Too much hype about Nole breaking the 17 slam record

Chanwan said:

I've tried to steer back focus on an old and forgotten thread, but it seems that the focus remains here, so I'll take the liberty to repost my "essay" here and hope it can contribute to the discussion:

@falstaff78 @NatF @Gary Duane @cc0509 @Steve0904 @mattosgrant @Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil, @Djokovic2011, @SpinToWin, @Nathaniel_Near

First of all, excellent stats Falstaff (here's the thread for those interested: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/how-many-more-majors-djokovic-will-win.538473/).

However, given that Fed and Djoko's careers are relatively similar up to this point in time (thus AO 2010 for Fed = AO 2016 for Djoko), the big questions is, how will Djoko's next six years look like?

Assuming he can have a decline like Fed (a big if, but I'd say his body looks pretty resilient and his first strike tennis and hold game has evolved enough to make him less dependent on grinding out matches and points), then there's one major difference missing in the data: Opposition.

Since AO 2010, Fed's only won Wimbledon. But while he has declined in the sense that he's lost to Söderling, Berdych (2), Tsonga, Robredo (!), Murray (! ;-)), Stakhovsky (!!), Stan, Seppi, Cilic etc., he's lost a fair amount of matches and slams to Rafole.

US Open 2010
AO 2011
FO 2011
US Open 2011
AO 2012*
FO 2012*
AO 2014*
Wimbledon 2014
Wimbledon 2015
US Open 2015
AO 2016

With the exception of the *, I'd rate him as the clear favorite against whoever else would have made the semi/final in Rafole's place. See below for more detail.

That's 8 (!) slams he didn't win due to Rafole. 10 if we're being generous and awards him with 2 of the 3 *. 5 if we're being quite conservative and imagine some other player takes him out in some of the 8 slams, where I feel he was clearly the 2nd or 3rd best player (after Rafole) + the one with the experience vs. anyone not named Rafole. 7-8 slams being the most likely outcome imo.

Which brings us to the crux of the matter:
Assuming Novak can keep his level to nearly the same degree Fed has done, who's there to stop him? There are no ATG's with 10+ slams career in the midst of their peak vying to take over. There are hardly any Hall of Famers.

With this in mind, doesn't that mean that prior stats are kinda useless for Novak's future slam haul? The fact that Fed has not just slowed down, but stopped winning slams all together is not so much due to a drop in his level (though it matters as well) as much as due to the fact that there were all time greats with a talent as big or almost as big as his ready to take over at the slimmest drop.

If not for Rafole, Fed would likely have been the no. 1. player for most of this time and have had multiple multi slam seasons, including a potential triple in 2011.

So with no players even remotely comparable to Rafole in the making/on the verge of breaking through** and assuming (a big assumption, but not an implausible one) that Novak's late career will follow a path similar to Fed's in terms of playing level, who's to stop Novak from winning 5, 8 or even 10 slams after turning 29?

In real life, Fed's won 1 since turning 29. With no Rafole, he could have won anywhere from 6-11 since turning 29 (the 5-10 above does not include Wimb 12) .

*AO 2012, Andy was damn good, but he still had a final and a Fed slam complex. FO 2012, Fed's form was shaky and had Tsonga played the semi instead of Novak, I'm not sure who wins. Ferrer in the final would be a gimmie though. AO 2014, Wawa played damn fine, but had/has a match-up and mental problem vs. Fed. Not sure who wins.
** We can't look six years into the future with respect to opposition which is the biggest flaw of this little game. But we can say something reasonable about the next 2-3 years and there I can't see who would play at peak/prime Rafole levels and thus spoil Novak's party.

Click to expand...

90's Clay said:

A lot of hype because there is nothing going on in the tennis world at the moment.

STILL no young guys making a name for themselves and winning anything of note. I hope Nole does break the record. What else can we talk about? How great Raonic or Tomic or Dimitrov are? ROLFMAO

Click to expand...

duaneeo said:

But again, take Rafole out of the equation. Tomas likely would have won 2010 Wimbledon, and he had gained confidence against Federer.

Click to expand...

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil said:

Weird, I never got noted you tagged me.

Djokovic does have that benefit that all of his main rivals are older than him. So even if he does decline tomorrow just because he is close to 29, it wouldn't be a huge blow, because others have already past that while younger players are yet to even closely reach that Rafole level. Nadal already had one of the best resumes (if not the best) for a younger player, while Djokovic before 2011 despite being a shadow of his current self looked like a bigger threat and had a much better resume than any youngster has now.

