Context On Djokovic

P

prefab

New User
While we are still in the throws of debating the greatest and "betterness" of Djokovic, Federer, and Nadal, since the Wimbledon Final; I wanted to provide a little context for Djokovic's relative dominance since 2011. When Djokovic won his FIRST major in 2008 (AusOpen), Roger Federer had 12 Majors. Now pay attention to this next part, because it's quite eye opening... When Djokovic finally won his SECOND Major in 2011 (AusOpen), Roger Federer had 16 Majors!! and Nadal had 9!! This is very very telling. Federer was 30, with more majors than anyone in history, and Nadal was in the middle of his utter clay court dominance with 2 lifetimes worth of tennis miles on his legs. At this time, Djokovic was emerging into his absolute prime of mid 20's with a more solid tennis game than we'd ever seen. There is no way to take that away from him, but the above has to provide a little context into his major tally from 2011. Could we really expect Federer or Nadal to keep winning at the same clip? NO, and there are many factors to this... age, hunger, life, a player like Djokovic, and etc. So... we really can't say for sure what this all would look like unless they all begun to start winning around the same time. Every discussion that begins with Djokovic's prowess over Federer has to begin with the acknowledgement that Federer had 16 MAJORS (most all time) before Djokovic won his second. That's crazy. None of this diminishes Djokovic.. he has the most solid game of all time. However, when he reached his early 30's, he did not, and still does not have a 25-26 year old player with comparable abilities breathing down his neck. Instead, he's still fighting the old guys he chased down... Federer and Nadal. Isn't that something.
 
TheAssassin said:
Their numbers would have been untouchable forever if Djokovic didn't burst the way he did in this decade. Good thing he happened...
Click to expand...
Exactly. Federer would have more than 20 majors right now if not for Djokovic. It's not like he was done as a top tier talent after having 16 majors.
 
prefab said:
While we are still in the throws of debating the greatest and "betterness" of Djokovic, Federer, and Nadal, since the Wimbledon Final; I wanted to provide a little context for Djokovic's relative dominance since 2011. When Djokovic won his FIRST major in 2008 (AusOpen), Roger Federer had 12 Majors. Now pay attention to this next part, because it's quite eye opening... When Djokovic finally won his SECOND Major in 2011 (AusOpen), Roger Federer had 16 Majors!! and Nadal had 9!! This is very very telling. Federer was 30, with more majors than anyone in history, and Nadal was in the middle of his utter clay court dominance with 2 lifetimes worth of tennis miles on his legs. At this time, Djokovic was emerging into his absolute prime of mid 20's with a more solid tennis game than we'd ever seen. There is no way to take that away from him, but the above has to provide a little context into his major tally from 2011. Could we really expect Federer or Nadal to keep winning at the same clip? NO, and there are many factors to this... age, hunger, life, a player like Djokovic, and etc. So... we really can't say for sure what this all would look like unless they all begun to start winning around the same time. Every discussion that begins with Djokovic's prowess over Federer has to begin with the acknowledgement that Federer had 16 MAJORS (most all time) before Djokovic won his second. That's crazy. None of this diminishes Djokovic.. he has the most solid game of all time. However, when he reached his early 30's, he did not, and still does not have a 25-26 year old player with comparable abilities breathing down his neck. Instead, he's still fighting the old guys he chased down... Federer and Nadal. Isn't that something.
Click to expand...
It has happened before, Sampras didnt really have a younger top player around before he was around 30, with Federers generation. But the post87 generations are the longest stretch without a top player for sure. Still no top player in sight, its really bad for tennis, its all about a 32y old, a 33y old and a 38y old.
 
Last edited:
ylo1t.jpg
 
Jonas78 said:
But the same rules doesnt apply to Djokovic right? ;). The way he can destroy the poor field of players between 20y and 32y with no top player in sight.
Click to expand...
Sure it applies for him too. But he's been winning as an older guy for a year now. Imagine how much more Fedal would have won since 2011 if he wasn't there. He had to beat them a lot of times to win titles before as well. That's what I am saying.
 
So, here's my thoughts.

Federer had these players as rivals before Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray: Roddick, Ferrero, Agassi, Hewitt, Safin. I guess you could also bring up Moya or Coria, but I won't.

Roddick win % (removing Federer): 609-192 (76.0%)
Ferrero: 476-252 (65.4%)
Agassi: 867-266 (76.5%)
Hewitt: 607-244 (71.3%)
Safin: 420-257 (62.0%)

Until 2006, these were his main rivals, and until 2008 on hard courts. So let's split the difference and say this was his competition until 2007. By 2007, Federer had won 12 slams. 12 slams with this competition.

