2019 is a crucial year for Djokovic

[Zhilady]

Not everyone can play giants of the game like Baghdatis, Gonzalez, and Philippoussis in Slam finals

I see Stan as a present-day version of Safin, a dangerous player who can beat anyone when he's on

Murray is a guy who would have feasted on Fed's fields of 04-07, so this "Mugray" business is very disingenuous. Let's not forget he had a winning H2H against Fed until like 2014

Murray has only beaten Federer in Slams once, and that was against a 31-year-old Federer in 5 sets. Logic would dictate that he wouldn't be beating 2004-2007 Federer anywhere in Slams.

Wawrinka has only ever beaten Federer on clay, and 2004-2007 Federer didn't win a single Slam title on clay.

I can't really see how Murray and Wawrinka would be affecting Federer's Slam count if they had their prime in 2004-2007.

 

[Zhilady]

Like I already told @Sabratha, peak for peak I like Murray's chances against Fed on any surface

Peak for peak, I like a Panda's chances against you in an IQ contest.

 

[Zhilady]

He can and will surpass Federer at everything at one point and everybody on this forum will eat a crow! Lmao

In the past 3 years, Djokovic has narrowed his gap with Federer by 1. One. And he still trails Federer by 6. I think the only one eating crow will be you.

 

[jm1980]

Peak for peak, I like a Panda's chances against you in an IQ contest.

Wrong! I'm a very stable genius

 

[jm1980]

Murray has only beaten Federer in Slams once, and that was against a 31-year-old Federer in 5 sets. Logic would dictate that he wouldn't be beating 2004-2007 Federer anywhere in Slams.

Wawrinka has only ever beaten Federer on clay, and 2004-2007 Federer didn't win a single Slam title on clay.

I can't really see how Murray and Wawrinka would be affecting Federer's Slam count if they had their prime in 2004-2007.

It's easy to make these claims that can in no way be proven

I may as well say Murray would beat peak Fed easily, and there's no real way of disproving it

 

[GabeT]

In the past 3 years, Djokovic has narrowed his gap with Federer by 1. One. And he still trails Federer by 6. I think the only one eating crow will be you.

I love how you chose your time range ever so carefully. Over the past 3 years he narrowed the gap by 1. Over the last 5 years he narrowed it by 5. It all depends on the time frame you look at.

 

[Djokovicfan]

Op you probly care more about this **** than even djokovic does.
Fed nad and djokovic are the 3 best players of all time.
Trying to talk about who is the best of these 3 is splitting hairs.
Its perfectly possible as well that a new up and comer rolls in and trashes the records of all 3 of them.
Stop stressing so much.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

For Djokovic sure. Can’t see where Murray would beat Federer. Prime Fed owned him at AO in 2010, USO 2008 and also Wimbledon in 2012, 2015 at an older age. I think Murray would fare the same as Roddick and Hewitt did, 0 GS wins once Federer hit his peak.


LOL

Federer utterly owns both Stan and Andy at the slams. I give 2015 RG Wawrinka a 40% shot vs peak Fed at RG that’s about it.

Fact is Federer lost both to Murray and Wawrinka in 2013-14, when he was the same age as Djokovic and Nadal today who are racking up slams.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

22-27 Federer vs 17-22 big four: 15-23
27-32 Federer vs 22-27 big four: 21-26
32-36 Federer vs 27-31 big four: 15-8

Federer became a better player through the years, even if he couldn't keep up with an improved field with the same consistency.

 

[TripleATeam]

Op you probly care more about this **** than even djokovic does.
Fed nad and djokovic are the 3 best players of all time.
Trying to talk about who is the best of these 3 is splitting hairs.
Its perfectly possible as well that a new up and comer rolls in and trashes the records of all 3 of them.
Stop stressing so much.

Ok, but I'm an analytical dude. I'm not stressing over any of this. I'm interested in what 2019 holds for Djokovic, and in essence this thread is saying "If next year Djokovic does bad, he'll probably never be GOAT." I like the GOAT debate. It's fun. I don't do this because I'm seriously invested in specifically Djokovic. I do it because I picked a horse in the race, and I want to talk about his odds of winning.

