and Wilander, so I said John Mac had it tougher. We'll see during Novak's late career whether he has to deal with any multiple slam winners.

Fair enough Beloved, I still don't see how you say Rafa had it tougher than Djokovic. Rafa's one rival was a guy who he matched up perfectly with Federer. Federer never presented much of a challenge to Nadal as Nadal had the beating of him since he was teenager. And Djokovic played the same Federer in his peak numerous times in slams. They are separated by one year and therefore I can't see how Nadal peaking earlier makes it tougher for him. Djokovic was around and was the third wheel for quite some time prior to his bursting to dominance in 2011.

As to the Mac debate, Mac hardly ever played Sampras and Agassi as you note. They weren't really his rivals. It is unlikely that even if Mac gets passed those guys that he would go into the final as the favorite.

As for Federer I never claimed federer was at his peak post 2011. But he is still the most accomplished player the game has seen and he has been good enough to win a slam in this period of Novak's dominance and to win other big titles and reach slam finals. I never argued he was peak federer but Novak played peak federer and was knocked out of a few slams at the tail end. So how you say Novak competing against Fedal is overblown is beyond me. While simultaneously giving Mac credit for competing against Sampras and Mac who he played like once each.

You're disputimg the point where I said Rafa had it tougher than Novak?

Well, Rafa had to deal with a Fed at his peak during 2005,2006 and 2007. Novak only started facing Fed from 2007 onwards. Rafa had faced Fed on grass when Fed was at his peak. Was Novak a serious slam contender during 2007-2010? I would say only at the USOs and at AO2008. It's only from 2011 onwards that he's a true slam contender at all the slams. So, while he was stopped by Fed at the USOs three out of four times they met from 2007-2010, he was stopped by others at the other slams. From 2011 onwards, it's basically Rafa vs Novak at the slams, as both Novak and Rafa are having positive H2H va Fed at the slams, 4-2 and 3-0 respectively. Of course there's Murray too, who's 2-4 vs Novak.

I disagree about Fed not presenting much of a challenge to Rafa! Do you know how often Rafa had to go the distance to beat Fed? At the FO, only one final (2008) was a straight set affair; at Wimbledon 2008 it went the distance, likewise for AO2009. Their matches at Wimbledon were never straight sets affairs, and at the AO, it's only the one match in 2014 that was in straight sets.

On the HCs, other than their first ever match in 2004, Rafa had to go the distance to beat Fed and he lost tto Fed each time they played indoors. It was from 2011 onwards that Rafa began to have the upper hand on the HCs.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:You're disputimg the point where I said Rafa had it tougher than Novak?  

Well, Rafa had to deal with a Fed at his peak during 2005,2006 and 2007.  Novak only started facing Fed from 2007 onwards. Rafa had faced Fed on grass when Fed was at his peak. Was Novak a serious slam contender during 2007-2010? I would say only at the USOs and at AO2008.  It's only from 2011 onwards that he's a true slam contender at all the slams.  So, while he was stopped by Fed at the USOs three out of four times they met from 2007-2010, he was stopped by others at the other slams.  From 2011 onwards, it's basically Rafa vs Novak at the slams, as both Novak and Rafa are having positive H2H va Fed at the slams, 4-2 and 3-0 respectively.  Of course there's Murray too, who's 2-4 vs Novak.

Yes he was a serious contender. I mean Federer was a tough matchup for Nadal in that for Nadal its a little bit harder to beat Federer than lets say Tomas Berdych but really Nadal had the beating of him from day 1. And credit to him. I actually, don't think other than injuries Nadal had a serious nemesis that could challenge until the rise of Djokovic in 2011.

Other than indoors Fed is a piece of cake for Nadal and has been from the beginning and is especially easy for him now that Fed is passed his prime. He is just a really bad matchup for Federer.

Well, if you think Fed is a piece of cake for Nadal, then sorry we have to agree to disagree.

By mid April Novak is almost certain to pass Nadal in total weeks at #1. He is currently 7th on the list and Mac at 170 weeks at 5th place is also very doable. After that its Connors and that is pretty unlikely as he would have to be #1 for 2 and half years straight from here on out to reach #4 in total weeks at #1. An interesting aside.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:Well, if you think Fed is a piece of cake for Nadal, then sorry we have to agree to disagree.

No problem but in the last 19 matches since the start of 2008 Nadal is 15-4. And six sets that finish 6-1 or 6-0. Fed is his gooey cupcake especially at this age.

Hmm... But prior to 2008, it's 8-6. From 2008-2010, it's 6-2. It's only from 2011 onwards that it's way too lopsided, ie 9-2.

Prior to 2008, Rafa was 2-5 vs Fed on non clay surfaces; from 2008-2010 it's 2-1 on non clay surfaces. From 2011 onwards it's 6-2 on non clay surfaces, so it's obvious Fed is no longer in his prime after 2011. Interesting to note also that Novak is 11-6 vs Fed from 2011 onwards.

