A big reason why Djokovic is still behind in the slam race

[martinezownsclay]

IMO, a big reason why Novak is still behind in the slam race is him winning only 1 of the 6 slams in which he didn't face an in-form ATG. These slams are from Novak's best years of 2011-2016 (I excluded USO 2016 for obvious reasons): USO 2012, AO 2013, Wimb 2013, AO 2014, USO 2014 and FO 2015.

Out of these Novak only won AO 2013 and he was inches away from losing this one as well.

For a guy of his caliber, these slams are slams he should win, IMO. But worst case scenario, he should've won 3 of 4 of these instead of just 1. These losses have proven to be consequential when the slam leader is a guy who almost never messes up when there's a slam he should win.

Off topic to your point, but I guess this confirms you don't consider Murray an ATG. I don't either for the record (I do consider him a great player, but not quite an ATG), just that is an interesting thing as it would definitely get some debate here. My bar for an ATG though is pretty high, I generally go with Becker/Edberg level as the bottom. Some go with Courier level, but even that might be slightly over Murray.

Back to your point yes for sure. Nadal and Federer generally never let those kind of situations/opportunities slip by. When they reached the very end they only ever lost slams to other Big 3 members. Wawrinka and Murray generally could never win their slams over Federer or Nadal (minus the 2014 Australian Open, and even that had a situation of sorts, and not getting into an extensive discussion about that), and had to rely on winning them over Djokovic instead. Which is a negative for him. He was not as intense as he needed to be against the best of the non ATG challengers. And that is indeed the true reason he trails Nadal in slams today, even if had he gotten vaccinated, he still might not.

 

[BladeDaywalker]

These are some of the Grand Slam that Novak had a good chance of winning:

2013 French Open Semfinal: He touched the Net at 4-3, 40-40 in the 5th Set when he had won the point to set up game point. That was as flukiest as an event that could have ever happened.

2013 Wimbledon: He is up 4-2 in both the second and third set and Murray managed to break him to win. He was serving to go up 5-2 in both sets. In the second set, he had game point to go up 5-2 but Murray hit an amazing return that Novak couldn't get to. He was in position to win that match.

2013 US Open Final- In the third set, he was up 40-0 when it was tied 4-4. He get the break and is serving for the set. If he won the third set, he would have won the match due to the momentum of the match.

2014 Australian Open: He broke Stan to take a 2-1 lead in the 5th Set and was just coming of a dominant 4th Set that he won 6-3. He was in charge at that point.

2016 US Open Final: He was as fresh and healthy as he could have been heading into the final. With the walkovers and retirements that he got in that tournament, that was going to be the easiest Grand Slam that he could have gotten. He won the first set against Stan and the second and third set could have gone his way when you look at how close it was.

Also, the 2015 French Open Final is interesting. In the 4th set, Novak was up 40-0, 4-3 with three breaks point. He could have won that 4th set and taken it to a 5th set which could have changed that Final. It wasn't like Stan blew him out in the 4th set and he never had a chance to put himself in position to win the match.

 

[Kralingen]

You've been messing with people's heads for a while now so obviously the punishment will need to be consistent to that.

1. Locked up with a computer where you will only type the truth and nothing but the truth.

2. As to dues, I will tie you up to a chair and make you confess of your past sins on a weekly basis.

@Mainad is this acceptable?

 

[Zara]

@Mainad is this acceptable?

Yea, that alone won't cut it. You need to change your avatar to Pete and confess that Agassi was all image when Pete was all tennis.

 

[prosperned]

So if you swapped draw and Stan got matched with Nadal in the QF, would that redeem Novak because he either lost to Wawrinka later or simply got to face Nadal?

Sounds like a strange argument, fact is Stan beat both and he was up a set and a break before Nadal's movement went away. That's on both guys losing to him.

You can’t be serious. We all know Nadal tweaked his back before the match even began.

Stan was Nadal’s pigeon. Such a disappointing and unlucky loss. But made up for it and more this January.