 

[3lite]

If Djokovic wanted to have shot at GOAT status he shouldn't have lost so many GS finals to Stan and Mugray.

This.

His ship has sailed a long time ago.

 

[Steve0904]

Very true. It's important for every one of them, but Nadal can still win the slam record if he continues to win at RG or wins another non-clay slam and a couple more RG. Federer already has the record, so no year is crucial for him unless someone takes that record. Murray may not come back, but he was never in the running for best player ever anyway.

Will Djokovic do as well as I predict? I certainly hope so, but it's no certainty by any means. Rest assured, I will be extremely happy if Djokovic wins 2 slams next year. Even 1 won't disappoint me greatly. You are right that it's wait and see territory, though. I just wanted to put it out there.

Depends which way you look at it. One might say the coming year(s) are most crucial for Federer since he doesn't have as many of them left as Nadal or Djokovic. And just because he has the record now doesn't make those years less important, IMO.

 

[Steve0904]

As far as Novak's shot at the record goes, yes he lost a few too many finals to Stan and Murray and that is part of the reason he probably won't make up the ground regardless of the recency bias that comes with winning the previous 2 slams. We all saw the same thing after RG 2016 and we know how that turned out. Plus he's 2 years older. I understand we have to talk about it. He's won the last 2 slams and looks poised for a great 2019, but there are also other factors as to why he probably won't break the record.

For instance, look at how late he peaked age wise starting in 2011. We often say Federer peaked late, but even he had his first dominant year at 22-23. Djokovic's came a year later than that, and Nadal had 4 slams by the time he turned 22 and more by the time he was 24.

Something that I don't think is talked about enough after the Stan-Murray debate.

 

[WarrenMP]

Djokovic just need the AO and FO to pull off the Djokovic Slam again. If he does that, hands down Djokovic is the GOAT regardless of slam titles. His resume is too impressive given his competition.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Djokovic just need the AO and FO to pull off the Djokovic Slam again. If he does that, hands down Djokovic is the GOAT regardless of slam titles. His resume is too impressive given his competition.

There is competition in the current era?

 

[WarrenMP]

There is competition in the current era?

Nadal and Federer? This is the era of Federer vs Nadal vs Djokovic vs everyone else. We have a big 3. What else do you want? a Big 10 or something?

 

[KINGROGER]

Fact is Federer lost both to Murray and Wawrinka in 2013-14, when he was the same age as Djokovic and Nadal today who are racking up slams.

Yeah 2013 was Fed’s worst year / form since 2001 and 2014 was his first year adjusting to the new racket / he was old and had declined movement on clay which is where Stan beat him.

I mean Federer at his best. 2004-2009.

 

[Sport]

OP you're asking a lot for a 32 years old player playing in his 16th season next year. He's not 25 anymore, but still enough time to catch Nadal but not Federer.

Assuming Nadal doesn't add more Grand Slams, when he is only 11 months older than Djokovic.

 

[kevaninho]

I know that every year is important. It's another chance to win, another chance to lose, and another chance to make history.

Review the GOAT metrics (as far as I can recall):

Slams, Titles, Weeks at #1, YE #1, Masters Titles, YEC titles, H2H over rivals.

Slams - Djokovic trails Nadal by 3 and Federer by 6.

If he wins 0-1 slams next year, slam count will be extremely tough to see him catching. If he wins 2-4, we begin to smell blood in the water.​

With 2 majors, Djokovic is only 1 (or 2, assuming Nadal wins RG) slams behind Nadal and 4 behind Federer, while being a year younger than Nadal and 5 younger than Federer.​

With 3 majors, he is more or less on par with Nadal, and closing in on Federer rapidly. However, 3 or 4 slams is a pipe dream next year. Almost certainly not gonna happen.​

​

Titles -

71 compared to Nadal's 80 and Federer's 98. In 2015 (Djokovic's most prolific year), he only won 11 titles. Almost impossible to catch Nadal in one year, and literally impossible to catch Federer in any less than 3. However, he could make good ground.​