All these comparisons of who faced who and when, while interesting, don't really tell us an awful lot because Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have had such different career arcs:

Federer - A period of crazy dominance (some of which Nadal and Djokovic weren't around for) followed by a very gradual decline.

Nadal - arrives as a fully formed champion on clay but his threat at HC slams takes a few years to develop. Reaches 5 Wimbledon finals in a row (when he enters) but then falls away sharply at this event post 2011.

Djokovic - wins a HC slam in 08 but then treads water for a couple of years, tinkering with his serve and coaching team and suffering allergy problems. When everything finally comes together, he's a threat across all events and all surfaces.

So the Nadal that Federer was facing in his prime is not the Nadal that Djokovic is facing in his prime. These are not fixed points.

And that's before we even get to rock-paper-scissors dynamics of the match ups!

socal1976 wrote:

Belovedluckyboy wrote:Well, if you think Fed is a piece of cake for Nadal, then sorry we have to agree to disagree.

No problem but in the last 19 matches since the start of 2008 Nadal is 15-4. And six sets that finish 6-1 or 6-0. Fed is his gooey cupcake especially at this age.

The last 16 (completed) Djoko -Murray matches are 12-4 to Djoko, with four 6-1 or 6-0 sets. Murray looks quite gooey for Djoko.

I think both Nadal and Djokovic have had to deal with each other a lot to win their Grand Slams, especially for the last few years, and this itself means both have had very difficult competition. Both are all time greats; and given they are of a similar age it is not surprising that they have challenged each other at a very high level for a number of years.

HM's post on the career paths of Nadal and Djokovic were very accurate too I thought. Let's not even talk about Federer's competition...

In terms of the argument between Socal and BLB about who had harder competition out of Novak and Rafa; as I said it's very close- but I feel Djokovic's competition on average has probably been marginally harder.

Why Novak's competition is harder? Because Fed being a tougher match up for him? Or Rafa being a tough competitor for him? if that's the case, then maybe Rafa is simply better than both Fed and Novak, hence you find Rafa's competition not as tough as Novak's? If we include Murray in the conversation, Rafa is 15-5 vs Murray, ie 75% wins. Novak is 16-8 vs Murray, ie 67%, so again Rafa comes out on top. Rafa also has the best W/L % among current players.

BLB, there is really not much in it- as I said the fact that they are both ATGs who are same age in itself means they've had to face each other many times at a very high level.

Nadal had to beat either Federer or Djokovic or both: 12/14 times (including both twice)
Djokovic had to beat either Federer or Nadal or both: 6/8 times (including both once)

I'm not sure you can bring things like W/L ratio into this, we're meant to be measuring competition independent of the player who is facing the competition (as would only be logical). I'd give Djokovic the edge in terms of competition in Slams won on average so far by a whisker- by the time he matured Nadal was playing at a pretty high level and Federer's very gradual decline meant so was the Swiss.
However given the competition has been so similar, and Nadal has won 14 Slams to Djokovic's 8; I don't think anyone can argue Nadal's slam count is considerably more impressive. SoCal I'm sure agrees with me. But that's if we assume both retire tomorrow, they can both add to their Slam count.

you could argue this all day, who has Rafa had to beat to win the French? Just Federer for about 5 years, which is his worst surface, now he basically just has Novak so Rafa hasn't had the competition on clay.

Its hardly a Vilas, Lendl, Borg, Wilander kind of competition on the surface.

you can dissect it all night but I would say players always have other players in the way, you can say Federer had easy competition but you could also say how unlucky he is not to have about 5 FO titles having Nadal around.

I think Federer put an end to the weak era myth when he won Wimbledon 2012, winning it at 31 beating the 25 year old World Number 1 and 25 year old number 4 to become world number 1 himself.

we can add ifs and buts, Novak has his place in history like he fully deserved.

Nadal has beaten either Djokovic or Federer or both for 8/9 of his French Open titles.
Also I avoided talking about Federer's competition; the discussion was between who had harder competition between Djokovic and Rafa which I feel is very close.

HM Murdoch wrote:All these comparisons of who faced who and when, while interesting, don't really tell us an awful lot because Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have had such different career arcs:

And that's before we even get to rock-paper-scissors dynamics of the match ups!

Yup, I agree. It also doesn't take into account how their career developments may have affected each other over the years.

It's impossible to say definitively, but I honestly believe that all three would be extremely close in the slam count if they were the same age and peaked in roughly the same time period. Partly due to the match-ups, but also because there really isn't much between any of them. Is it inconceivable that they all would've ended up in the 10-14 region? I don't think so.

Good post HMM, and I agree with your list and reasoning.

IMBL, since you mentioned about they (Rafa and Novak) having to face the same competition, so the W/L % came into the picture. Also, if their competition is about the same, then how's Novak marginally tougher than Rafa's, unless you think Rafa is a tougher opponent to Novak than Novak is to Rafa (H2H 23-19?).

