Was 2012 an indicator that Djokovic is done winning slams?

[RAFA2005RG]

Let's see.....Djokovic only won one slam, and it was the closest slam final of the year, and it took him 6 hours.

This was despite 2012 being a very easy year, with Nadal missing for half the year, Murray not really arriving until the Olympics/US Open, and Federer winning Wimbledon but generally unconvincing at the slams.

2013 is going to be twice as hard to win slams. A well-rested Nadal (and he beat Djokovic at Roland Garros - and 2 other events - despite living on painkillers), a fully-established Murray, an improving Del Potro and the fading yet still there at Wimbledon Federer.

So Djokovic can rule out Roland Garros and Wimbledon. Nadal wins Roland Garros in his sleep, while Murray and Federer are the favorites at Wimbledon. They are not his. That leaves only the US Open and Australian Open. In early 2012 Djokovic had a huge edge over Nadal mentally. I expected Djokovic to win in 3 sets, given the roll he was on mentally at the time. Not the case, 7-5 fifth set (the same score as his semi vs Murray). US Open, clearly Murray prefers this surface and is only getting better, although as I noted the AO too allows Murray to hurt Djokovic these days.

Djokovic scraped through for a slam title in 2012. Don't expect 2013 to be as accommodating. And certainly in terms of motivation, Nadal and Murray will be more hungry than Djokovic, for obvious reasons. Djokovic is a mental player, relying on sources of motivation. Winning 'player of the year' in 2012 isn't exactly healthy motivation for a player who almost went slamless.

 

[cc0509]

No, he is not done winning slams yet. Wishful thinking on your part.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

Let's see.....Djokovic only won one slam, and it was the closest slam final of the year, and it took him 6 hours.

This was despite 2012 being a very easy year, with Nadal missing for half the year, Murray not really arriving until the Olympics/US Open, and Federer winning Wimbledon but generally unconvincing at the slams.

2013 is going to be twice as hard to win slams. A well-rested Nadal (and he beat Djokovic at Roland Garros - and 2 other events - despite living on painkillers), a fully-established Murray, an improving Del Potro and the fading yet still there at Wimbledon Federer.

So Djokovic can rule out Roland Garros and Wimbledon. Nadal wins Roland Garros in his sleep, while Murray and Federer are the favorites at Wimbledon. They are not his. That leaves only the US Open and Australian Open. In early 2012 Djokovic had a huge edge over Nadal mentally. I expected Djokovic to win in 3 sets, given the roll he was on mentally at the time. Not the case, 7-5 fifth set (the same score as his semi vs Murray). US Open, clearly Murray prefers this surface and is only getting better, although as I noted the AO too allows Murray to hurt Djokovic these days.

Djokovic scraped through for a slam title in 2012. Don't expect 2013 to be as accommodating. And certainly in terms of motivation, Nadal and Murray will be more hungry than Djokovic, for obvious reasons. Djokovic is a mental player, relying on sources of motivation. Winning 'player of the year' in 2012 isn't exactly healthy motivation for a player who almost went slamless.

Djokovic is more likely to win any and every Slam than Federer is, at this point.

 

[RAFA2005RG]

Djokovic is more likely to win any and every Slam than Federer is, at this point.

Except for Wimbledon, as we saw this year, the beatdown semi.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

Except for Wimbledon, as we saw this year, the beatdown semi.

That was 1 match. Federer is 31, Djokovic is 25.

 

[RAFA2005RG]

That was 1 match. Federer is 31, Djokovic is 25.

Federer is a machine.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Except for Wimbledon, as we saw this year, the beatdown semi.

I agree. If Nadal is back to his normal self by Wimbledon I would rate Nadal and Murray as co favorites to win Wimbledon, Federer (even at his age) 3rd favorite, and Djokovic 4th at best. Djokovic is not that good a grass court player, and unless he is in his superhuman form (2011) he is highly unlikely to win there. Federer has a better chance even today at Wimbledon than Djokovic. Berdych and Tsonga would have better chances to win Wimbledon than Djokovic if they werent such mental midgets, they certainly can play better tennis on grass.

