Did Novak Djokovic mostly major in minors?

[Gary Duane]

Consider this click-bait. Some of you will remember a certain infamous poster who relentlessly said this, with hashtags:

#majoring in #minors

Turns out Novak majored in both.

Because of just examining both Sampras and Federer on grass and seeing that even Federer was noticeably lower in tourneys outside of Wimbledon in comparison to Wimbledon itself, that made me curious.

We know that Novak has been a monster at Masters 1000s. We also know he has been a monster at the AO, and pretty good at the USO (understatement), so how does this compare for him?

Answer, filtering for Canada, Cincinnati, IW, Madrid, Miami, Paris, Shanghai:
(Games% and Match%)

59.0427
82.4121

Same thing, with WTF:
58.7438
82.0175

WTF only (career weakness for him ONLY if we do not remember that the WTF is against the best players in the world.)
56.7353
79.3103

Only majors, USO and AO
59.2184
82.8261

AO only (impressive as hell)
61.8636
89.2308

My conclusion: For sure he has tried harder at M1000s than a lot of other players, but it's pretty cool to have stats only majors that are even a bit higher, not to mention stats at the AO that I'm pretty sure are a clear record for the OE.

Bigger conclusion: the idea that players pad their results in "smaller tourneys" is simply not true for ATGs, who play out of their minds in majors, not only by winning, but also by producing amazing stats there.

 

[Mr Feeny]

Consider this click-bait. Some of you will remember a certain infamous poster who relentlessly said this, with hashtags:

#majoring in #minors

Turns out Novak majored in both.

Because of just examining both Sampras and Federer on grass and seeing that even Federer was noticeably lower in tourneys outside of Wimbledon in comparison to Wimbledon itself, that made me curious.

We know that Novak has been a monster at Masters 1000s. We also know he has been a monster at the AO, and pretty good at the USO (understatement), so how does this compare for him?

Answer, filtering for Canada, Cincinnati, IW, Madrid, Miami, Paris, Shanghai:
(Games% and Match%)

59.0427
82.4121

Same thing, with WTF:
58.7438
82.0175

WTF only (career weakness for him ONLY if we do not remember that the WTF is against the best players in the world.)
56.7353
79.3103

Only majors, USO and AO
59.2184
82.8261

AO only (impressive as hell)
61.8636
89.2308

My conclusion: For sure he has tried harder at M1000s than a lot of other players, but it's pretty cool to have stats only majors that are even a bit higher, not to mention stats at the AO that I'm pretty sure are a clear record for the OE.

Bigger conclusion: the idea that players pad their results in "smaller tourneys" is simply not true for ATGs, who play out of their minds in majors, not only by winning, but also by producing amazing stats there.

Yeah I think I'd agree. Most legends try harder in slams because that's what counts ultimately when the final reckoning comes. Sampras never cared much about putting an effort during masters. He was focused on being in the best possible shape for slams.

You see that with Federer as well, to an extent.

Having said that, if Djokovic realizes he'll never get to the slam mark and he desperately wants to help his legacy, perhaps going for masters isn't the worst idea. Sinking his teeth into that and racking up a bunch of them atleast helps him out if he ends up level with Nadal and Pete, for example.

 

[Gary Duane]

Yeah I think I'd agree. Most legends try harder in slams because that's what counts ultimately when the final reckoning comes. Sampras never cared much about putting an effort during masters. He was focused on being in the best possible shape for slams.

You see that with Federer as well, to an extent.

Having said that, if Djokovic realizes he'll never get to the slam mark and he desperately wants to help his legacy, perhaps going for masters isn't the worst idea. Sinking his teeth into that and racking up a bunch of them atleast helps him out if he ends up level with Nadal and Pete, for example.

I don't think winning masters was a choice for Novak INSTEAD of winning majors. I think that for him he was in the shadow of both Fed and Nadal for a long time and had to fight harder for recognition. Also, the bar keeps being set higher, or was in the era of the Big Four. You can see that Fed already upped the importance of masters over what it was for Sampras. How much of that was simply trying to beat Pete's legacy? By the time he got to major #15 he had clear bragging rights, but it took a long time to get there.

In fact, he was still trailing Pete before he won RG in 2009, I think. If I'm counting right.