Now let's look at Novak's competition:
Federer: 1200-239 (83.4%)
Nadal: 930-168 (84.7%)
Murray: 652-166 (79.7%)
Ferrer: 729-361 (66.9%) (I guess put in any of the Little 3 here)

Clearly, these rivals were better against the competition. Even as detractors label Murray as "weak competition" he did as good against Djokovic and Nadal as Hewitt did against Federer and for a longer period of time. Moreover, Nadal/Djokovic/Murray are all contemporaries. They were part of the same generation, and as much had to fight against one another for the 4 slams a year - plus, Federer was still playing.

Of course Federer had to fall off. There was no winning as much as he did in his prime by any stretch of the imagination. But if you think for a second this man couldn't put up at least as good a fight as Roddick did on average to him, you're wrong. And Federer =/= Old Agassi. Agassi was nowhere near as good as Roger. Yes, Agassi played very well toward the end of his career, but Federer is still playing fantastic tennis even years beyond the point Agassi retired at.

All this is to say, if we're putting dominance in context, yes. Federer dominated his own generation and the previous one because there were no strong players other than him. Now Djokovic is dominating because he was the late bloomer of the Big 3. He is able to fill the gap until the next generation comes in, but his own generation was greater than Federer's was.

Loosely, 2001-2003 was weak era, then Federer's generation came into its own, and Federer dominated until 2007. So Federer had free reign of 2001-2007. (Unable to capitalize on 2001-2003)

Now at the point we'd expect a new generation of ATGs to show on the horizon (2014 or so), none have come. Now Djokovic has free reign of 2014-2020? (Unable to capitalize on 2014, 2016.5-2018.5)

Sure, put Djokovic in context. But don't forget the context of everyone else. Djokovic had ATG contemporaries. Federer did not. Federer had ATG next generation following him up. Djokovic does not.
 
There's a only one year age difference between Nadal and Djokovic. They actually belong to the very same generation.

Perceptions are distorted because Nadal was exceptionally precocious. He was 19 when he started his clay domination and quickly established himself as Federer's first real rival.
Djokovic started his peak years at a later age than Nadal... but actually not that late compared to Federer. Federer, born 1981, had his first great year in 2004 - the year he turned 23. Djokovic, born 1987, had his first great year in 2011 - the year he turned 24.
 
TheAssassin said:
Sure it applies for him too. But he's been winning as an older guy for a year now. Imagine how much more Fedal would have won since 2011 if he wasn't there. He had to beat them a lot of times to win titles before as well. That's what I am saying.
Click to expand...

Yea the narrative is Djokovic is running rampant over no competition. The truth is, remove Djokovic and we would still be in the Fedal show with them having won 3 of the 4 Slams he won this past year.
 
prefab said:
While we are still in the throws of debating the greatest and "betterness" of Djokovic, Federer, and Nadal, since the Wimbledon Final; I wanted to provide a little context for Djokovic's relative dominance since 2011. When Djokovic won his FIRST major in 2008 (AusOpen), Roger Federer had 12 Majors. Now pay attention to this next part, because it's quite eye opening... When Djokovic finally won his SECOND Major in 2011 (AusOpen), Roger Federer had 16 Majors!! and Nadal had 9!! This is very very telling. Federer was 30, with more majors than anyone in history, and Nadal was in the middle of his utter clay court dominance with 2 lifetimes worth of tennis miles on his legs. At this time, Djokovic was emerging into his absolute prime of mid 20's with a more solid tennis game than we'd ever seen. There is no way to take that away from him, but the above has to provide a little context into his major tally from 2011. Could we really expect Federer or Nadal to keep winning at the same clip? NO, and there are many factors to this... age, hunger, life, a player like Djokovic, and etc. So... we really can't say for sure what this all would look like unless they all begun to start winning around the same time. Every discussion that begins with Djokovic's prowess over Federer has to begin with the acknowledgement that Federer had 16 MAJORS (most all time) before Djokovic won his second. That's crazy. None of this diminishes Djokovic.. he has the most solid game of all time. However, when he reached his early 30's, he did not, and still does not have a 25-26 year old player with comparable abilities breathing down his neck. Instead, he's still fighting the old guys he chased down... Federer and Nadal. Isn't that something.
Click to expand...

To be fair Federer didn't really have to face a player like that till 2008 either. I think saying roddick and hewitt are bums is wrong, they likely would have won 4-5 slams each without fed but they weren't better than let's say Murray.