A lot can change over night. I do think, basing on the current situation, that only a miracle can stop Novak from having a multi-Slam 2016 season but I wouldn't discuss anything beyond that. Despite some constant whining how this era is weak, I do believe Novak has introduced a new thing in tennis. Not talking about the level of play, but managing to keep a very high level with age. You haven't seen anyone this dominant at this stage like Novak is now. Agassi won a lot of Slams while being older, but he also missed a part of his career and wasn't as consistent as Novak now. Novak hasn't had any major breaks but is still here, consistently winning. Fed had a good 2009-10 period with 3 out of 4 Slams, but Novak has 5 out of last 7 and is also dominating Masters like Fed never did and is owning WTF. Since last Cincy, he is 46-2 with one loss being a harmless RR loss and the other being a retirement. Not making excuses, just saying. This is his 2nd peak, "crap Tour" or not.

I hate hypotheticals. But in this case, if we would compare his 2011 and present versions, I don't think anyone can say that either would win by a big margin. I personally prefer this one, and believe that in any period he would be one of main contenders for top prizes. Not winning most, no, but fighting well for most surely. So no, he wouldn't be eaten by "strong era" at all, whoever thinks that can keep dreaming.

A few months ago I created a thread asking those who believe Novak will just disappear in 2016 already who will win those Slams and I didn't get any concrete answers despite a good number of replies. Pity...

Click to expand...

ScentOfDefeat said:

I'm positive he won't. The planets only align once every century for such a mind-boggling accumulation of Slams such as Federer's to happen. He was the right guy at the right time. I think it's probably easier to accomplish a CYGS than to accumulate 17 Slams. And many players in history didn't even have a Slam-winning window much wider than 3 years. Even 3 years of CYGS would still land you 5 short of equalling Federer. That's just astonishing.

Click to expand...

NoleFam said:

In all honesty, Djokovic doesn't really have to break the record. In fact if he gets to 15 or 16, he can place himself into the conversation but he absolutely must win the French. If he ends up with 15 Slams, 2 French Opens (unlikely but not impossible), the most Masters, leads all the head to heads, 280+ weeks at #1, leads the WTFs, then he can make his case. A lot of people have little to no faith in him, but it's a few things that stand out to me.

Titles #
1. Roger Federer 17
2. Pete Sampras 14
Rafael Nadal
4. Roy Emerson 12
5. Rod Laver 11
Björn Borg
Novak Djokovic

Finals #
1. Roger Federer 27
2. Rafael Nadal 20
3. Ivan Lendl 19
Novak Djokovic

Semifinals #
1. Roger Federer 39
2. Jimmy Connors 31
3. Novak Djokovic 29


Even at 11 Slams, he's already top 3 in making GS Finals and Semifinals and this shows me how consistent he is and how he may place himself in the position to win more in the future. Couple that with him utterly dominating the game for a year and half now with him seemingly showing no dropoff, and he can definitely ride this wave and win quite a few more.

Click to expand...

Midaso240 said:

Hmm that's interesting. What if he won all 4 slams + the Olympics this year and then never won a slam again. Would he be instantly be in the conversation for all time greatest on the back of becoming the first man to win a golden calendar grand slam and 6 straight grand slam tournaments?

Click to expand...

Chanwan said:

Of course there's more to it than the slams, but the fact that Agassi was MIA doesn't support the argument that he was more of a rival.
My point was a simple one: Look at the slams and the picture is identical for their "let's go nuts at the slams" years - with the exception that Fed had the disadvantage of meeting Rafa more often than not on surfaces preferable to Rafa as opposed to Pete.

Click to expand...

user said:

Too much talk about reaching Federer. Not enough talk about reaching Nadal and Sampras.

Click to expand...

Chanwan said:

Ah, get it. Agreed. Wimbledon 2014, he was technically (much) closer yes, but US Open he really should have won. Imo, he was the better player for the last 3 sets yet just managed to walk away with one. Djoko has become a mental obstacle for him the same way Rafa was (still is?) -> hence why he probably needs someone else to take Djoko out if he's to win another.

Click to expand...

Chanwan said:

In general, I agree that he does that and often vs. Fed as well. In said match, however, I think it was Fed's own mental game that led him down more than anything Djoko did. Djokovic gave him 11 2nd serves on BP. He took just one. While Djoko avoided the errors on those points, Fed really played the protagonist in a negative way on most of them.

Click to expand...

mattosgrant said:

Yet Serena has absolutely shattered the record for most slam wins in her 30s (8 when the previous most was 3) and likely more to come. So these theories and rules already go right out the window sadly for you (that applies to Serena even moreso than Nole).

Click to expand...

