Would you consider Djokovic to be a greater player than Federer if...

[Moxie]

But it was close, 2012. I'm responding to Carol, and you, who are parsing out "dominant." And 2014 wasn't hugely impressive for Djokovic, just better than everyone else. You're a results man. Carol is weighing it more in her hands. I think you see the distinctions. There were years when Novak was clearly dominant, and others when he won the numbers game, but it wasn't as impressive. Or "dominant," that word that some of you guys love so much.

 

[Obsi]

Well, let me put it this way... IF Djokovic gets to 16, maybe even 15, 14... he will probably get lauded as the greatest of all time by many experts or fans AT the time, because we live in a kind of "What did you do for me today/yesterday" kind of world... but later down the track when he's gone through his decline and lost to lesser players... his stock will subconsciously drop, and Federer's 17 would again be seen as the benchmark.

Wrong. See the link I posted in my second message and you'll see that panel of more than 40 experts has ranked McEnroe higher than Connors even though Jimmy won 8 and John 7 slams.

 

[Federberg]

^I'm not sure why we should take their opinions as definitive @Obsi, we are after all talking about opinions

 

[britbox]

Wrong. See the link I posted in my second message and you'll see that panel of more than 40 experts has ranked McEnroe higher than Connors even though Jimmy won 8 and John 7 slams.

If Djokovic doesn't win anything again... then I'm guessing that same panel would probably put Nadal above him again in 18 months. I've also seen expert panels rank Connors above McEnroe, so I'm guessing it depends who you ask and more importantly when you ask them.

 

[Obsi]

^I'm not sure why we should take their opinions as definitive @Obsi, we are after all talking about opinions

That panel is a strong indication of what kind of consensus exists among experts.

If Djokovic doesn't win anything again... then I'm guessing that same panel would probably put Nadal above him again in 18 months.

But that same panel hasn't put Connors above McEnroe even though Jimmy and John retired a long time ago.

I've also seen expert panels rank Connors above McEnroe, so I'm guessing it depends who you ask and more importantly when you ask them.

The biggest expert panels in the last few years that I know of are the one I already mentioned and this one https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Greatest_of_All_Time. Both put McEnroe above Connors. Which comparably large expert panel in the last few years ranked otherwise?

 

[britbox]

In 2005, Tennis Magazine did a panel ranking of the Top 40 ever... and Connors came in 7, McEnroe 11.

Pete Sampras
Martina Navratilova ()
Steffi Graf
Chris Evert (Lloyd)
Björn Borg
Margaret Smith (Court)
Jimmy Connors
Rod Laver
Billie Jean King
Ivan Lendl ()
John McEnroe
Andre Agassi
Monica Seles ()
Stefan Edberg
Mats Wilander
John Newcombe
Serena Williams
Boris Becker
Roger Federer
Ken Rosewall
Roy Emerson
Martina Hingis
Evonne Goolagong (Cawley)
Guillermo Vilas
Venus Williams
Jim Courier
Arantxa Sánchez Vicario
Ilie Nastase
Lindsay Davenport
Arthur Ashe
Justine Henin (Hardenne)
Tracy Austin
Hana Mandlikova ()
Lleyton Hewitt
Stan Smith
Jennifer Capriati
Gustavo Kuerten
Virginia Wade
Patrick Rafter
Gabriela Sabatini

http://www.amiannoying.com/(S(ut3f3vxt5x1x1pkhr2egqr5w))/collection.aspx?collection=6276

 

[Mary]

In 2005, Tennis Magazine did a panel ranking of the Top 40 ever... and Connors came in 7, McEnroe 11.

Pete Sampras
Martina Navratilova ()
Steffi Gray
Chris Evert (Lloyd)
Björn Borg
Margaret Smith (Court)
Jimmy Connors
Rod Laver
Billie Jean King
Ivan Lendl ()
John McEnroe
Andre Agassi
Monica Seles ()
Stefan Edberg
Mats Wilander
John Newcombe
Serena Williams
Boris Becker
Roger Federer
Ken Rosewall
Roy Emerson
Martina Hingis
Evonne Goolagong (Cawley)
Guillermo Vilas
Venus Williams
Jim Courier
Arantxa Sánchez Vicario
Ilie Nastase
Lindsay Davenport
Arthur Ashe
Justine Henin (Hardenne)
Tracy Austin
Hana Mandlikova ()
Lleyton Hewitt
Stan Smith
Jennifer Capriati
Gustavo Kuerten
Virginia Wade
Patrick Rafter
Gabriela Sabatini

http://www.amiannoying.com/(S(ut3f3vxt5x1x1pkhr2egqr5w))/collection.aspx?collection=6276

I would have put Laver much higher, arguably 1, especially remembering his 2 cygs, time out when he turned pro plus many doubles titles. I was lucky enough to see him play several times and to me he is the most exciting player ever and the one who gave me a love of the game. I have seen most of these players but of course only on grass, ranking order a bit suspect I would say. I would not have put Evert over King for example. Hard to switch back to 2005 though without being influenced towards current players.

