Can Djokovic be considered a late bloomer?

[Rafa4LifeEver]

In general, players who are not into their prime until turning 21/22 are considered to be late bloomers in their respective levels.
For example; Nadal, Hewitt, Zverev etc can be considered early bloomers; whereas Federer, Thiem, Murray etc can be considered late bloomers.

I wonder what can be the case for Novak Djokovic?

There are people who claim that he can be considered a late bloomer because he became a serious contender only since 2011
On the other hand, there are people who say that he was a factor well before he turned 21, so he can't be considered a late bloomer.

In your opinion, which of the above is true?

 

[ffw2]

Early zoomer.

 

[weakera]

Early bloomer, just not good enough to overcome the best until 2011

 

[Cortana]

Late bloomer. Won 5/6 slams in 2015/2016 and dominated even more than 2011.

 

[Rafa4LifeEver]

Early zoomer.

@TW Staff I made a mistake in thread title, please correct it to "early bloomer" instead of "early boomer"

 

[Rafa4LifeEver]

Early bloomer, just not good enough to overcome the best until 2011

2 slam semis, 1 final, 1 title, 3 masters 1000, top3 ranking before turning 21.
Yes I'd consider him an early bloomer too.

 

[initialize]

Early bloomer, just not good enough to overcome the best until 2011

This.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

Early bloomer, just not good enough to overcome the best until 2011

2021*... Evolution, remember.

 

[UnforcedTerror]

Didn't he become #1 at 24? Late bloomer for sure.

 

[Sampras-Bruguera 1993]

Then we have those bums that never “bloom” at all LOL.

I would say a late bloomer. Mainly due to hisgluten issues or whatever. He didn’t get it going until he 24. It’s amazing he’s won as much as he did considering that. As most big time slam winners start dominating 20-22. But he has easily turned into the best player ever in his 30s

 

[Tennfan123]

Early bloomer, just not good enough to overcome the best until 2011

This

 

[Tennfan123]

Then we have those bums that never “bloom” at all LOL.

I would say a late bloomer. Mainly due to hisgluten issues or whatever. He didn’t get it going until he 24. It’s amazing he’s won as much as he did considering that. As most big time slam winners start dominating 20-22. But he has easily turned into the best player ever in his 30s

It’s not that amazing.
I’d suggest a googling of a term you may have read here before. Weak era.

 

[D.Nalby12]

Early Bloomer. But he had some health issues before 2011 and the competition he faced was too tough to win more slams. Remove Fedal - he would win at least 3 more Slams during during 2008-10.

 

[Rudiiii]

Early bloomer, thanks to breathing problems couldn't show his potential in bo5 till late 2010

 

[aldeayeah]

Early bloomer, but a rare case where he kept polishing his game (mostly fitness, serve and tactics)

 

[Biotic]

Early Bloomer. But he had some health issues before 2011 and the competition he faced was too tough to win more slams. Remove Fedal - he would win at least 3 more Slams during during 2008-10.

Additionally, remove GOATdick and BerdGOAT - he would win at least 6 more Slams during during 2008-10.

 

[Kralingen]

I can’t in good conscience call a guy who won a Slam in such dominant fashion as AO 08 and outplayed prime Fed in 5/6 sets in HC Slams at age 20 a “late bloomer”

 

[NoleFam]

Djokovic is the youngest player in history to make the SF of all 4 Slams, so no.

 

[Hypo Crisis]

Not more than Fed.

 

[Born_to_slice]

Novak was well accomplished early in his career, in spite of his health issues. But he has incredibly high ceiling so he just kept getting better with work. If he added someone like Becker a bit earlier he'd win several more slams in 2012-2014 period.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

2011 was where he reached his peak and he was 24, so you could say a late bloomer for sure.

OTOH, Djokovic in mid 2007-mid 2008 was a really great player and accomplished great things despite Federer and Nadal being around. You could say he had "bloomed" there too, regardless of the slump in 2009/2010.

But given he started winning slams consistently in 2011, I'd say a late bloomer, yeah.