• What speaks against Nole doing it is statistics. I believe Agassi is the only one winning 5 slams after 29. To win more than 2 slams after 30 you have to go back to Rod Laver.
• What speaks for him is the total lack of competition from the younger generation. All the top players in history won slams before age 25, and the current u25 field is far from doing any damage. They still get slapped by the players in Noles generation (Tsonga, Berdych etc). There isnt a single player in the top 10 list u25. With Noles 3 biggest rivals on the decline, the future definetly looks good for Nole.

I am the Greatest! said:

The tour was lucky that Federer isn't on 20+ right now. Him getting ONLY 17 is mind-boggling, considering how he racked up titles at a young age. Most analysts then pictured Federer getting 20 plus because he already had 12 at the of 26. It's really a miracle that he only ended up with 5 in his last eight (8) years. Well, if you have other ATGs breathing down your neck it's really hard. But the tour was lucky that Federer only have 17 right now.

So that number is almost impossible to reach. As @ScentOfDefeat pointed out, that number is in the border of possible and impossible.

Click to expand...

I am the Greatest! said:

Because Federer set the bar so high, everyone don't mind guys below him now.

Click to expand...

He's the goal, and all players aspiring for greatness looks at his back with the number '1' in his jersey.

Click to expand...

I am the Greatest! said:

I watched that final and I feel like the match would have gone either way. I don't see Federer having the advantage against Novak. Novak's defence was just that good that match, he can get away even with his 90%. Just needs to bring the ball back into play and let the opponent make more errors. We know that Novak would outlast Roger whatever happens. Even if he lost the 4th set, Novak definitely would have won the 5th because of his stamina - the balls would not be short-returned and deep.

Click to expand...

cc0509 said:

Let it play out. Nobody knows what's going to happen. Novak is 28 at 11 slams and you would think that he will hit a speed bump some time in the not so distant future due to natural decline and younger players stepping up but on the other hand, Novak is a freak physically with his flexibility and there appears to be no young guns on the horizon close to beating him so it's possible that he could challenge Federer's slam count. All players are different. Things happen quickly. Just as we think X is going to happen, Y happens. Maybe a young gun will unexpectedly pop up. It's impossible to predict.

Sit back and relax. Whatever happens happens.

Click to expand...

NoleFam said:

The tour is lucky he only ended up with 17 Slams? LOL. Oh it's only the most Slams won in the Open era. There was no miracle involved and he only ended up with 5 in the last 8 years because there were two guys stopping him near the finish line. I don't think I have to name them. They only stopped him like 15 times in the last 8 years so I think at some point it goes beyond luck and becomes skill.

Click to expand...

NoleFam said:

The tour is lucky he only ended up with 17 Slams? LOL. Oh it's only the most Slams won in the Open era. There was no miracle involved and he only ended up with 5 in the last 8 years because there were two guys stopping him near the finish line. I don't think I have to name them. They only stopped him like 15 times in the last 8 years so I think at some point it goes beyond luck and becomes skill.

Click to expand...

user said:

Lol, you should calm down a bit.

Click to expand...

user said:

This is only about the number of Slams. That is why a player must think about the guy in front of him, not the guy at the top. Does Murray have Federer or Nadal's record on his mind? No. He's probably thinking about Kuerten or Courier.

Click to expand...

user said:

However, number 1 is on Laver's jersey, not Federer's.

Click to expand...

TMF said:

To break the all time most major(slam) records seem destined to happen when a player is dominating at the present time without any sign of slowing down. Being a fan of him and the impact of social media hype can blindly impaired one's judgment, distorting reality. Nadal, for instance, was in the same discussion a few years back when hHe was younger and had more slam titles(14) than Nole today. However many today have changed their mind and some even doubt even if he can win another slam. Eight years ago Tiger Woods was on pace to shatter Jack Nicklaus 18 majors. Golf has a much longer career than tennis, and breaking the record was inevitable(unlike for Nole), but it never happened. Today Tiger struggle to win another major, more so than a declined Nadal.

Another issue is that record gets broken rarely happens with players in the same generation. Usually it takes a few generations afterward for another great player threaten to break the record, let alone breaking it.

Click to expand...

NoleFam said:

In all honesty, Djokovic doesn't really have to break the record. In fact if he gets to 15 or 16, he can place himself into the conversation but he absolutely must win the French. If he ends up with 15 Slams, 2 French Opens (unlikely but not impossible), the most Masters, leads all the head to heads, 280+ weeks at #1, leads the WTFs, then he can make his case. A lot of people have little to no faith in him, but it's a few things that stand out to me.