Weeks at #1 -

Djokovic has 223. Federer has 310. He needs 87 to match Federer. If Djokovic gets #1 at Paris, he'll need to hold it until Cincinnati 2020 to match Roger. If he can dominate 2019, then that margin of 87 drops to 35.​

​

YE #1 -

This depends on this year. If Djokovic gets the #1 this year, then he ties Federer and surpasses Nadal. If he doesn't, that's what he's aiming for next year. If he does, he's looking to eclipse Federer and extend his lead over Nadal.​

​

Masters titles -

With Nadal at 33 and him at 31, the Master of Masters title is in contention during the whole year. If he can steal one or two on clay and perform well elsewhere, he's likely to regain the lead.​

​

YEC -

Another metric that depends on the end of this year. If Djokovic can win this year's YEC, then he ties Federer and looks to surpass him next year. If he fails, then 2019 will be the year he tries to equalize.​

​

H2H over rivals -

Seeing as he already holds the H2H lead, he'd just try to extend that or simply keep that lead. He may also want to equalize against Zverev and Kyrgios.​

​

​

Certainly the biggest thing to care about is slams next year. I have Djokovic pegged for 2 slams in 2019, but 1 wouldn't surprise me.

If Djokovic can bring something close to 2012-2014 form with the 2018 mindset, he is in good shape to win 2 slams, in my opinion. That could put him at 16 slams at 32 years old, compared to Nadal's 17 slams at 32 years old and Federer's 17 slams at 32 years old. However, that puts his pace similar to Nadal and Federer, with a strong showing for 2 years in a row.

Conversely, a showing with 0 slams probably means he's done. 1 slam might be good, but it would have to be an outlier and he'd need good years well into his 30s. 2 slams at least is what he should be aiming to get in 2019 if he wants to have a shot at GOAT status.

Why would he be done if he wins 0 slams next year? He will still only be 32 the year after, with likely Nadal and Federer gone by then or not long after.
Both of those guys are winning slams and going deep past 32. No reason why Djokovic would be 'done' if he didn't win a slam in 2019.

 

[KINGROGER]

Why would he be done if he wins 0 slams next year? He will still only be 32 the year after, with likely Nadal and Federer gone by then or not long after.
Both of those guys are winning slams and going deep past 32. No reason why Djokovic would be 'done' if he didn't win a slam in 2019.

Do you think Djokovic will maintain a high level from age 32-35 at the same time the nextgen and younger players won’t improve? I know we’ve been saying it forever but surely it can’t go on forever?

 

[NBP]

Yeah 2013 was Fed’s worst year / form since 2001 and 2014 was his first year adjusting to the new racket / he was old and had declined movement on clay which is where Stan beat him.

I mean Federer at his best. 2004-2009.

Even then Fed should have bagged that Monte Carlo title, huge regret for me personally. Would have been unreal to win that at 32.

 

[mike danny]

It's easy to make these claims that can in no way be proven

I may as well say Murray would beat peak Fed easily, and there's no real way of disproving it

Yes, there is. Check how Murray did in slams against him.

 

[CYGS]

Yes, there is. Check how Murray did in slams against him.

Seeing how baby Murray has 6-2 h2h against prime Fed, agreed.

 

[mike danny]

Seeing how baby Murray has 6-2 h2h against prime Fed, agreed.

Seeing how Fed has a 5-1 record against Murray in slams, you might want to re-think that.

 

[CYGS]

Seeing how Fed has a 5-1 record against Murray in slams, you might want to re-think that.

If slam h2h matters so much to you, you would know Djokodal > Fed.

 

[KINGROGER]

Seeing how baby Murray has 6-2 h2h against prime Fed, agreed.

The one match of real significance was a straight set demolition LOL. But fair play to Murray for scoring a few BO3 wins over Fed during a time period where he generally sucked outside of the slams.

 

[KINGROGER]

If slam h2h matters so much to you, you would know Djokodal > Fed.