It would also be interesting to make a comparison up to that point about his record in majors vs other tourneys.

So up until 2009 he was the challenger, the guy who wasn't there yet.

I should check Fed out on all majors and the WTF, then outside of those tourneys.

 

[Mr Feeny]

I don't think winning masters was a choice for Novak INSTEAD of winning majors. I think that for him he was in the shadow of both Fed and Nadal for a long time and had to fight harder for recognition. Also, the bar keeps being set higher, or was in the era of the Big Four. You can see that Fed already upped the importance of masters over what it was for Sampras. How much of that was simply trying to beat Pete's legacy? By the time he got to major #15 he had clear bragging rights, but it took a long time to get there.

In fact, he was still trailing Pete before he won RG in 2009, I think. If I'm counting right.

It would also be interesting to make a comparison up to that point about his record in majors vs other tourneys.

So up until 2009 he was the challenger, the guy who wasn't there yet.

I should check Fed out on all majors and the WTF, then outside of those tourneys.

I think you're right. Playing devil's advocate here. But look at his record against the murray's of the world. He was trailing 2-6 and would lost every masters tournament against him yet absolutely take him apart and tear him to shreds in slam tournaments.
There's such a big difference between some of the greats' level of play in slams and in masters, that it can't be anything other than them using the lesser tournaments to either get in shape or practice tactics. I don't think they placed that much importance on it.

But the recent players have done just that. Maybe they're gaining some importance?

 

[Gary Duane]

@krosero
Curious, looking up stats for Fed, for comparison:

All majors, career, games, matches;
59.4534
86.0274

All Master 1000s
57.3423
78.3375

Finals WTF/Masters Cup
57.8776
81.2500

It appears pretty clear that Federer was always focused on majors and did not try quite so hard in masters. Lower results in finals clearly shows that when there are smaller fields of top players, both games and matches go down.

This gives at least more support for the idea that smaller tournaments with top players drop stats because they are more competitive and surely explains why players like Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver were lower in these stats during the 50s and 60s. They had to continually play among themselves, with for the most part no easy wins.

 

[Gary Duane]

I think you're right. Playing devil's advocate here. But look at his record against the murray's of the world. He was trailing 2-6 and would lost every masters tournament against him yet absolutely take him apart and tear him to shreds in slam tournaments.
There's such a big difference between some of the greats' level of play in slams and in masters, that it can't be anything other than them using the lesser tournaments to either get in shape or practice tactics. I don't think they placed that much importance on it.

But the recent players have done just that. Maybe they're gaining some importance?

I think they ARE gaining in importance, but I think the emphasis will stay on majors for the players who are winning them.

Part of what is going on right now is that players are seeing that they can get to #1 with only one major and now and then perhaps with none. So even if they hope to win a major, winning X number of M1000s is pretty good insurance, and we see how that pushed Murray over the top last year.

I think Sampras could coast so much because he was simply so far above everyone else with the major count, and it looked like that record would last for a long time.

I have to wonder if he coasted even more in clay events because he realized after a few years that he was simply in the wrong era to win RG...

Little did we know...

 

[NGM]

He is mentally strong and has done very well considering his rivals.
But if he done better in majors' finals he could be the best.

 

[ChrisRF]

I think Sampras could coast so much because he was simply so far above everyone else with the major count, and it looked like that record would last for a long time.

I can only speak for myself, but I definitely didn’t think it would stand very long. That was simply a feeling because in the women’s field there were already 3 players with 22 or 18 major titles in the Open Era. And since major titles are just a factor of relative dominance over the field there is no reason why there shouldn’t come a similar era in the men’s game very soon. 14 was way too much behind to withstand the test of time.

As we know, exactly that was the case, and it was hardly a surprise. Now it was the ATP where only 2 to 4 players were able to win big titles, similar to the Evert/Navratilova or Graf/Seles/Sanchez/Sabatini eras in WTA.

Also Sampras was not really dominant apart from Wimbledon and missed too many opportunities to get to the final stages of a Slam (while he was very good in the final itself if he reached it). He had too many weaknesses (clay as a whole surface; body/fitness issues like Thalassamia; no real consistency already after turning something like 26 etc.) to be not surpassable for a dominant player of the (near) future.