Titles #
1. Roger Federer 17
2. Pete Sampras 14
Rafael Nadal
4. Roy Emerson 12
5. Rod Laver 11
Björn Borg
Novak Djokovic

Finals #
1. Roger Federer 27
2. Rafael Nadal 20
3. Ivan Lendl 19
Novak Djokovic

Semifinals #
1. Roger Federer 39
2. Jimmy Connors 31
3. Novak Djokovic 29


Even at 11 Slams, he's already top 3 in making GS Finals and Semifinals and this shows me how consistent he is and how he may place himself in the position to win more in the future. Couple that with him utterly dominating the game for a year and half now with him seemingly showing no dropoff, and he can definitely ride this wave and win quite a few more.

Click to expand...

I am the Greatest! said:

I doubt that he's thinking about Courier. If you are a tennis player on a professional level, you wanna be the best. Well, when Murray started out I doubt that that's not on his mind. Today, at 27, and only 2 Slams, I doubt that he's thinking of eclipsing Federer.

Click to expand...

I am the Greatest! said:

It's quite funny that when Sampras was at everyone's (or most of them) list of number one before Federer arrived. They completely forgot about Laver. It's only when Federer captured that elusive Career Slam had people bringing up Laver as the greatest.

Click to expand...

I am the Greatest! said:

It's quite funny that when Sampras was at everyone's (or most of them) list of number one before Federer arrived. They completely forgot about Laver. It's only when Federer captured that elusive Career Slam had people bringing up Laver as the greatest.

Click to expand...

user said:

So what's he thinking about?

Click to expand...

user said:

Laver got 11 with 2x CYGS. And he was not allowed to participate in Grand Slams for 5 years. He's won 8 (out of 15) Pro Slam tournaments during those 5 years.

Click to expand...

mattosgrant said:

IMHO the only reason some had Sampras over Laver at that point was recency bias (which Federer and Serena both benefit from today, as well as Nadal). I don't think hardly anyone would this many years later, regardless of Federer.

Another point though is Federer's career is most similar to Sampras of anyone and Sampras has lost most of his more important records to Federer, so that makes him less great comparatively to everyone. Laver has not lost any of his more important records to Federer, so looks better compared to someone like Sampras who has.

Click to expand...

I am the Greatest! said:

If you are a tennis player, who would you want to reach? Federer or Courier?

Click to expand...

Sabratha said:

And Novak benefits from, most of all.

Click to expand...

Sabratha said:

Novak only started beating Fed on a regular basis once he reached his mid-thirties. It's like using Federer's consecutive victories over Andre as proof he'd never lose a match to him prime for prime.

Click to expand...

user said:

If I were 18 with 0 Slams but great potential, I'd go with Federer.
If I were 28 with 2 Slams I wouldn't bother with Federer. I'd pick a more realistic goal.

Click to expand...

Chanwan said:

That's some very interesting news to me, link please?

Click to expand...

AngryBirds said:

18 slams is highly questionable. Nole is almost 30 years old. Time is really not in his favor.

Click to expand...

Sabratha said:

Novak only started beating Fed on a regular basis once he reached his mid-thirties. It's like using Federer's consecutive victories over Andre as proof he'd never lose a match to him prime for prime.

Click to expand...

I am the Greatest! said:

I didn't deny that the other two prevented him from getting those Slams. What I am pointing out is that there were some Slams or matches that Federer could have won if the breaks of the game favored him. That's why I said that the tour was lucky. As I stated, he was poised to get around 25. It could have happened.

Click to expand...

Druss said:

Sampras made 19 slam finals too.

Click to expand...

Sabratha said:

He'd have lost to Murray. Mentally he's not good enough to win a slam. His game is good enough. He'd always fail in a big final, even though he can take out tough opposition in the early rounds. I'm unsure why Lendl didn't want to help him, but he could have used it earlier on in his career. That's the only thing that would've made a difference.

Click to expand...

NoleFam said:

He was never poised to get 25 Slams. How could he possibly even get close to that with Nadal and Djokovic around?

Click to expand...

I am the Greatest! said:

He was pictured to get 20 slams or more. Everybody was talking about it in 2007 when he was winning 3 slams a year, already had 12 at the young age of 26.

Click to expand...

NoleFam said:

Novak started beating Federer on a regular basis in 2011 when Federer was 29. He is 18-9 against Federer since then and 7-2 in Slams.

Click to expand...

mattosgrant said:

I think that is a bit of an exaggeration. Djokovic has won the significant majority of his matches with Federer starting with at the start of 2011 (or arguably starting with the 2010 U.S Open but it makes no real difference) when Federer was 29.

Click to expand...

mattosgrant said:

As for the 2nd part I don't believe there is any Federer fan that doesn't believe Federer would own Agassi prime to prime (probably correctly), even if their actual matches aren't necessarily cited as proof either.

Click to expand...

mattosgrant said:

Absolutely. If he wins RG, I guarantee there will be hype about him being the GOAT already at 12 slams.

Click to expand...