And likewise who did Nadal face on clay? He didn't have to face a strong clay court specialist like brugera or kuerten.

I'm not saying fedal aren't great, they clearly are as evidenced by their continued winning but if you hold it against Novak that he didn't have to face peak fedal you also need to hold against fedal that they didn't face super strong opposition either.

Anyway of course novak would have won less had he faced prime fedal all the time but they would also have won less had they faced prime Novak. Novak did benefit from their decline but he also got clearly better with a better serve and much better fitness and health.
 
dominikk1985 said:
To be fair Federer didn't really have to face a player like that till 2008 either. I think saying roddick and hewitt are bums is wrong, they likely would have won 4-5 slams each without fed but they weren't better than let's say Murray.

And likewise who did Nadal face on clay? He didn't have to face a strong clay court specialist like brugera or kuerten.

I'm not saying fedal aren't great, they clearly are as evidenced by their continued winning but if you hold it against Novak that he didn't have to face peak fedal you also need to hold against fedal that they didn't face super strong opposition either.

Anyway of course novak would have won less had he faced prime fedal all the time but they would also have won less had they faced prime Novak. Novak did benefit from their decline but he also got clearly better with a better serve and much better fitness and health.
Click to expand...


Federer & Djokovic are far better on clay than Bruguera and Kuerten. Nadal would have destroyed both of them.
 
DeathStar said:
Federer & Djokovic are far better on clay than Bruguera and Kuerten. Nadal would have destroyed both of them.
Click to expand...

Didn't kuerten beat Federer in 3 sets in 2004? You could argue fed wasn't quite in his prime but Roger won 3 slams that year so he was pretty good already.

And kuerten wasn't at his best in 04 anymore, I think 00-01 kuerten would have been more of a challenge for Nadal on clay.
 
TheAssassin said:
Sure it applies for him too. But he's been winning as an older guy for a year now. Imagine how much more Fedal would have won since 2011 if he wasn't there. He had to beat them a lot of times to win titles before as well. That's what I am saying.
Click to expand...
If he wins 10 more slams the next 4-5 years at least we have an excuse:p
 
I don't view putting Djokovic's success in context as a knock against him. It's simply providing a fuller view of his success. As I stated in my opener... Federer and Nadal had already become all time great-greats (16 & 12 Majors) before Djokovic won his second major. So in that sense, regardless of age.. these two men are not his "playing" contemporaries. There is no way to get around this. For instance, if Dominic Thiem (almost 26) starts winning majors and consistently beating Djokovic (32) over the next few years, I am not going to call Thiem a contemporary of Djokovic, and I am not going to view those wins in the same context as if he were beating the 2011 (25yr old) version of Djokovic. So, back to my earlier point... Djokovic's only true (semi-great) contemporary was Andy Murray (3 majors). And, unlike Federer and Nadal, Djokovic has never had a chaser. So... while some like to say that Federer's early years were weak because he had "no competition". What do we say about Djokovic, when his only real competition from 2011, and current competition is still from a 38 year old and a 33 year old who had a combined 25 majors before Djokovic won his second. By the way, Fedal now combine for 38 majors. This is not a "knock" on Djokovic, but it is context. If Federer's era was weak because he dominated his actual contemporaries (save Nadal), then the same can be said for Djokovic because he's dominating by holding off older all time greats, with no real contemporary or younger-in-prime great competition. I just think that all of this deserves a more nuanced view than many of the arguments that get put forth.
 
Or we can go with the narrative that Fed’s level hasn’t changed from 2003- present. 16 years in his prime. Unless you count 2003-2007 as pre-prime.
 
TripleATeam said:
So, here's my thoughts.

Federer had these players as rivals before Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray: Roddick, Ferrero, Agassi, Hewitt, Safin. I guess you could also bring up Moya or Coria, but I won't.

Roddick win % (removing Federer): 609-192 (76.0%)
Ferrero: 476-252 (65.4%)
Agassi: 867-266 (76.5%)
Hewitt: 607-244 (71.3%)
Safin: 420-257 (62.0%)

Until 2006, these were his main rivals, and until 2008 on hard courts. So let's split the difference and say this was his competition until 2007. By 2007, Federer had won 12 slams. 12 slams with this competition.