PS I know you were looking at Connors/Mc but the Laver ranking makes me doubt the whole lot!

 

[britbox]

I would have put Laver much higher, arguably 1, especially remembering his 2 cygs, time out when he turned pro plus many doubles titles. I was lucky enough to see him play several times and to me he is the most exciting player ever and the one who gave me a love of the game. I have seen most of these players but of course only on grass, ranking order a bit suspect I would say. I would not have put Evert over King for example. Hard to switch back to 2005 though without being influenced towards current players.

PS I know you were looking at Connors/Mc but the Laver ranking makes me doubt the whole lot!

That's as good a reason as any why these panels of experts aren't the Oracle

 

[Federberg]

That panel is a strong indication of what kind of consensus exists among experts.



But that same panel hasn't put Connors above McEnroe even though Jimmy and John retired a long time ago.



The biggest expert panels in the last few years that I know of are the one I already mentioned and this one https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Greatest_of_All_Time. Both put McEnroe above Connors. Which comparably large expert panel in the last few years ranked otherwise?

Not really. 40 experts probably all Americans for all I know is an extremely weak sample. I'm sorry but I don't see why "experts" have a deciding vote in a this. We are talking about a collection of facts which can be weighted subjectively. The only thing I'll respect is if someone - even a group of experts - were to come up with a set of criteria which we can get a consensus from as to what characteristics should get higher weightings. After that anyone can gather the data for themselves and see who's ranked where.

I'm not having someone ignore the fact that Laver is not facing the same amount of competition as the guys now, or that we should ignore the fact that winning majors has become a bigger deal now than before

 

[Mary]

Not really. 40 experts probably all Americans for all I know is an extremely weak sample. I'm sorry but I don't see why "experts" have a deciding vote in a this. We are talking about a collection of facts which can be weighted subjectively. The only thing I'll respect is if someone - even a group of experts - were to come up with a set of criteria which we can get a consensus from as to what characteristics should get higher weightings. After that anyone can gather the data for themselves and see who's ranked where.

I'm not having someone ignore the fact that Laver is not facing the same amount of competition as the guys now, or that we should ignore the fact that winning majors has become a bigger deal now than before

Totall agree about 40 experts and need for clear criteria. But I think the game has changed so much since the 70s that comparisons are pretty pointless.However I will do a bit more comparing!!!

People often say Laver had less competition. I think he had more. Take out the top 5 or 6 players now and todays competition is pretty weak. Off the top of my memory Laver had Emerson, Lew Hoad, Neil Fraser, Rosewall, Santana, Gonzales, Pietrangeli, Arthur Ashe, Tony Roche, Tom Okker, Stan Smith, Santana, Drysdale, Jan Kodes. There was a lot of depth in the game then and the Australians were unbelievable. We all admire Stan's great backhand now, worth finding some videos showing Laver's running back handand compare the two. Plus his brilliant wide serve and I've never ever seen better lobs. The game was less dependant on height and sheer power then but the variety of shot for me made it much more exciting.

 

[britbox]

I would have put Laver much higher, arguably 1, especially remembering his 2 cygs, time out when he turned pro plus many doubles titles. I was lucky enough to see him play several times and to me he is the most exciting player ever and the one who gave me a love of the game. I have seen most of these players but of course only on grass, ranking order a bit suspect I would say. I would not have put Evert over King for example. Hard to switch back to 2005 though without being influenced towards current players.

PS I know you were looking at Connors/Mc but the Laver ranking makes me doubt the whole lot!

Yes, I was just proving the point with Connors and Mac... and panels of experts... but just on a side-note, I'm surprised you'd put King over Evert?

 

[Obsi]

In 2005, Tennis Magazine...

That was 11 years ago. The ones I mentioned are significantly more recent.