Nadal at RG, certainly. The 3-0 on slow as clay AO doesn’t mean much when he has a 5 title deficit there.

Nole’s H2H doesn’t mean anything either. He has the edge at AO with his more concentrated dominance and 3-0 H2H... but 2-1 Wimbledon is irrelevant. Fed owned him while still playing close to prime tennis in 2012, and he has 4 extra titles. 3-0 for prime Fed at USO and he won their definitive RG encounter.

 

[CYGS]

Nadal at RG, certainly. The 3-0 on slow as clay AO doesn’t mean much when he has a 5 title deficit there.

Nole’s H2H doesn’t mean anything either. He has the edge at AO with his more concentrated dominance and 3-0 H2H... but 2-1 Wimbledon is irrelevant. Fed owned him while still playing close to prime tennis in 2012, and he has 4 extra titles. 3-0 for prime Fed at USO and he won their definitive RG encounter.

Just as Fed's first 12 slams don't mean sh¡t, but I don't need a wall of text to justify to you.

 

[KINGROGER]

Just as Fed's first 12 slams don't mean sh¡t, but I don't need a wall of text to justify to you.

If that’s the case, Nole’s last 8 slams don’t mean **** either as they were won in the weakest era in history (0 upcoming ATG talent LOL)

 

[jm1980]

Yes, there is. Check how Murray did in slams against him.

But it wasn't Peak Murray vs Peak Fed

 

[jm1980]

If that’s the case, Nole’s last 8 slams don’t mean **** either as they were won in the weakest era in history (0 upcoming ATG talent LOL)

Wouldn't that also invalidate Fed's last few Slams?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

But it wasn't Peak Murray vs Peak Fed

Murray was closer to his peak than Fed.

 

[GabeT]

Nadal at RG, certainly. The 3-0 on slow as clay AO doesn’t mean much when he has a 5 title deficit there.

Nole’s H2H doesn’t mean anything either. He has the edge at AO with his more concentrated dominance and 3-0 H2H... but 2-1 Wimbledon is irrelevant. Fed owned him while still playing close to prime tennis in 2012, and he has 4 extra titles. 3-0 for prime Fed at USO and he won their definitive RG encounter.

You’ve said this before and it’s not right. Fed has never owned Nole. Very tight h2H other than the very first four matches of peak Fed against teenaged Nole.

 

[KINGROGER]

But it wasn't Peak Murray vs Peak Fed

Peak Murray is 0-2 at Wimbledon to 31 and 33 year old Federer.

Wouldn't that also invalidate Fed's last few Slams?

Bit different when you’re a 35-36 year old but yeah. Everyone’s a weak era champ if we want to use that argument.

You’ve said this before and it’s not right. Fed has never owned Nole. Very tight h2H other than the very first four matches of peak Fed against teenaged Nole.

Very even but Nole’s slam advantage is courtesy of 4-0 vs 32-34 year old Federer. It may look different if Nole hadn’t ducked Fed at 09-10 AO, 09 RG/W. Also prime Fed did own Nole like 9-5 with 4-1 at majors, just as Nole mostly owned older Fed. Only difference is they played more matches after Fed’s prime than the former.

 

[TMF]

Just as Fed's first 12 slams don't mean sh¡t, but I don't need a wall of text to justify to you.

Slam titles is the most important criteria in player's placement in ATG.

Stop trolling !

 

[Deleted member 762343]

The thing is Djokovic has never had any major physical issue, he’s even less injury prone than Federer who is still able to perform well at 37. Yeah, anything can happen but I want to be optimistic. I think he will most likely win 2 GS in 2019 but I want to believe that he can win 3 GS or even win the calendar GS.

And even if he "only" wins 2 GS, who’s to say he won’t be able to perform better in 2020 or 2021 ? It will be hard and there’s a good chance it won’t happen but "unlikely" doesn’t mean "impossible", ATGs are ATGs because they can achieve a lot of things that seem very unlikely.