Now let's look at Novak's competition:
Federer: 1200-239 (83.4%)
Nadal: 930-168 (84.7%)
Murray: 652-166 (79.7%)
Ferrer: 729-361 (66.9%) (I guess put in any of the Little 3 here)

Clearly, these rivals were better against the competition. Even as detractors label Murray as "weak competition" he did as good against Djokovic and Nadal as Hewitt did against Federer and for a longer period of time. Moreover, Nadal/Djokovic/Murray are all contemporaries. They were part of the same generation, and as much had to fight against one another for the 4 slams a year - plus, Federer was still playing.

Of course Federer had to fall off. There was no winning as much as he did in his prime by any stretch of the imagination. But if you think for a second this man couldn't put up at least as good a fight as Roddick did on average to him, you're wrong. And Federer =/= Old Agassi. Agassi was nowhere near as good as Roger. Yes, Agassi played very well toward the end of his career, but Federer is still playing fantastic tennis even years beyond the point Agassi retired at.

All this is to say, if we're putting dominance in context, yes. Federer dominated his own generation and the previous one because there were no strong players other than him. Now Djokovic is dominating because he was the late bloomer of the Big 3. He is able to fill the gap until the next generation comes in, but his own generation was greater than Federer's was.

Loosely, 2001-2003 was weak era, then Federer's generation came into its own, and Federer dominated until 2007. So Federer had free reign of 2001-2007. (Unable to capitalize on 2001-2003)

Now at the point we'd expect a new generation of ATGs to show on the horizon (2014 or so), none have come. Now Djokovic has free reign of 2014-2020? (Unable to capitalize on 2014, 2016.5-2018.5)

Sure, put Djokovic in context. But don't forget the context of everyone else. Djokovic had ATG contemporaries. Federer did not. Federer had ATG next generation following him up. Djokovic does not.
Click to expand...
The only difference is I think it’s better to be in your 30s post prime era vs only older guys and young mugs.

Fed was that good at his peak that I don’t think his slam rate would take too much of a hit. He’s always been at a disadvantage since 2011/2012 and especially post racket change.
 
KINGROGER said:
The only difference is I think it’s better to be in your 30s post prime era vs only older guys and young mugs.

Fed was that good at his peak that I don’t think his slam rate would take too much of a hit. He’s always been at a disadvantage since 2011/2012 and especially post racket change.
Click to expand...
You're probably right that being older is better when no one can capitalize on it. I'm just saying we need to put everyone in context - it's unfair to frame Djokovic as a beneficiary of a lack of younger ATGs when the talk should be opposite as well.

Just as Federer had little older competition (just Agassi, and as great as Agassi was, he was 11 years older) and little same-gen competition, he had to deal with multiple younger ATGs. What people neglect to mention is the fact that these ATGs had a fantastic ATG previous generation (Federer), each other (Nadal for Djokovic and Djokovic for Nadal), and a non-GOAT-tier rival (Murray).

The one saving grace for that generation is that the generation following them is also weak, which affords them a few extra years they wouldn't have had.
 
TripleATeam said:
- it's unfair to frame Djokovic as a beneficiary of a lack of younger ATGs when the talk should be opposite as well.
Click to expand...

Not it isn't.

Federer had Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Ferrero, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Ljubicic, Gonzalez, Blake...many strong same-gens. Not facing much older competition isn't that big a deal. In the natural order of tennis, strong younger competition (competition that is continually getting stronger) is more of a threat than strong older competition (competition that is continually getting weaker), and it's the strong younger competition that eventually gets the advantage over the same-gen competition. Young gun Nadal was #2 by 2005 and Federer's main rival by 2006, and #1 by 2008. Young gun Djokovic was #3 by 2007.

Djokovic has been spared the threat of strong younger competition for his entire peak/prime, and without this threat, he's still the youngster among the players who are winning slams.
 
prefab said:
While we are still in the throws of debating the greatest and "betterness" of Djokovic, Federer, and Nadal, since the Wimbledon Final; I wanted to provide a little context for Djokovic's relative dominance since 2011. When Djokovic won his FIRST major in 2008 (AusOpen), Roger Federer had 12 Majors. Now pay attention to this next part, because it's quite eye opening... When Djokovic finally won his SECOND Major in 2011 (AusOpen), Roger Federer had 16 Majors!! and Nadal had 9!! This is very very telling. Federer was 30, with more majors than anyone in history, and Nadal was in the middle of his utter clay court dominance with 2 lifetimes worth of tennis miles on his legs. At this time, Djokovic was emerging into his absolute prime of mid 20's with a more solid tennis game than we'd ever seen. There is no way to take that away from him, but the above has to provide a little context into his major tally from 2011. Could we really expect Federer or Nadal to keep winning at the same clip? NO, and there are many factors to this... age, hunger, life, a player like Djokovic, and etc. So... we really can't say for sure what this all would look like unless they all begun to start winning around the same time. Every discussion that begins with Djokovic's prowess over Federer has to begin with the acknowledgement that Federer had 16 MAJORS (most all time) before Djokovic won his second. That's crazy. None of this diminishes Djokovic.. he has the most solid game of all time. However, when he reached his early 30's, he did not, and still does not have a 25-26 year old player with comparable abilities breathing down his neck. Instead, he's still fighting the old guys he chased down... Federer and Nadal. Isn't that something.
Click to expand...
Yes we know. And Fed had plenty of time to feast off-clay before Djoker reached his prime in 2011. Everyone had their time to shine.
 