 

[cc0509]

Federer is a machine.

No, unfortunately he is not!

 

[pvaudio]

Federer is a machine.

Federer is half a decade past the end of his prime. Djokovic just came into his. Nadal is stepping on out of his. Murray has only just proved he has the mind to win at the big stages. Let's see who that leaves.

 

[Mustard]

OP, Djokovic is ending 2012 as world number 1, so it's an odd question to ask.

 

[Clarky21]

If anyone is done winning slams it's Nadal,not *******. He's going to win many more slams over the next 5-6 years.

 

[beast of mallorca]

If anyone is done winning slams it's Nadal,not *******. He's going to win many more slams over the next 5-6 years.

Are you really sure about that Clarky ? Will you stop posting here in TW if Nadal ever wins another slam next year ?

 

[Clarky21]

Federer is half a decade past the end of his prime. Djokovic just came into his. Nadal is stepping on out of his. Murray has only just proved he has the mind to win at the big stages. Let's see who that leaves.

No he didn't. He's been in his prime since at least 2007-2008.

 

[papertank]

He's the co-favorite with Murray for the AO. I would rate him higher to win that actually, since he's won it thrice and and Murray not once.

At RG, the ONLY thing that stands in his way is Nadal. If Nadal isn't healthy or somehow gets eliminated, the tournament is his. I would also give him a fair chance there against Nadal anyway, we'll never know what could have happened there this year if the rain hadn't come.

Wimbledon is the only one I would rate his chances very low for.

At the USO Murray was lucky to beat him this year, I'd still say he has just as good a chance of winning it as Federer or Murray.

So basically he's the co-favorite or favorite at two slams and has a good chance at another one. How is he done winning slams again?

 

[Clarky21]

He's the co-favorite with Murray for the AO. I would rate him higher to win that actually, since he's won it thrice and and Murray not once.

At RG, the ONLY thing that stands in his way is Nadal. If Nadal isn't healthy or somehow gets eliminated, the tournament is his. I would also give him a fair chance there against Nadal anyway, we'll never know what could have happened there this year if the rain hadn't come.

Wimbledon is the only one I would rate his chances very low for.

At the USO Murray was lucky to beat him this year, I'd still say he has just as good a chance of winning it as Federer or Murray.

Yeah we do. ******* never would have even taken a set in that final if it had stayed dry.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

No he didn't. He's been in his prime since at least 2007-2008.

No way. I think it was late 2010, you could argue early 2010, but 2007/2008 is ridiculous.

 

[Clarky21]

No way. I think it was late 2010, you could argue early 2010, but 2007/2008 is ridiculous.

How so? He made his first slam final in 2007,and won his first slam in 2008. If Nadal was in his prime in 2005 after winning his first slam according the the braintrusts on here,then ******* certainly was too after winning his.


And if anything is ridiculous it's you thinking that he didn't hit his prime up until 2 years ago at the age of 23,even though he won his first slam when he was 20.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

How so? He made his first slam final in 2007,and won his first slam in 2008. If Nadal was in his prime in 2005 after winning his first slam according the the braintrusts on here,than ******* certainly was too after winning his.


And if anything is ridiculous it's you thinking that he didn't hit his prime up until 2 years ago at the age of 23,even though he won his first slam when he was 20.

It's funny how Djokovic hit his prime in 2007 and is supposed to be in his prime for 2/3 more years. Do you listen to yourself? 8/9 years of prime? Wow.

For the record, I think Nadal hit his prime in 2007. It probably ended with the 2012 French Open. He's been on/off his prime in that period with injuries and niggles, though.

 

[Mustard]

Djokovic was a very good player in 2007-2008, winning his first major, 4 masters series and a Masters Cup (now World Tour Finals). In 2009, he was very good in the clay-court season, although he lost early at the French Open and was patchy elsewhere during the year. 2009 did feel like a step backwards for Djokovic after 2007 and 2008.