 

[Rafa4LifeEver]

Djokovic is the youngest player in history to make the SF of all 4 Slams, so no.

Vote in the poll

 

[Rafa4LifeEver]

Djokovic is the youngest player in history to make the SF of all 4 Slams, so no.

On the other hand, do you think that Alcaraz can break his record?

 

[GabeT]

On the other hand, do you think that Alcaraz can break his record?

Good question

 

[NoleFam]

On the other hand, do you think that Alcaraz can break his record?

Maybe but grass will probably be the hardest for him.

 

[RS]

On the other hand, do you think that Alcaraz can break his record?

I don't but lets see.

 

[Third Serve]

he peaked in 2010 it’s just been downhill from there

 

[Rafa4LifeEver]

Maybe but grass will probably be the hardest for him.

True that. Although I do tend to think that he could've made the QF this year had he been clutch in the 4th set against Sinner. The Italian was running on fumes.

 

[Rafa4LifeEver]

I don't but lets see.

1 down, 3 to go.

 

[NoleFam]

True that. Although I do tend to think that he could've made the QF this year had he been clutch in the 4th set against Sinner. The Italian was running on fumes.

He couldn't return Sinner's serve and that's the weakest part of his game on grass. That's why I think that surface will be the toughest for him.

 

[RaulRamirez]

Neither?
I would consider Wawrinka a late bloomer - not Djoker.

 

[The Fedfather]

He was a flunctuating bloomer. Part early, part late. Mostly late though, I'd say, because he didn't fully bloom until 2011, at 24 y.o. which is a tad later than most athletes.

 

[NatF]

Early bloomer who then slumped and reached his full potential later.

 

[dr325i]

Early bloomer, just not good enough to overcome the best until 2011

But last 12 years, he’s been toying with them with the exception of Nadal on clay only…

+10 overall (15:2 on non-clay) on Nadal (same age) H2H since 2011
+12 overall on Federer H2H since 2011

+22 H2H vs Federer and Nadal since 2011.

Rivalry domination never seen in history of the sport

 

[The Blond Blur]

He was winning MS1000’s at age 19, making and winning schlem F’s at 20, won the YEC and finished 10 points shy of the #2 ranking at the age of 21. He was an early bloomer for sure. He just ran up against prime/peak Fedal and had to wait 3 years before he could take over.

 

[Nadal_Django]

Crazy how Bullzillions now sounds exactly the same like the Maestronians circa 2008-2009 and onwards.

 

[thrust]

In general, players who are not into their prime until turning 21/22 are considered to be late bloomers in their respective levels.
For example; Nadal, Hewitt, Zverev etc can be considered early bloomers; whereas Federer, Thiem, Murray etc can be considered late bloomers.

I wonder what can be the case for Novak Djokovic?

There are people who claim that he can be considered a late bloomer because he became a serious contender only since 2011
On the other hand, there are people who say that he was a factor well before he turned 21, so he can't be considered a late bloomer.

In your opinion, which of the above is true?

Nadal was an early bloomer, Federer late, Novak, in between.

 

[MeatTornado]

Just because he got even better later doesn't mean he wasn't an early bloomer.

 

[Biotic]

Just because he got even better later doesn't mean he wasn't an early bloomer.

He got a lot worse before he got better tho.

 

[BeatlesFan]

He won a slam at age 20. No way could he ever be considered a late bloomer. 30-40 years ago, yes. In those days you had Boris, Chang and Wilander win slams at 17, but those days are gone.

 

[MeatTornado]

He got a lot worse before he got better tho.

It's overblown. He made some clear mistakes with his game and coaching after his 07-08 breakthrough, but even during his "worse" period he still finished #3 both times in 09-10. It's not like he fell off the map.

 

[duaneeo]

In comparison to Nadal and Federer, Nole is a late bloomer in winning slams consistently.

 

[Rafa4LifeEver]

He won a slam at age 20. No way could he ever be considered a late bloomer. 30-40 years ago, yes. In those days you had Boris, Chang and Wilander win slams at 17, but those days are gone.