Not really. 40 experts probably all Americans for all I know is an extremely weak sample. I'm sorry but I don't see why "experts" have a deciding vote in a this.

If we are talking about proof, then, yes, it's a weak sample. However, I didn't say it's proof but strong indication.

We are talking about a collection of facts which can be weighted subjectively. The only thing I'll respect is if someone - even a group of experts - were to come up with a set of criteria which we can get a consensus from as to what characteristics should get higher weightings. After that anyone can gather the data for themselves and see who's ranked where.

Experts have knowledge, training and experience to put them in a position to evaluate and report on evidence not readily available to everyone else.

 

[Mary]

Yes, I was just proving the point with Connors and Mac... and panels of experts... but just on a side-note, I'm surprised you'd put King over Evert?

I was thinking of the variety in Kings game, I found Evert rather boring to watch but I am talking mainly about grass,Wimbledon at that time was less than 3 mins from where I lived.
While I am thinking about the women in that list appalling to omit Maria Bueno with 7 GS titles and numerous doubles with different partners. She was playing same time as Laver so no excuse for missing her. Much better player than several of the women listed. She was wonderful to watch, totally elegant clever play, impossible to read her.

We often say how would these old time players cope with today's game. I also wonder how would today's players cope with the game as it was then with the old rackets and surfaces. Federer would of course, Novak I think, but others would struggle.

Just wondering if anyone else here remembers seeing tennis in the 60s and 70s? My first tennis match was about 1958!

 

[Mastoor]

He's already the GOAT considering that he had 4 slams at the same time, his rivals didn't.

 

[DarthFed]

^ It definitely counts for something, but I wouldn't say it counts for 5 slams by any means.

 

[Mastoor]

^ It definitely counts for something, but I wouldn't say it counts for 5 slams by any means.

It counts the most actually. Like slams count more than masters that count more than smaller tournaments, the Grand Slam has been won only once in last almost 40 years and the only one ever on 3 different surfaces. So the list should look like

Player.....# of GS # of slams

Djokovic ......1............12
Federer .......0............17

 

[Moxie]

It counts the most actually. Like slams count more than masters that count more than smaller tournaments, the Grand Slam has been won only once in last almost 40 years and the only one ever on 3 different surfaces. So the list should look like

Player.....# of GS # of slams

Djokovic ......1............12
Federer .......0............17

That's an opinion, and the Nole Slam does give bonus points, but you kid yourself if you think it is the single game changer. The GOAT-thing will be debated forever. There are too many variables. Heck, Laver's still in it, for some people. I agree with @britbox who says that Obsi's posted article is a bit of "what have you done for me lately" re: Federer. Djokovic has the hot hand, but time has a way of evening out people's passions, and accounting for short-term memory.

 

[Tennis Fan]

Well, let me put it this way... IF Djokovic gets to 16, maybe even 15, 14... he will probably get lauded as the greatest of all time by many experts or fans AT the time, because we live in a kind of "What did you do for me today/yesterday" kind of world... but later down the track when he's gone through his decline and lost to lesser players... his stock will subconsciously drop, and Federer's 17 would again be seen as the benchmark.

Heck, even the last 6 months.... his stock has subconsciously dropped a little... yet his legacy as far as achievements concerned hasn't dropped at all.

I agree with you, Britbox. The entire "greatest" debate is flimsy; people are included and excluded at will. The true answer will not be revealed until years from now because tennis is tenuous at best. How it will be determined is yet to be seen. The number of slams can't be the overriding factor since Laver is still considered to be greater than Federer, and Federer was considered greater than Pete and Rafa and Novak are still playing, and while we can speculate, we can't know the future.

If it's up to JMac who controls the narrative, IMO, the benchmark will remain the career slam.

 

[Tennis Fan]

Of course looking the last two years that panel of "experts" has to put Djokovic above Nadal but then they should put above Federer too but we''ll see at the end of their career who will be above whom

Scores can only be calculated at the end...everything else is speculation.

 

[Tennis Fan]

If Djokovic doesn't win anything again... then I'm guessing that same panel would probably put Nadal above him again in 18 months. I've also seen expert panels rank Connors above McEnroe, so I'm guessing it depends who you ask and more importantly when you ask them.

Exactly, if Novak doesn't win his talk of GOAT will be over. That's the way the game is played. These "opinions" are written are sand. We should know that just judging by all of the GOATs we've had in the last decade alone.