Truth is Federer and Nadal are playing as good as ever. Fed fans want to see him old just because they cannot accept he is losing. He is not, he is running as always, has better game tactics experience and same so so winning mind.

Nadal is definitely stronger that in his "prime" which btw doesn't exist. As any serious player knows, you stop improving or developing new weapons and you are left behind quickly. It is not happening.
 
Federer had Djokovic and Nadal.
Djokovic had Federer and Nadal.
Nadal had Djokovic and Federer.

So I guess they had it all tough?
 
Alien said:
Truth is Federer and Nadal are playing as good as ever. Fed fans want to see him old just because they cannot accept he is losing. He is not, he is running as always, has better game tactics experience and same so so winning mind.

Nadal is definitely stronger that in his "prime" which btw doesn't exist. As any serious player knows, you stop improving or developing new weapons and you are left behind quickly. It is not happening.
Click to expand...

You , RF-18 and ABCD are brothers from the same mother
 
  • Like
Reactions: gn
Since 2011 only Djokovic won consecutive Slams. That's 36 consecutive Slams.

Previous longest stretch was Federer's from RG 2000 to AO 2008 (32 Slams).
 
N01E said:
So, Fed won a total of 1 slam in Djokovic era. Pretty good for a GOAT, right guys?
Click to expand...
Djokovic also won only 1(2008) in Fraud era, no?
Nadal won 6 in Fraud era(2004-2009) and 5 in Djokovic era(2011-2016).
GOAT, no?
 
Robert Baratheon said:
Djokovic also won only 1(2008) in Fraud era, no?
Nadal won 6 in Fraud era(2004-2009) and 5 in Djokovic era(2011-2016).
GOAT, no?
Click to expand...
Yes, I too am very dissapointed that Novak wasn't winning slams while being 17 years old or having health problems. Fed obviously wasn't himself in 2011, not even a little bit. Completely understandable considering he was 29 at the time (that's a very advanced age in tennis in the 2010s).
 
Jonas78 said:
It has happened before, Sampras didnt really have a younger top player around before he was around 30, with Federers generation. But the post87 generations are the longest stretch without a top player for sure. Still no top player in sight, its really bad for tennis, its all about a 32y old, a 33y old and a 38y old.
Click to expand...

But the difference is, when Sampras was winning his slams, there were tons of different slam winners happening.
When he won his first slam at the USO 1990, up till his last in 2002, there were several different slam winners. Its not like he was in a 3 horse race with 2 guys older than him like Djokovic is.
From 91 Becker, Courier, Stich, Edberg, Agassi, Bruguera, Muster, Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Kuerten, Rafter, Korda, Moya, Safin, Ivanisevic, Johansson, Costa and Hewitt all won a slam, with some winning a couple or more, right up till Sampras won his last.

Now don't tell me that Federer or Djokovic remotely faced this kind of challenge.
Sampras had way more dangerous players to play back then. The names on that list are unreal, yet in Djokovic's career when he started dominating, all he faced were an aging or absent Nadal and Federer, plus Andy Murray. :X3:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

THE FIGHTER
Why holding all four majors is context reliant
Replies
28
Views
2K
Limpinhitter
L
P
Djokovic resume too skewed on Hard courts.
3 4 5
Replies
233
Views
9K
Pantera
P
Bobby Jr
The last 7 major finals Djokovic won were played against people who'd never won a major
2
Replies
91
Views
3K
Dan Lobb
D
zvelf
Level of competition: Djokovic era vs. Federer era
5 6 7
Replies
339
Views
16K
pman76
P
M
Do you think Nadal/Djokovic would have won less majors/retired by now if Fed had already retired? Whereas, Fed has had to manufacture motivation?
Replies
1
Views
270
Jonesy
J
Back
Top