He only grabbed Slams left and right until he was 25 in 1997. Then he totally stopped winning hardcourt Slams until his last hurrah at the 2002 US Open. This couldn’t be enough to stand “forever”.

Already now we cannot rule out that someone comes along who totally smashes the bunch of talentless or not motivated new generation players and racks up like 25 Slams or so.

 

[reaper]

I can only speak for myself, but I definitely didn’t think it would stand very long. That was simply a feeling because in the women’s field there were already 3 players with 22 or 18 major titles in the Open Era. And since major titles are just a factor of relative dominance over the field there is no reason why there shouldn’t come a similar era in the men’s game very soon. 14 was way too much behind to withstand the test of time.

As we know, exactly that was the case, and it was hardly a surprise. Now it was the ATP where only 2 to 4 players were able to win big titles, similar to the Evert/Navratilova or Graf/Seles/Sanchez/Sabatini eras in WTA.

Also Sampras was not really dominant apart from Wimbledon and missed too many opportunities to get to the final stages of a Slam (while he was very good in the final itself if he reached it). He had too many weaknesses (clay as a whole surface; body/fitness issues like Thalassamia; no real consistency already after turning something like 26 etc.) to be not surpassable for a dominant player of the (near) future.

He only grabbed Slams left and right until he was 25 in 1997. Then he totally stopped winning hardcourt Slams until his last hurrah at the 2002 US Open. This couldn’t be enough to stand “forever”.

Already now we cannot rule out that someone comes along who totally smashes the bunch of talentless or not motivated new generation players and racks up like 25 Slams or so.

No male's getting to 25...at least not in your lifetime or mine. Whatever record Federer sets will be very breakable, but unless the person who breaks it is robotic the motivation to press on for half a dozen or so more simply won't be there.

 

[Mainad]

Depends on what one's definition of a 'minor' is I suppose. If you take the view that anything not a 'Major' (ie. a Slam) is, by definition, a 'Minor' then Djokovic has still majored in them pretty comprehensively, winning 12 out of 21 finals.

Of the big titles, as defined by the ATP (Slams, WTFs, Masters), Djokovic has majored in them all overwhelmingly:

Big Title Finals:

Slams: 12-9
WTFs: 5-1
Masters: 30-13

Total: 47-23.

 

[mike danny]

There was a time when that was the case. After 2013 AO and unil 2014 Wimb, Djokovic was doing so poorly in the slams and so well in the masters, that people were right in believing that he was majoring in minors.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Sampras never cared much about putting an effort during masters. He was focused on being in the best possible shape for slams.

A huge reason was because the Masters 1000's were best 3/5 sets in Pete's day and age. He and Lendl openly complained about this format and skipped many of them. This is conveniently ignored by most Nole/Nadal fans who tout the Masters 1000's. Nobody knows how many of them the top guys have won and nobody cares. Yet everyone knows the # of majors the greats have won.

 

[krosero]

@krosero
Curious, looking up stats for Fed, for comparison:

All majors, career, games, matches;
59.4534
86.0274

All Master 1000s
57.3423
78.3375

Finals WTF/Masters Cup
57.8776
81.2500

It appears pretty clear that Federer was always focused on majors and did not try quite so hard in masters. Lower results in finals clearly shows that when there are smaller fields of top players, both games and matches go down.

This gives at least more support for the idea that smaller tournaments with top players drop stats because they are more competitive and surely explains why players like Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver were lower in these stats during the 50s and 60s. They had to continually play among themselves, with for the most part no easy wins.

I agree with the bolded part, certainly, concerning the older players. They played only themselves (only top players), in small draws, so they could never rack up very many wins, against their losses. Their winning percentages started going up when the Open Era began, because then they were able to enter tournaments with larger draws, allowing them to pick up a lot of easy wins over lower-ranked players in the opening rounds of tourneys.

I just wonder how that might apply to Federer's numbers above. In Masters he's playing 6 opponents, in majors 7. The numbers you have for him in majors would drop a little if, for example, you took out all of his R128 victories -- to make all his tournament draws the same size. His majors numbers might then be a lot closer to his Masters numbers.

I don't think, though, that this would necessarily mean that he was trying equally hard in all events. It depends on his opposition, I think. Maybe the players he's facing have the same general attitude that he does, namely that majors are more important. In that case you would not necessarily see a difference in Federer's personal numbers, comparing his majors stats against his masters stats.