In early 2010, he started having real structural problems with his game, particularly with his serve, as the coaching relationship he had with Todd Martin didn't work out. For the rest of 2010, he slowly started to rebuild his game and his confidence. Beating Federer in the US Open semi finals from 2 match points down told him what he was capable of doing, even though Nadal beat him in the final. By the end of the year, after winning Davis Cup with Serbia, he had more desire and confidence than ever before to do as well as he could, and we saw how he utterly dominated most of 2011.

 

[beast of mallorca]

It's funny how Djokovic hit his prime in 2007 and is supposed to be in his prime for 2/3 more years. Do you listen to yourself? 8/9 years of prime? Wow.

For the record, I think Nadal hit his prime in 2007. It probably ended with the 2012 French Open. He's been on/off his prime in that period with injuries and niggles, though.

You guys first have to agree on your definition of prime and/or peak before you debate on the issue, because you'll just go on circles without it.

 

[papertank]

How so? He made his first slam final in 2007,and won his first slam in 2008. If Nadal was in his prime in 2005 after winning his first slam according the the braintrusts on here,then ******* certainly was too after winning his.


And if anything is ridiculous it's you thinking that he didn't hit his prime up until 2 years ago at the age of 23,even though he won his first slam when he was 20.

Ok, yes he won a slam in 2008 but that doesn't mean it was his prime. 2011 was obviously a level way above that of 2008.

 

[Towser83]

This was despite 2012 being a very easy year, with Nadal missing for half the year, Murray not really arriving until the Olympics/US Open, and Federer winning Wimbledon but generally unconvincing at the slams.

Let's see, Murray arrived at the Olypics/Us Open like you say, so that takes care of the US Open. Federer was generally unconvincing apart from Wimbledon, so that takes care of Wimbledon. Nadal was gone for half the ther year.. but not the half that had the AO and RG. So which slams were easy? You've just explained that none of them were.

Yeah we do. ******* never would have even taken a set in that final if it had stayed dry.

Really? At the time you were telling me ******* was going to win the match when they resumed on dry clay the next day. So that's a bit of a contradiction. You also thought he was going to win right from the start when it was dry. How do you know he couldn't have turned it around even in dry conditions? Nadal's a mug who was lucky to even get to the final what with his hellish draw of people like Almagro who were really capable of beating him (according to you) :lol:

Don't get me wrong, I don't think there's anyway Djokovic was winning that match, but on one hand you seem to agree with me, on the other hand you make out like Djokovic beating Nadal on clay in 2011 wasn't a one season deal. You saw him get killed in MC and Rome 2012 and still made out he was going to turn it around at RG, but now maintain there was no way without rain that he would have even won a set. You constantly contradict yourself. Really you knew Nadal should smash Djokovic, you just didn't want to say it at the time and be wrong.

No way. I think it was late 2010, you could argue early 2010, but 2007/2008 is ridiculous.

No she's right really. Djokovic ended 2007 in the top 3 for the first time. He won 2 masters that year scoring first wins over both Nadal and Federer, even beating them back to back to win Canada. He made a slam final at the US Open and could have even won the first 2 sets. In 2008 he won the AO the TMC/WTF and 2 other masters. Even in 2007 he was a better player than 2010 where you consider he might have started his prime.

The only thing is he wasn't quite as consistant in 2007-2010 and he wasn't as good at standing up to Fed/Nadal in slams. He was still in his prime though I think, just not at the high part of the curve like he is now.

 

[NadalAgassi]

I think Djokovic's prime will end up being considered 2011-2015 with 2011 as probably his peak. 2008 could be added as a prime year though as he was very good that year. 2009 and 2010 are definitely not prime years for Djokovic whatsoever, nor is 2007.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

Let's see, Murray arrived at the Olypics/Us Open like you say, so that takes care of the US Open. Federer was generally unconvincing apart from Wimbledon, so that takes care of Wimbledon. Nadal was gone for half the ther year.. but not the half that had the AO and RG. So which slams were easy? You've just explained that none of them were.



Really? At the time you were telling me ******* was going to win the match when they resumed on dry clay the next day. So that's a bit of a contradiction. You also thought he was going to win right from the start when it was dry. How do you know he couldn't have turned it around even in dry conditions? Nadal's a mug who was lucky to even get to the final what with his hellish draw of people like Almagro who were really capable of beating him (according to you) :lol:

Don't get me wrong, I don't think there's anyway Djokovic was winning that match, but on one hand you seem to agree with me, on the other hand you make out like Djokovic beating Nadal on clay in 2011 wasn't a one season deal. You saw him get killed in MC and Rome 2012 and still made out he was going to turn it around at RG, but now maintain there was no way without rain that he would have even won a set. You constantly contradict yourself. Really you knew Nadal should smash Djokovic, you just didn't want to say it at the time and be wrong.



No she's right really. Djokovic ended 2007 in the top 3 for the first time. He won 2 masters that year scoring first wins over both Nadal and Federer, even beating them back to back to win Canada. He made a slam final at the US Open and could have even won the first 2 sets. In 2008 he won the AO the TMC/WTF and 2 other masters. Even in 2007 he was a better player than 2010 where you consider he might have started his prime.

The only thing is he wasn't quite as consistant in 2007-2010 and he wasn't as good at standing up to Fed/Nadal in slams. He was still in his prime though I think, just not at the high part of the curve like he is now.

The problem with that line of reasoning is that you're judging prime by his success. Djokovic back then was nowhere near the player that he was in 2011 or even now.

 

[Clarky21]

The problem with that line of reasoning is that you're judging prime by his success. Djokovic back then was nowhere near the player that he was in 2011 or even now.

Let me ask you,just what year do you think Nadal hit his prime?

 

[ledwix]

He has missed a total of 2 grand slam finals in the last 9. So uh...more slams for peak Djoke for sure.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

Let me ask you,just what year do you think Nadal hit his prime?

Around Wimbledon, 2007.

 

[Clarky21]

Around Wimbledon, 2007.

Not sure I agree with that,but since we rarely ever agree,what's new? Lol.

I'd also like to know when you think Fed hit his prime?

 

[OverratedIvanovic]

Apparently it takes a monumental effort or/and tremendous luck for Djokovic to win slams He is still no. 1 though and surely the favourite if not heavy favourite heading into AO 2013.

 

[Tony48]

Ummmmm.....there is absolutely nothing about 2012 that suggested that Novak is done winning slams. If anything, it demonstrated that he can win several more.

 

[dhdriver]

All we gotta do is wait for 2013 to happen. Then we will know for sure if Novak is capable of winning more slams.

On a side note: I thought 2009 was a great year for Novak. Although he didn't make any slam finals he showed some consistency throughout the year. He managed to beat both Rafa and Roger three times that year. Also, he won 5 titles out of 10 finals. Seem pretty good to me.

 

[sbengte]

OP, I don't know about Djokovic. But since 2012 was Nadal's rest year where he still won a slam, it is a clear indicator that Nadal is the favorite for CYGS in 2013.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

Not sure I agree with that,but since we rarely ever agree,what's new? Lol.

I'd also like to know when you think Fed hit his prime?

Around the beginning of 2004. I've never seen a player rise so quickly in playing-level within a span of about an year.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Djokovic will be winning more slams in the future.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I think Djokovic's prime will end up being considered 2011-2015 with 2011 as probably his peak. 2008 could be added as a prime year though as he was very good that year. 2009 and 2010 are definitely not prime years for Djokovic whatsoever, nor is 2007.

So, you're saying that his prime comes out in yearly bursts?

 

[5555]

If Nadal is back to his normal self by Wimbledon I would rate Nadal and Murray as co favorites to win Wimbledon, Federer (even at his age) 3rd favorite, and Djokovic 4th at best.

Bookmakers say Djokovic is the 1st favorite to win Wimbledon http://www.oddschecker.com/tennis/wimbledon/mens-wimbledon/winner

 

[cc0509]

OP, I don't know about Djokovic. But since 2012 was Nadal's rest year where he still won a slam, it is a clear indicator that Nadal is the favorite for CYGS in 2013.

It is no such thing. Nadal is 26, not 22. I think he could win a slam next year, maybe even two depending on his form, but he is not winning the CYGS. You can bet your house on that one.

 

[Gonzo_style]

Bookmakers say Djokovic is the 1st favorite to win Wimbledon http://www.oddschecker.com/tennis/wimbledon/mens-wimbledon/winner

I'm little suprised, but why not? He played 3 consecutive semi finals and won title last. year.

 

[Hawkeye7]

Bookmakers say Djokovic is the 1st favorite to win Wimbledon http://www.oddschecker.com/tennis/wimbledon/mens-wimbledon/winner

Yeah well, they also have Murray as the 3rd favourite for Roland Garros and had Djokovic as the favourite for Wimbledon, The Olympics and USO this year. Doesn't mean much.

 

[Clarky21]

Around the beginning of 2004. I've never seen a player rise so quickly in playing-level within a span of about an year.

And when do you think his prime ended?

 

[NatF]

^ His prime probably ended around 2009. Although his peak was over by 2008 courtesy of mono.

 

[Carsomyr]

Let me ask you,just what year do you think Nadal hit his prime?

Around Wimbledon, 2007.

Peak and prime are generally considered different things, although there is quite a bit of overlap. These definitions are much easier for multiple GS champions. I generally define a player's prime as a longer period of time in which a player plays at a consistently high level, i.e. winning slams or making finals, winning smaller tournaments, high in the rankings, etc. For Fed, I consider this period to be 2003-2010; Nadal, 2005-?; Djokovic, 2007-? Peak, a shorter span of time when everything "clicks" for the player, and they maximize their abilities to the fullest extent. Federer, obviously, 2004-2007; Nadal, 2008-2010; Djokovic, 2011.

 

[Carsomyr]

Bookmakers say Djokovic is the 1st favorite to win Wimbledon http://www.oddschecker.com/tennis/wimbledon/mens-wimbledon/winner

And?

Bookmakers: Djokovic is now odds-on favorite to win Wimbledon

http://www.oddschecker.com/tennis/wimbledon/mens-wimbledon/winner

:lol:

 

[3fees]

No he'll win many more slams and M 1K's.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

It's funny how the best player at the slams this year is done wining slams ........The logic by some people on this forum is incredible. Only player to be in 3 finals this year. If he is done wining slams what's left for Federer, Nadal, Murray, and of course, the rest.....

Funny thing if it wasn't for the rain in RG and the scheduling that made him play 9 sets in 2 days in the USO he would have probably 2 slams, or even 3.

But well....

 

[NadalAgassi]

Bookmakers say Djokovic is the 1st favorite to win Wimbledon http://www.oddschecker.com/tennis/wimbledon/mens-wimbledon/winner

Good for them, there is a reason I and many others make money off bookies.

 

[Ms Nadal]

No, he can have the AO 2013!

 

[5555]

:lol:

Bookmakers set their odds based on the most likely results. The fact that Djokovic did not win Wimbledon does not prove that bookmakers were wrong. Nadal lost against Rosol at Wimbledon, so does it mean that posters on TW were wrong when they said most likely outcome was Nadal's win over Rosol?

Good for them, there is a reason I and many others make money off bookies.

Only an idiot will rather believe you than bookmakers.

 

[The-Champ]

Bookmakers set their odds based on the most likely results. The fact that Djokovic did not win Wimbledon does not prove that bookmakers were wrong. Nadal lost against Rosol at Wimbledon, so does it mean that posters on TW were wrong when they said most likely outcome was Nadal's win over Rosol?
.

I knew Nadal wouldn't make it far at wimbledon based on his movement in Halle. He should have lost to Bellucci in the first round.

 

[5555]

I knew Nadal wouldn't make it far at wimbledon based on his movement in Halle. He should have lost to Bellucci in the first round.

Were people wrong when they said that Nadal was more likely to win than Rosol? Yes or no?