Isn’t Stan the only ‘upset’ of Nadal? He’s beaten anyone not Fed or Djoko in a slam final outside of that match

 

[martinezownsclay]

These are some of the Grand Slam that Novak had a good chance of winning:

2013 French Open Semfinal: He touched the Net at 4-3, 40-40 in the 5th Set when he had won the point to set up game point. That was as flukiest as an event that could have ever happened.

2013 Wimbledon: He is up 4-2 in both the second and third set and Murray managed to break him to win. He was serving to go up 5-2 in both sets. In the second set, he had game point to go up 5-2 but Murray hit an amazing return that Novak couldn't get to. He was in position to win that match.

2013 US Open Final- In the third set, he was up 40-0 when it was tied 4-4. He get the break and is serving for the set. If he won the third set, he would have won the match due to the momentum of the match.

2014 Australian Open: He broke Stan to take a 2-1 lead in the 5th Set and was just coming of a dominant 4th Set that he won 6-3. He was in charge at that point.

2016 US Open Final: He was as fresh and healthy as he could have been heading into the final. With the walkovers and retirements that he got in that tournament, that was going to be the easiest Grand Slam that he could have gotten. He won the first set against Stan and the second and third set could have gone his way when you look at how close it was.

Also, the 2015 French Open Final is interesting. In the 4th set, Novak was up 40-0, 4-3 with three breaks point. He could have won that 4th set and taken it to a 5th set which could have changed that Final. It wasn't like Stan blew him out in the 4th set and he never had a chance to put himself in position to win the match.

He absolutely never deserved to win the 2013 French. Look at the stats of that match and you will see what I mean. Nadal way ahead in winners, many fewer unforced errors, way ahead in points won. The real fluke he was even close to winning that match in the first place, and it would have been a laughable result really had it happened.

Otherwise mostly agree but picturing a world he never loses to Wawrinka in a slam given how much trouble he has with him in general in best of 5 (even in many of his wins) and wins all 4 slams in 2013 which he couldn't even do in 2011, 2015, 2021 when he was both far superior over the field compared to 2013 is a giant leap in imagination. Heck even winning 3 slams in 2013 when that is all he won in those other years where he was clearly much more dominant over the field than he ever was for a moment in 2013 would be a stretch. I would say a good scenario for him would be winning 2 slams in each of 2012, 2013, or 2014, instead of 1 each time, or maybe 3 in 2014 since while his form wasn't amazing that year, that was a weak year in general for the mens game.

I think events like 2014 US Open or 2012 US Open are much bigger missed opportunities than many of the ones you listed. He was far closer to beating Murray in the 2012 US Open final than the 2013 Wimbledon final for instance, and it is not like Murray beating him on grass, where up until Djokovic's 3rd Wimbledon or so most would have considered Murray superior on actually is that surprising. And beating Nishikori and his pigeon Cilic back to back (even with Cilic in his fabulous form) to win the Open should have been easy, much easier than ever winning an entire series of hard to win slam matches in 2013, and beating Wawrinka everytime they met in a slam in this new reality, LOL!

 

[BladeDaywalker]

No, it couldn't. I just knew Nadal was going to lose every big point and miss all of his chances. His mentality is the main reason why he lost this match. (the roof and Djokovic's servebotting were other reasons) If that's not a missed opportunity then I don't know what is. The only worse loss was AO 2014.

You literally think that Nadal is going to lose every single match he play.

In every single match thread, you predict that Nadal has no shot of winning the tournament.

You make it seem like Nadal is washed up and should retire after every match.

Just look at your posting history at this French Open.

 

[Kralingen]

Yea, that alone won't cut it. You need to change your avatar to Pete and confess that Agassi was all image when Pete was all tennis.

Pete was better than the Big 3 at his peak.

Andre though is the most interesting player in the sport's history. PETE, on the other hand, one of the top 3 most boring.

 

[Mustard]

Pete was better than the Big 3 at his peak.

Andre though is the most interesting player in the sport's history. PETE, on the other hand, one of the top 3 most boring.

Not if you watch Sampras vs. Courier at the 1995 Australian Open. Epic in every sense.