 

[DreddyTennis45]

Can somebody explain the American college system to me? What are majors and minors?

 

[junior74]

Can somebody explain the American college system to me? What are majors and minors?

I think Nick Cave majored in minors, while Beach Boys majored in majors.

Not sure if that answered your question

 

[Gary Duane]

I agree with the bolded part, certainly, concerning the older players. They played only themselves (only top players), in small draws, so they could never rack up very many wins, against their losses. Their winning percentages started going up when the Open Era began, because then they were able to enter tournaments with larger draws, allowing them to pick up a lot of easy wins over lower-ranked players in the opening rounds of tourneys.

You and I have discussed this at length, so we may be talking to ourselves.

I'm making an assumption, but I think this assumption is reasonable. If the total % of games has been pretty steady from Connors forward, and that seems to be true, and there has been a greater shift towards winning serve, which also seems to be true, then a corresponding drop in return games is logical, and it's pretty clear that has happened since the 90s.

Again, assuming this is true (even though skeptics claim we don't have enough data), we have to ask ourselves why guys in the early 60s and back into the 50s could not win games in the same way, but those same players COULD once they were in the Open era. Seems pretty solid to me that competition was fierce back then, and that is the answer.

I just wonder how that might apply to Federer's numbers above. In Masters he's playing 6 opponents, in majors 7. The numbers you have for him in majors would drop a little if, for example, you took out all of his R128 victories -- to make all his tournament draws the same size. His majors numbers might then be a lot closer to his Masters numbers.

With a question like that the only way to find out would be to run the data, filtered. It's probably doable. Just keep all the slam data but filter out R128. I'm guessing it won't make much difference, but I don't know.

If I have time today, I may try that.

I don't think, though, that this would necessarily mean that he was trying equally hard in all events. It depends on his opposition, I think. Maybe the players he's facing have the same general attitude that he does, namely that majors are more important. In that case you would not necessarily see a difference in Federer's personal numbers, comparing his majors stats against his masters stats.

I don't know. It's pretty clear that Pete was much weaker in events that were not as "important", and I would say at this time that I suspect games are lower in things like the WTF and Masters Cup. I suspected that in advance, but I was a bit surprised to see that it is apparently true.

 

[DreddyTennis45]

I think Nick Cave majored in minors, while Beach Boys majored in majors.

Not sure if that answered your question

It didn't but thanks anyway

 

[newpball]

Did Novak Djokovic mostly major in minors?

"Djokovic majored in minors", I must admit it is a catchy phrase that might actually stick!

 

[Vegasbaby]

Yeah I think I'd agree. Most legends try harder in slams because that's what counts ultimately when the final reckoning comes. Sampras never cared much about putting an effort during masters. He was focused on being in the best possible shape for slams.

You see that with Federer as well, to an extent.

Having said that, if Djokovic realizes he'll never get to the slam mark and he desperately wants to help his legacy, perhaps going for masters isn't the worst idea. Sinking his teeth into that and racking up a bunch of them atleast helps him out if he ends up level with Nadal and Pete, for example.

Djokovic has the nole slam. In 30 years time that may propel him to goat status. At the moment the significance of that achievement is not properly celebrated

 

[JMR]

Can somebody explain the American college system to me? What are majors and minors?

A major is the academic subject that is the student's primary area of concentration during his or her undergraduate years. Almost any field can be a major: one of the sciences, or mathematics; any one of the humanities; business; music; engineering; etc. The student will be required to complete a large, required number of courses in that field, and perhaps write a research paper or thesis as well (obligations differ from school to school). The undergraduate degree, typically a bachelor of arts or bachelor of science, will then be described as being "in" the major field. For example, I hold a B.A. in philosophy because I majored in that subject. It is often possible to earn a double major if desired, by completing all the required undergrad courses in two subjects, but this leaves much less room in the student's schedule for elective courses.

The minor is a secondary area of concentration, with perhaps one-third to one-half the course requirements of the major. Sometimes having a minor is optional, and people with a double major usually don't have a minor. I had a double minor.

 

[Gary Duane]

@krosero
Firefox crashed, so I lost some numbers and don't feel like doing it again, but basically:

58.6262
84.7973

That's for all majors for Fed with R128 filtered out, and with each round I filter out game% and match% goes down.