 

[jm1980]

Peak Murray is 0-2 at Wimbledon to 31 and 33 year old Federer.

Small sample size

Very even but Nole’s slam advantage is courtesy of 4-0 vs 32-34 year old Federer. It may look different if Nole hadn’t ducked Fed at 09-10 AO, 09 RG/W. Also prime Fed did own Nole like 9-5 with 4-1 at majors, just as Nole mostly owned older Fed. Only difference is they played more matches after Fed’s prime than the former.

Ducked? Djokovic was horrible in 09 and 10, he was losing to mugs left and right. I think he would have loved to be in shape to reach Fed

 

[The Fedfather]

The thing is Djokovic has never had any major physical issue, he’s even less injury prone than Federer who is still able to perform well at 37. Yeah, anything can happen but I want to be optimistic. I think he will most likely win 2 GS in 2019 but I want to believe that he can win 3 GS or even win the calendar GS.

And even if he "only" wins 2 GS, who’s to say he won’t be able to perform better in 2020 or 2021 ? It will be hard and there’s a good chance it won’t happen but "unlikely" doesn’t mean "impossible", ATGs are ATGs because they can achieve a lot of things that seem very unlikely.

Wasn't he struggling with an elbow injury for at least a year, and even longer according to Djokovic himself? And after all the time Novak spent recovering he still needed a small surgery to fix it.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Even then Fed should have bagged that Monte Carlo title, huge regret for me personally. Would have been unreal to win that at 32.

He had to reward Stan for his AO heroics

 

[Deleted member 762343]

Wasn't he struggling with an elbow injury for at least a year, and even longer according to Djokovic himself? And after all the time Novak spent recovering he still needed a small surgery to fix it.

I don’t think that was a major injury, his lack of motivation was the main issue in my opinion.

 

[NoleFam]

Nadal at RG, certainly. The 3-0 on slow as clay AO doesn’t mean much when he has a 5 title deficit there.

Nole’s H2H doesn’t mean anything either. He has the edge at AO with his more concentrated dominance and 3-0 H2H... but 2-1 Wimbledon is irrelevant. Fed owned him while still playing close to prime tennis in 2012, and he has 4 extra titles. 3-0 for prime Fed at USO and he won their definitive RG encounter.

So you're saying the only meetings that matter were the ones that Federer won?

Very even but Nole’s slam advantage is courtesy of 4-0 vs 32-34 year old Federer. It may look different if Nole hadn’t ducked Fed at 09-10 AO, 09 RG/W. Also prime Fed did own Nole like 9-5 with 4-1 at majors, just as Nole mostly owned older Fed. Only difference is they played more matches after Fed’s prime than the former.

Djokovic played 25-28 year old Federer from 2007-2009 5 times, played 29-30 year old Federer from 2010-2012 6 times, and played 32-34 year old Federer 4 times from 2014-2016. What you're saying doesn't make sense. Djokovic played older Federer less times than even the younger Federer in Slams.

 

[Sysyphus]

Like I already told @Sabratha, peak for peak I like Murray's chances against Fed on any surface

This calls for a new sig, at least for a little while, thanks.

 

[KINGROGER]

Small sample size


Ducked? Djokovic was horrible in 09 and 10, he was losing to mugs left and right. I think he would have loved to be in shape to reach Fed

Federer owns Murray at slams. He might take a set off prime Fed at AO that’s about it.

Fed no matter how past his best reached Nole 4 times. Nole when not at his best was losing to Roddick, Kohli, Haas, Istomin etc.

So you're saying the only meetings that matter were the ones that Federer won?

Djokovic played 25-28 year old Federer from 2007-2009 5 times, played 29-30 year old Federer from 2010-2012 6 times, and played 32-34 year old Federer 4 times from 2014-2016. What you're saying doesn't make sense. Djokovic played older Federer less times than even the younger Federer in Slams.

Slam meetings 2004-2009: 5
Slam meetings 2011-2016: 8

Why couldn’t Nole reach Federer at Wimbledon in 2004-2009? Or AO 2009-2010... RG 2009. Federer made 3 slam finals and another SF in 2014-2016 for a total of 4 slam meetings.