Interesting take.

 

[Genie Of the Bank]

Early bloomer, he lost 2 years because he switch his racket from Wilson to Head and lost two years 2009-2010 results wise.

His endorsement contract with Wilson was expiring at the end of 2008, and Head was (wisely) willing to pay him more money to switch back over.

 

[Rafa4LifeEver]

It's overblown. He made some clear mistakes with his game and coaching after his 07-08 breakthrough, but even during his "worse" period he still finished #3 both times in 09-10. It's not like he fell off the map.

2009 is definitely not bad season for Noval, he went toe to toe with Rafa at clay masters and did pretty good indoors too.

 

[Biotic]

It's overblown. He made some clear mistakes with his game and coaching after his 07-08 breakthrough, but even during his "worse" period he still finished #3 both times in 09-10. It's not like he fell off the map.

Hie finished #3 on consistency alone. Even got to #2 in early 2010, courtesy of ROFLMAO field. 2009 wasn't the worst, but he finished with only 1 slam SF, too many bad losses and a losing h2h vs Top 10. 2010 was the worst, with USO Federer being his first Top 10 win.

Overall, in 2009-2010 he made 1 slam final, 2 slam semis and won 1 Masters. I mean 2012-2013 Ferrer did better in a stronger field.

 

[GabeT]

Answer it, boomer.

Let’s see. Can Alcaraz become the youngest to reach at least SFs at all slams? If I’ve calculated correctly he would need to reach SFs of the next 3 slams (AO to WB). Not impossible but a tall order, since he’s not been very consistent. So I would vote no.

A separate but related question is, if he did do it would it be a great accomplishment? I have mixed feelings about this. The Big 3 have all kinds of records (Fed’s SF streak, Nadal’s longevity, Novak’s youngest to reach all 4 slam SF) but I think those are valuable in the context of how much they won. Imagine those same records but instead of 20+ slams having reached, say, only 2-3 slams. In that case those records would likely be seen in a different light, more of a “missed opportunity “.

 

[NoleFam]

Let’s see. Can Alcaraz become the youngest to reach at least SFs at all slams? If I’ve calculated correctly he would need to reach SFs of the next 3 slams (AO to WB). Not impossible but a tall order, since he’s not been very consistent. So I would vote no.

A separate but related question is, if he did do it would it be a great accomplishment? I have mixed feelings about this. The Big 3 have all kinds of records (Fed’s SF streak, Nadal’s longevity, Novak’s youngest to reach all 4 slam SF) but I think those are valuable in the context of how much they won. Imagine those same records but instead of 20+ slams having reached, say, only 2-3 slams. In that case those records would likely be seen in a different light, more of a “missed opportunity “.

I think he can miss it at AO but has to make the SF of RG and Wimbledon in 2023. If he does that and makes the SF at AO 2024, I think he would break Djokovic's record by a couple of weeks. So yea doable but a tall order either way.

 

[itrium84]

In general, players who are not into their prime until turning 21/22 are considered to be late bloomers in their respective levels.
For example; Nadal, Hewitt, Zverev etc can be considered early bloomers; whereas Federer, Thiem, Murray etc can be considered late bloomers.

I wonder what can be the case for Novak Djokovic?

There are people who claim that he can be considered a late bloomer because he became a serious contender only since 2011
On the other hand, there are people who say that he was a factor well before he turned 21, so he can't be considered a late bloomer.

In your opinion, which of the above is true?

If you're asking about ATG Djokovic, then he is an early bloomer.
If you're asking about GOAT Djokovic, then he is late bloomer.

 

[TripleATeam]

Depends on what the "bloom" is. He came onto the scene in a big way in 2007, I'd consider that a bloom, similar to Zverev's 2017. By that standard, it's early. But if you're talking when he hit his peak for the first time, relatively late.

The best analogy I have is that he had a small but effective toolbox and wasn't a handyman yet. Took a bit of experimentation, then he finally understood how to use the tools and added a couple more.