 

[StrongRule]

You literally think that Nadal is going to lose every single match he play.

In every single match thread, you predict that Nadal has no shot of winning the tournament.

You make it seem like Nadal is washed up and should retire after every match.

Just look at your posting history at this French Open.

I was right about Wimbledon 2018. He lost all the big points.

 

[StrongRule]

These are some of the Grand Slam that Novak had a good chance of winning:

2013 French Open Semfinal: He touched the Net at 4-3, 40-40 in the 5th Set when he had won the point to set up game point. That was as flukiest as an event that could have ever happened.

2013 Wimbledon: He is up 4-2 in both the second and third set and Murray managed to break him to win. He was serving to go up 5-2 in both sets. In the second set, he had game point to go up 5-2 but Murray hit an amazing return that Novak couldn't get to. He was in position to win that match.

2013 US Open Final- In the third set, he was up 40-0 when it was tied 4-4. He get the break and is serving for the set. If he won the third set, he would have won the match due to the momentum of the match.

2014 Australian Open: He broke Stan to take a 2-1 lead in the 5th Set and was just coming of a dominant 4th Set that he won 6-3. He was in charge at that point.

2016 US Open Final: He was as fresh and healthy as he could have been heading into the final. With the walkovers and retirements that he got in that tournament, that was going to be the easiest Grand Slam that he could have gotten. He won the first set against Stan and the second and third set could have gone his way when you look at how close it was.

Also, the 2015 French Open Final is interesting. In the 4th set, Novak was up 40-0, 4-3 with three breaks point. He could have won that 4th set and taken it to a 5th set which could have changed that Final. It wasn't like Stan blew him out in the 4th set and he never had a chance to put himself in position to win the match.

It's not like he did anything wrong on these break points. Wawrinka won all 3 points himself. Djokovic did miss a chance when he had a BP to break back in the last game though.

 

[Sport]

Damn hippies!

The Big Three Hippies!

 

[mike danny]

The Big Three Hippies!

Man, how tall is that woman in black clothing?

 

[mike danny]

He absolutely never deserved to win the 2013 French. Look at the stats of that match and you will see what I mean. Nadal way ahead in winners, many fewer unforced errors, way ahead in points won. The real fluke he was even close to winning that match in the first place, and it would have been a laughable result really had it happened.

Otherwise mostly agree but picturing a world he never loses to Wawrinka in a slam given how much trouble he has with him in general in best of 5 (even in many of his wins) and wins all 4 slams in 2013 which he couldn't even do in 2011, 2015, 2021 when he was both far superior over the field compared to 2013 is a giant leap in imagination. Heck even winning 3 slams in 2013 when that is all he won in those other years where he was clearly much more dominant over the field than he ever was for a moment in 2013 would be a stretch. I would say a good scenario for him would be winning 2 slams in each of 2012, 2013, or 2014, instead of 1 each time, or maybe 3 in 2014 since while his form wasn't amazing that year, that was a weak year in general for the mens game.

I think events like 2014 US Open or 2012 US Open are much bigger missed opportunities than many of the ones you listed. He was far closer to beating Murray in the 2012 US Open final than the 2013 Wimbledon final for instance, and it is not like Murray beating him on grass, where up until Djokovic's 3rd Wimbledon or so most would have considered Murray superior on actually is that surprising. And beating Nishikori and his pigeon Cilic back to back (even with Cilic in his fabulous form) to win the Open should have been easy, much easier than ever winning an entire series of hard to win slam matches in 2013, and beating Wawrinka everytime they met in a slam in this new reality, LOL!

In 2021 he was superior over the field because the field was weak. Just like Nadal this year.

 

[martinezownsclay]

In 2021 he was superior over the field because the field was weak. Just like Nadal this year.

ITA on that. I wasn't meaning his level was higher in 2021 than 2013. Just that he was much more dominant over the field than in 2013. Obviously 2011 and 2015 his level was both higher overall and higher to the field than 2013 (and the first half of 2016 too).