I would say they, ie Rafa and Novak, peak at different times, the advantage and disadvantage of which cancel each other out, but Rafa having started earlier, have to deal with Fed's peers at their prime or nearing their peak. Unless Novak retires much later than Rafa, they're now facing the same level of competition from the rest of the field, barring each other.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

Belovedluckyboy wrote:Well, if you think Fed is a piece of cake for Nadal, then sorry we have to agree to disagree.

No problem but in the last 19 matches since the start of 2008 Nadal is 15-4. And six sets that finish 6-1 or 6-0. Fed is his gooey cupcake especially at this age.

The last 16 (completed) Djoko -Murray matches are 12-4 to Djoko, with four 6-1 or 6-0 sets. Murray looks quite gooey for Djoko.

Murray is 2-3 at slams, if he won on Sunday he would have had a winning record against Novak at slams and this rivalry would have a totally different complexion. At least Murray gives Djokovic a fight at the slams that really count. Federer+Nadal+grandslam final=crying Swiss. This is an irrefutable equation I have worked as famous as any of the works of Newton or Einstein.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:IMBL, since you mentioned about they (Rafa and Novak) having to face the same competition, so the W/L % came into the picture. Also, if their competition is about the same, then how's Novak marginally tougher than Rafa's, unless you think Rafa is a tougher opponent to Novak than Novak is to Rafa (H2H 23-19?).

I would say they, ie Rafa and Novak,  peak at different times, the advantage and disadvantage of which cancel each other out, but Rafa having started earlier, have to deal with Fed's peers at their prime or nearing their peak. Unless Novak retires much later than Rafa, they're now facing the same level of competition from the rest of the field, barring each other.

Oh no he had to face fat Dave Nalbandian in his prime and One Shot Andy Roddick. Did Fat Dave even have a prime oh yeah two indoor tournaments in 2007 so his prime lasted like 3 weeks? There isn't much quality in the pre-2007 or pre-2008 period in terms of quality other than Federer and Nadal.

Come on SoCal, don't be so dismissive about Fed's peers! After all, they did beat Rafa at the slams pre 2008, oh and beat Novak too during 2007-2009 (Roddick, Safin?) .Gonzo and Ferrer beat Rafa at the HC slams during 2007, and there're Hewitt, Blake and Youzhny too. Oh, Novak was also beaten by Haas, Melzer when they were or weren't in their prime, so a further proof that Novak hadnt peak yet during 2007-2010.

From 2008 onwards, Rafa lost on the HC slams to his peers, the likes of Tsonga, Delpo, Murray, Novak and Stan, barring that one time where he pulled his thigh muscle and so lost to Ferrer in straight sets at the AO. Novak OTOH has won 5 out of 9 HC slams played from 2011 onwards!

Belovedluckyboy wrote:Come on SoCal, don't be so dismissive about Fed's peers!  After all, they did beat Rafa at the slams pre 2008, oh and beat Novak too during 2007-2009 (Roddick, Safin?) .Gonzo and Ferrer beat Rafa at the HC slams during 2007, and there're Hewitt, Blake and Youzhny too.  Oh, Novak was also beaten by Haas, Melzer when they were or weren't in their prime, so a further proof that Novak hadnt peak yet during 2007-2010.

From 2008 onwards, Rafa lost on the HC slams to his peers, the likes of Tsonga, Delpo, Murray, Novak and Stan, barring that one time where he pulled his thigh muscle and so lost to Ferrer in straight sets at the AO.  Novak OTOH has won 5 out of 9 HC slams played from 2011 onwards!

Blake and Youzhny? cmon how are those guys anything but good decent pros. They aren't great players by any measure and aren't serious competition for either Nadal or Federer. Yes they had their wins here and there against Nadal on HC early on against Djokovic when he was having his disastrous serve experiment of 09-2010 but if you want to argue with me that competition from 2000-07 was strong we will be at it all day. And I don't want to reignite weak era discussions because some of the older posters on this site have fought those battles over and over again. The fact is Fed had no real competition till the rise of Nadal and Nadal didn't have a guy who could really compete with him till the rise of Novak.

socal1976 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

Belovedluckyboy wrote:Well, if you think Fed is a piece of cake for Nadal, then sorry we have to agree to disagree.

No problem but in the last 19 matches since the start of 2008 Nadal is 15-4. And six sets that finish 6-1 or 6-0. Fed is his gooey cupcake especially at this age.

The last 16 (completed) Djoko -Murray matches are 12-4 to Djoko, with four 6-1 or 6-0 sets. Murray looks quite gooey for Djoko.

Murray is 2-3 at slams, if he won on Sunday he would have had a winning record against Novak at slams and this rivalry would have a totally different complexion. At least Murray gives Djokovic a fight at the slams that really count. Federer+Nadal+grandslam final=crying Swiss. This is an irrefutable equation I have worked as famous as any of the works of Newton or Einstein.

If Murray had won all five he'd be 5-0 at slams. It's irrefutable.