Filtering out under R16:


55.8635
77.3256

And so on.

 

[HailDjokovic]

LOL
The guy has 12 slams, where he has met each member of the big four almost every SINGLE TIME.
He also has 5 world tour ifnals

Safe to say he tries to play out of his mind anytime he can, just like any other professional (besides tomic).

 

[TheAssassin]

A huge reason was because the Masters 1000's were best 3/5 sets in Pete's day and age. He and Lendl openly complained about this format and skipped many of them. This is conveniently ignored by most Nole/Nadal fans who tout the Masters 1000's. Nobody knows how many of them the top guys have won and nobody cares. Yet everyone knows the # of majors the greats have won.

On the other hand, some people say that Masters lost their value once BO5 finals were gone. So which ones mattered? I'd say they can't be considered irrelevant because they are mandatory events and a great boost to the rankings. However difference between Slams and Masters in prestige is much larger than difference in points.

 

[VexlanderPrime]

Djokovic has the nole slam. In 30 years time that may propel him to goat status. At the moment the significance of that achievement is not properly celebrated

Even Djokovic's mom recognizes he doesn't have a GOAT argument at the moment. Lotta work to do.

 

[VexlanderPrime]

"Djokovic majored in minors", I must admit it is a catchy phrase that might actually stick!

My favorite part of the "majoring in minors" thing was how the batty old poster who repeated it ad nauseam was driven off TTW forever by the glorious Majoring in Majors phase of Djoker's career from 2014-2016.

 

[krosero]

@krosero
Firefox crashed, so I lost some numbers and don't feel like doing it again, but basically:

58.6262
84.7973

That's for all majors for Fed with R128 filtered out, and with each round I filter out game% and match% goes down.

Filtering out under R16:


55.8635
77.3256

And so on.

Terrific, ok, so with R128 out, Fed's numbers are closer to his Masters numbers, which were:

57.3423
78.3375

The GW is almost the same now. BUT his match-winning percentage in majors remains much higher than in Masters, by a full six percentage points.

Not sure what might be causing that but it's interesting.

You mentioned Sampras, I do think in his case the numbers show that he cared less about non-major events. The gap between his major and non-major numbers is striking, unless we start finding similar gaps with other ATG's but so far we don't.

 

[cockneyDjoker]

Some people don't know what they're talking about

Nole has defeated Federer in the last 3 slam finals they played against each other

Nole leads 3-1 in slam finals overall against the "GOAT"

 

[Limpinhitter]

Depends on what one's definition of a 'minor' is I suppose. If you take the view that anything not a 'Major' (ie. a Slam) is, by definition, a 'Minor' then Djokovic has still majored in them pretty comprehensively, winning 12 out of 21 finals.

Of the big titles, as defined by the ATP (Slams, WTFs, Masters), Djokovic has majored in them all overwhelmingly:

Big Title Finals:

Slams: 12-9
WTFs: 5-1
Masters: 30-13

Total: 47-23.

By definition, and by tradition, a major is one of the 4 events that make up the Grand Slam.

 

[DreddyTennis45]

A major is the academic subject that is the student's primary area of concentration during his or her undergraduate years. Almost any field can be a major: one of the sciences, or mathematics; any one of the humanities; business; music; engineering; etc. The student will be required to complete a large, required number of courses in that field, and perhaps write a research paper or thesis as well (obligations differ from school to school). The undergraduate degree, typically a bachelor of arts or bachelor of science, will then be described as being "in" the major field. For example, I hold a B.A. in philosophy because I majored in that subject. It is often possible to earn a double major if desired, by completing all the required undergrad courses in two subjects, but this leaves much less room in the student's schedule for elective courses.

The minor is a secondary area of concentration, with perhaps one-third to one-half the course requirements of the major. Sometimes having a minor is optional, and people with a double major usually don't have a minor. I had a double minor.

Very informative. Thank you.

 

[timnz]

Depends on what one's definition of a 'minor' is I suppose. If you take the view that anything not a 'Major' (ie. a Slam) is, by definition, a 'Minor' then Djokovic has still majored in them pretty comprehensively, winning 12 out of 21 finals.

Of the big titles, as defined by the ATP (Slams, WTFs, Masters), Djokovic has majored in them all overwhelmingly:

Big Title Finals:

Slams: 12-9
WTFs: 5-1
Masters: 30-13

Total: 47-23.

Very good point about 'Big Titles'

I like the ATP's definition of 'Big Titles' - all of them are very hard to win.

Djokovic is second only to Federer in 'Big Titles'. And he is likely to finish his career as the number 1 in big titles in the 'Open era'.

 

[Mr Feeny]

Djokovic has the nole slam. In 30 years time that may propel him to goat status. At the moment the significance of that achievement is not properly celebrated

I doubt that very much. Nobody is looking back at the dearth in men's talent around that time and celebrating that accomplishment. That's not gonna change tomorrow or in the future. People aren't stupid. They recognize that the next best challenger was a grandpa.

The goat will always be the individual with he slam record and djokovic can't get there unfortunately for him. Because he's not quite good enough.

 

[Mainad]

By definition, and by tradition, a major is one of the 4 events that make up the Grand Slam.

I know that. But does that mean that everything that is not a Slam is a 'Minor'?

 

[Limpinhitter]

I know that. But does that mean that everything that is not a Slam is a 'Minor'?

Not in my mind. "Minor," is not a traditional term in tennis. But, if you want to use it, presently I don't think it's appropriate for anything other than 250 level events.

 

[Gary Duane]

Terrific, ok, so with R128 out, Fed's numbers are closer to his Masters numbers, which were:

57.3423
78.3375

The GW is almost the same now. BUT his match-winning percentage in majors remains much higher than in Masters, by a full six percentage points.

Not sure what might be causing that but it's interesting.

You mentioned Sampras, I do think in his case the numbers show that he cared less about non-major events. The gap between his major and non-major numbers is striking, unless we start finding similar gaps with other ATG's but so far we don't.

I kept getting interrupted, and then Firebox crashed, which it almost never does. The only thing I can tell you for sure is that moving from round to round the figures keep going down, which I guess is logical and expected. I mean, you hardly expect the same % in finals as in R128.

But I honestly think you are onto something. I did not expect a noticeable difference between R128 and R64, but you were right, and I was wrong.

I probably should have just done those two rounds for comparison...

R128:
63.6137
91.3043

R64:
65.3680
98.3871

R32:
61.0035
91.9355

R16
58.0508
85.1852

QF
57.2832
83.6735

SF
53.7838
68.2927

F
52.7972
64.2857

This seems impossible, but apparently it is right:

R64:


65.3680
98.3871

 

[Djokovic2011]

I think Nick Cave majored in minors, while Beach Boys majored in majors.

Not sure if that answered your question

Nick Cave definitely majored in majors in 1995

 

[Djokovic2011]

I doubt that very much. Nobody is looking back at the dearth in men's talent around that time and celebrating that accomplishment. That's not gonna change tomorrow or in the future. People aren't stupid. They recognize that the next best challenger was a grandpa.

The goat will always be the individual with he slam record and djokovic can't get there unfortunately for him. Because he's not quite good enough.

Oh well, at least he achieved something special that the "grandpa" never will, which is why I suspect you detest him so much

 

[KINGROGER]

Nole messed up too much at slams during his peak years. From 2011-2016 he won 11 slams yes. But in this period he lost to his pigeon Murray twice, grandpa Federer twice, washed up Nadal at 2014 RG, journeyman Wawrinka 3 times, pigeon Nishikori once.

He should've won:

2012 Wimbledon/USO
2013 Wimbledon
2014 CYGS
2015 CYGS
2016 CYGS

Leaving him with 21 slams and as overall GOAT. He failed to do so which leaves him 6 slams off the GOAT aged 30 almost.

Federer won 16 slams in a similar time frame, with 0 embarrassing losses at grand slams and then 2 GS wins as a grandpa. Nole needs 6 GS as a grandpa which is Rosewell territory.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Whenever I see "grandpa" used to describe Federer, I just can't help laughing out loud.

 

[cc0509]

Djokovic has the nole slam. In 30 years time that may propel him to goat status. At the moment the significance of that achievement is not properly celebrated

LOL. Nobody except for some rabid Novak fans and members of Novak's family care much about a Novak slam. You see how much coverage the media gave it(close to zero.) In tennis it's all about the CYGS. