Was Djokovic an opportunist in 2008 AO ?

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Djokovic was still far away from being a slam material in 2008. He was not ready, because from that point on it took him 3 years to win a slam(2011 AO). Between those 3 years he was constantly losing to Fedal at the grand stage. If he was really that good in 2008 AO as his fans like to overrate him, then he should have won a few more slams before 2011 AO, not winning nothing for 3 years. It took him time to get over the hump, and that should tells you that he needed a break when a defending AO champion Federer was in poor physical condition(mono) in 2008. Nole was an opportunist - he was lucky to be in the right place and at the right time.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Also note that Nole only made 1 slam final in 11 appearances before the 2011 AO.

He also won a total of 7 titles in 2009 and 2010 combined that includes only one MS1000
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
You should go back and rewatch the 08 AO and decide if you still think he wasn't in slam-winning form.
If that was a breakout year for him then he should have won more slams in the next 3 years instead of waiting to hit his stride in 2011.
 

DSH

Talk Tennis Guru
It definitely was; he should have let "mono" Federer win that GS to the delirium of his sickest fans.
:oops:
That way we wouldn't have to read a delusional thread almost 13 years after it happened.
:sick:
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
So his less than slam winning form was enough to straight set Peak Fed? I'm gonna take it.

giphy.gif
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Not everyone reaches their breakout and then keeps going without stopping.

Was Sampras opportunistic when he won the 90 USO and didn't win another slam for 3 years?


In 1990 USO Sampras beat Lendl who made the USO final the previous 8 straight years. But let's be fair, Lendl at that time was at the tail end of his career and start fading away. OTOH Federer was 26 in 2008 AO, a defending champion and was the #1 player in the world.
 

MeatTornado

Talk Tennis Guru
In 1990 USO Sampras beat Lendl who made the USO final the previous 8 straight years. But let's be fair, Lendl at that time was at the tail end of his career and start fading away. OTOH Federer was 26 in 2008 AO, a defending champion and was the #1 player in the world.
So you do think Pete was an opportunist vulture
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Djokovic was still far away from being a slam material in 2008.
By that logic, Federer was an opportunist at the Australian Open 2007 and US Open 2007 when he defeated a Djokovic "still far away from being a Slam winner".
 
Last edited:

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
By that logic, Federer was an opportunistic at the Australian Open 2007 and US Open 2007 when he defeated a Djokovic "still far away from being a Slam winner".

This is what really bothers me when I have to reply to posters who only begins to watch tennis starting 2010.

2007 was Federer's peak year who was the favorite to win every tournament he play except on clay. Any tournament(except clay) that he loses is considered as an upset.
 

CYGS

Legend
This is what really bothers me when I have to reply to posters who only begins to watch tennis starting 2010.

2007 was Federer's peak year who was the favorite to win every tournament he play except on clay. Any tournament(except clay) that he loses is considered as an upset.
Weak competition = weak era.
 

daggerman

Hall of Fame
Djokovic was still far away from being a slam material in 2008. He was not ready, because from that point on it took him 3 years to win a slam(2011 AO).

This logic implies that every one-time slam winner is not slam material.
 

Towny

Hall of Fame
Federer won Wimbledon 2003 in peak form but then didn't reach those heights again till the TMC. He lost 7 matches between Wimbledon and the TMC, which is more than he lost in the entire year for 2004, 2005 and 2006. Of course, the gap between AO 2008 and AO 2011 is much larger, but the point is that a player can have flashes of peak form before they've worked out how to be consistent with it. For Djokovic, a significant part of that was his physical health.

Djokovic played great at the AO in 2008. Probably beats Federer even if he didn't have mono, though it wouldn't have been in straights
 
This is what really bothers me

when I have to reply to posters who only

begins to watch tennis starting 2010.
You don't have to reply. . Matter of fact, it would be better than more of your same old/same old/same old "my favourite male tennis idol!!" ball washing.

What a one-track-mind bore you are.
 

Druss

Hall of Fame
How so? 2008 Djoko was way better than anyone on the tour today not named Nadal, Djokovic or Federer. His performance in that AO was better than most single slam winners since 1990.
 

Milanez82

Hall of Fame
Djoko showed his true potential in those 2 weeks
If he was more clutch same would have happened few months earlier in US Open
 

adil1972

Hall of Fame
TENNIS QUIZ

what will happen if Djokivc becomes No. 1 for 312 weeks

i will post the answer tomorrow if nobody guesses by then
 

Hitman

Bionic Poster
Absolutely not, it was an incredible run from start to finish. Djokovic was showing some incredible form, a glimpse of what he was capable of, just needed time to make it consistent. That came in 2011.
 

aldeayeah

G.O.A.T.
How can someone who's been so many years here say the first two sentences of the opening post with a straight face?

what a weak attempt at trolling

Djokovic was evident slam material from 2007 to 2009, had a bad year in 2010, the rest is history.
 

Ace King

New User
I have a hard time believing Djokovic could have beaten a healthy fed in AO 2008. How would have fed played if he was healthy? The two points of comparison we have are AO 07 and AO 09. AO 07 was his best form there. Let’s ignore that and assume Fed would have played like AO 09. It took the best version of Nadal, who has a clear matchup advantage against him to beat him there. And it was a 5 hours epic. Can Djokovic at that stage in his career play at such a level?
 
Top