 

[NoleFam]

Federer owns Murray at slams. He might take a set off prime Fed at AO that’s about it.

Fed no matter how past his best reached Nole 4 times. Nole when not at his best was losing to Roddick, Kohli, Haas, Istomin etc.



Slam meetings 2004-2009: 5
Slam meetings 2011-2016: 8

Why couldn’t Nole reach Federer at Wimbledon in 2004-2009? Or AO 2009-2010... RG 2009. Federer made 3 slam finals and another SF in 2014-2016 for a total of 4 slam meetings.

2011 and 2012 do not deserve to be grouped with the latter years. Federer was 29 and 30 in those matches and still playing big time tennis. That's like me saying Djokovic of right now is irrelevant at 31 years old even though he most likely will be player of the year.

Djokovic didn't even play his 1st Slam until AO 2005 when he was 17. Why would he be playing Federer at Wimbledon in 2004-2006? 2007 he was in Nadal's half made it to the SF.

Djokovic played below par in 2009 and 2010 which is why he didn't make it to those matches but he still played Federer more times during that time than when Federer got older.

 

[KINGROGER]

2011 and 2012 do not deserve to be grouped with the latter years. Federer was 29 and 30 in those matches and still playing big time tennis. That's like me saying Djokovic of right now is irrelevant at 31 years old even though he most likely will be player of the year.

Djokovic didn't even play his 1st Slam until AO 2005 when he was 17. Why would he be playing Federer at Wimbledon in 2004-2006? 2007 he was in Nadal's half made it to the SF.

Djokovic played below par in 2009 and 2010 which is why he didn't make it to those matches but he still played Federer more times during that time than when Federer got older.

If we look at 2007-2012 Federer is 6-5. The difference is those 2014-2016 meetings. The equivalent would be 4 more meetings between them in 2007-2009 period but like you said Nole was below par so didn’t hold up his end of the bargain there.

So not sure why the slam H2H is brought up as some kind of “ownage”. 2011-2012 Fed playing some great tennis went 2-3 at slams vs peak Djokovic which could’ve easily been 3-2 but fine margins (2011 USO).

 

[NoleFam]

If we look at 2007-2012 Federer is 6-5. The difference is those 2014-2016 meetings. The equivalent would be 4 more meetings between them in 2007-2009 period but like you said Nole was below par so didn’t hold up his end of the bargain there.

So not sure why the slam H2H is brought up as some kind of “ownage”. 2011-2012 Fed playing some great tennis went 2-3 at slams vs peak Djokovic which could’ve easily been 3-2 but fine margins (2011 USO).

And 6-5 is close even though he played Djokovic 1 time at 19 years old and twice at 20 which is still young in tennis years. How would 4 more meetings in 2007-2009 be equivalent? That would be more than double the amount of times they met from 2014-2016.

I don't know if anyone here is saying it is ownage but you're choosing to recognize only the matches Federer won.

 

[mike danny]

If slam h2h matters so much to you, you would know Djokodal > Fed.

Not that black and white.

 

[KINGROGER]

And 6-5 is close even though he played Djokovic 1 time at 19 years old and twice at 20 which is still young in tennis years. How would 4 more meetings in 2007-2009 be equivalent? That would be more than double the amount of times they met from 2014-2016.

I don't know if anyone here is saying it is ownage but you're choosing to recognize only the matches Federer won.

Because Nole had the advantage in 2011-2012 despite Fed’s high level. Same with Federer in 2007-2009. They weren’t on even terms. It would be like 2004-2006 Fed getting 5 cracks at 2007-2010, 2018 Djokovic.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Not that black and white.

This is kind of unfair because he was replying to you quoting the fedurray slam h2h lol

 

[mike danny]

This is kind of unfair because he was replying to you quoting the fedurray slam h2h lol

True, but the Fedal and Fedovic slam matches have been close. The Fedray slam matches haven't.

There is no basis for saying Muray would do well against peak Fed.