 

[MichaelNadal]

I forgive Murray for beating Novak

 

[mike danny]

ITA on that. I wasn't meaning his level was higher in 2021 than 2013. Just that he was much more dominant over the field than in 2013. Obviously 2011 and 2015 his level was both higher overall and higher to the field than 2013 (and the first half of 2016 too).

Well, yes, because the difference in fields between 2013 and 2021 is like night and day.

And I'm not just talking about the presence of a peak Nadal, but dangerous 2nd tiers like Murray, Stan and Delpo that did not exist in 2021.

 

[wang07]

Good thread. That 2012 RG-2014 USO stretch was indeed strange, Djokovic totally lost his clutchness, at one point I started questioning his mental strength and thought he was heavily overrated. There really was no signs that he would ever get back to that 2011 insane peak level again. I have no issues with RG '15 as it's such an outlier of a performance by Stanimal that there's not much you can do. It happens. Similar to Fed AO05.

2014 Wimby was so pivotal, there's a good reason why Djokovic cited that match several times for how important and special it was. At that point he was practically at rock bottom mentally, which almost resulted in the biggest choke ever. If Fed was a bit more clutch and managed to steal that match.. Well, that could've been the final straw.

Djokovic in Slam finals prior to Wimbledon 2014: 6-7 (46,1%)
Since Wimbledon 2014: 14-4 (77,8%)

You can argue the competition was sharper in the first period but it's still a significant difference. 2014 Wimbledon probably saved Djokovic from a total mental collapse, had he lost that match he would've never been in the GOAT/Slam race.

 

[Mike Sams]

IMO, a big reason why Novak is still behind in the slam race is him winning only 1 of the 6 slams in which he didn't face an in-form ATG. These slams are from Novak's best years of 2011-2016 (I excluded USO 2016 for obvious reasons): USO 2012, AO 2013, Wimb 2013, AO 2014, USO 2014 and FO 2015.

Out of these Novak only won AO 2013 and he was inches away from losing this one as well.

For a guy of his caliber, these slams are slams he should win, IMO. But worst case scenario, he should've won 3 of 4 of these instead of just 1. These losses have proven to be consequential when the slam leader is a guy who almost never messes up when there's a slam he should win.

You mean there are Slams that Nadal shouldn't win?
Nadal's a top 2 favourite in every major alongside Djokovic.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Murray is legit. Stan is not. Too bad Nole let this guy win a slam.

Murray is an ATG and Stan was a pair of shorts... Stylish, refreshing, and fun, but you would never wear them to an important event.

 

[MichaelNadal]

You mean there are Slams that Nadal shouldn't win?
Nadal's a top 2 favourite in every major alongside Djokovic.

Mikeyyyyy what are your thoughts on the FO?

 

[ElChivoEspañol]

*insert Rafa’s IF meme here.

 

[Mainad]

@Mainad is this acceptable?

 

[Zara]

Pete was better than the Big 3 at his peak.

Andre though is the most interesting player in the sport's history. PETE, on the other hand, one of the top 3 most boring.

PETE is not boring, you baldy fan. He's cool. Very, very cool.

Andre is obnoxious.

 

[JasonZ]

These are some of the Grand Slam that Novak had a good chance of winning:

2013 French Open Semfinal: He touched the Net at 4-3, 40-40 in the 5th Set when he had won the point to set up game point. That was as flukiest as an event that could have ever happened.

2013 Wimbledon: He is up 4-2 in both the second and third set and Murray managed to break him to win. He was serving to go up 5-2 in both sets. In the second set, he had game point to go up 5-2 but Murray hit an amazing return that Novak couldn't get to. He was in position to win that match.

2013 US Open Final- In the third set, he was up 40-0 when it was tied 4-4. He get the break and is serving for the set. If he won the third set, he would have won the match due to the momentum of the match.

2014 Australian Open: He broke Stan to take a 2-1 lead in the 5th Set and was just coming of a dominant 4th Set that he won 6-3. He was in charge at that point.

2016 US Open Final: He was as fresh and healthy as he could have been heading into the final. With the walkovers and retirements that he got in that tournament, that was going to be the easiest Grand Slam that he could have gotten. He won the first set against Stan and the second and third set could have gone his way when you look at how close it was.

Also, the 2015 French Open Final is interesting. In the 4th set, Novak was up 40-0, 4-3 with three breaks point. He could have won that 4th set and taken it to a 5th set which could have changed that Final. It wasn't like Stan blew him out in the 4th set and he never had a chance to put himself in position to win the match.

djokovic had much more slams where he could have lost and still won them

 

[TheNachoMan]

Yea, that alone won't cut it. You need to change your avatar to Pete and confess that Agassi was all image when Pete was all tennis.

Agassi is more entertaining to watch
Also a more interesting person in general. They could make a movie about Andre, not Pete.

 

[JasonZ]

Good thread. That 2012 RG-2014 USO stretch was indeed strange, Djokovic totally lost his clutchness, at one point I started questioning his mental strength and thought he was heavily overrated. There really was no signs that he would ever get back to that 2011 insane peak level again. I have no issues with RG '15 as it's such an outlier of a performance by Stanimal that there's not much you can do. It happens. Similar to Fed AO05.

2014 Wimby was so pivotal, there's a good reason why Djokovic cited that match several times for how important and special it was. At that point he was practically at rock bottom mentally, which almost resulted in the biggest choke ever. If Fed was a bit more clutch and managed to steal that match.. Well, that could've been the final straw.

Djokovic in Slam finals prior to Wimbledon 2014: 6-7 (46,1%)
Since Wimbledon 2014: 14-4 (77,8%)

You can argue the competition was sharper in the first period but it's still a significant difference. 2014 Wimbledon probably saved Djokovic from a total mental collapse, had he lost that match he would've never been in the GOAT/Slam race.

i think us open is the one tournament where djokovic underperformed. just 3 wins of 9 finals, this is what costs him maybe the lead in the slam race. that 2014 semifinal loss against nishikori is worse than all others of prime djokovic.

 

[Zara]

Agassi is more entertaining to watch
Also a more interesting person in general. They could make a movie about Andre, not Pete.

He's not even remotely interesting. I am not even sure what makes him interesting given how obnoxious he is. Maybe he got better with age now.

But I noticed boring people like Agassi and cool or interesting people like Pete.

PUT ME ON IGNORE FOR GOD'S SAKE!

 

[TheNachoMan]

He's not even remotely interesting. I am not even sure what makes him interesting given how obnoxious he is. Maybe he got better with age now.

But I noticed boring people like Agassi and cool or interesting people like Pete.

PUT ME ON IGNORE FOR GOD'S SAKE!

But variety is the spice of life, and I like talking with you. Maybe you’ll have to put me on ignore.

 

[TheNachoMan]

My moms favorite players are Agassi and Nadal. I don’t think Zara would like her.

 

[Zara]

But variety is the spice of life, and I like talking with you. Maybe you’ll have to put me on ignore.

How about for one day? I really want to rule your Ignore list given that it's empty. We need to create memories and you & I will remember this forever.

 

[Zara]

My moms favorite players are Agassi and Nadal. I don’t think Zara would like her.

Eww.

We aren't getting hitched any time soon, no. Won't be able to stomach such a mother in law with such bad tastes.

 

[Kralingen]

PETE is not boring, you baldy fan. He's cool. Very, very cool.

Andre is obnoxious.

Andre was pushed into being obnoxious more than he was innately obnoxious imo. He had to grow up in the American spotlight, shed the domineering parents, and molt into an actual adult from nothing. He was a rebel at heart and had innate charisma that no tennis player has ever come close to. He was a phenomenon without even trying, his style was effortless and iconic.

And yes his image was everything. I admit it. David Foster Wallace similarly thought he was putting it all on and was secretly an *******. I think that could be a fair reading. It could be jealousy, but it probably is fair - Andre was a bit of a brat who was stunted and didn’t know who he was. Pete hated Andre though, more than Dre hated Pete. I think deep down Pete was jealous of the fake and acclaim Agassi had and that’s why he tried to crush him so hard on the court.

If only I had been alive during their rivalry instead of either unborn or a toddler. I like both of them way more than I like any of the Big 3.

 

[TheNachoMan]

How about for one day? I really want to rule your Ignore list given that it's empty. We need to create memories and you & I will remember this forever.

I am extremely tolerant and loving, like Pepe Imaz. I won’t ignore or toss someone aside for something so trivial. You have to be really evil.
Hating cats is pretty close, though.

 

[duaneeo]

I've discussed this often:

Djokovic should have dominated mens tennis in 2012, 2013, and 2014 as he did in 2011, and he would have if he had played in 2012, 2013, and 2014 as he did in 2011.

But we're talking young, peak Djokovic. Even with Nadal hampered during parts of 2012/2013/2014, Nole failed to maintain the dominance of 2011...allowing Federer to temporarily retain the #1 ranking in 2012, Nadal to be the YE#1 in 2013 (even without playing the AO), and Murray, Wawrinka, and Cilic to become slam winners.

The superior player should've won a minimum of 7-8 slams 2012-2014, but won three; the superior player should've won the CYGS in 2015, but failed to win RG after taking out Rafa; the superior player should've won 2016 WB, but lost to Querrey.

This is why Nole will never be considered greater than Nadal or Federer. NextGen, peak, and prime Nole all together failed to surpass or tie the slam, weeks-at-#1, or YE#1 records. Post-prime Nole was able to only because the competition had fallen to no-hope levels.

 

[mtommer]

Woulda, coulda, shoulda....but didn't. Oh, and don't forget 2022 FO. He was "supposed" to win that too. Weird how opponents just don't roll over like they should...

 

[Zara]

I am extremely tolerant and loving, like Pepe Imaz. I won’t ignore or toss someone aside for something so trivial. You have to be really evil.
Hating cats is pretty close, though.

I don't hate cats. They are just evil. I do wonder about cat owners though.

 

[Zara]

Andre was pushed into being obnoxious more than he was innately obnoxious imo. He had to grow up in the American spotlight, shed the domineering parents, and molt into an actual adult from nothing. He was a rebel at heart and had innate charisma that no tennis player has ever come close to. He was a phenomenon without even trying, his style was effortless and iconic.

And yes his image was everything. I admit it. David Foster Wallace similarly thought he was putting it all on and was secretly an *******. I think that could be a fair reading. It could be jealousy, but it probably is fair - Andre was a bit of a brat who was stunted and didn’t know who he was. Pete hated Andre though, more than Dre hated Pete. I think deep down Pete was jealous of the fake and acclaim Agassi had and that’s why he tried to crush him so hard on the court.

If only I had been alive during their rivalry instead of either unborn or a toddler. I like both of them way more than I like any of the Big 3.

He was a brat. Regardless how he was brought up he could have chosen to be a good person. I don't think Pete is truly capable of hating anyone let alone Andre. That would be saying like Federer hated Murray because he seemed to be so pumped up every time he played Andy at Wimbledon. As if he wanted to show who's the boss by slaughtering the home favourite etc. in front of an emotional crowd. Nole was much better and I am sure he was aware of public's emotion too and it's no wonder that Andy's first Wimbledon victory came at the hand of the Great Nole, because I don't think either Federer or Nadal would have been that person but I am getting off topic here.

Anyway, no Pete didn't hate Andre. Quite the contrary. Because Andre took pot shots at him every time he got a chance but Pete was always calm about it. But he enjoyed the rivalry because it made their matches alive and Pete enjoyed it, and the crowd loved it. Though I was taking baby steps to tennis sometimes in the mid 90s, I still vaguely remember some of their matches from the late 90s and thereafter. Personally, I feel Pete saw Andre as his spoiled younger brother so he wanted to show his superiority over him. If you go back to 1990 USO final, when the rivalry didn't exist, Pete still came through over Andre in straight when there was no such emotion involved. Pete was just a better player that Andre fans had a lot of trouble adjusting or so I felt over the years.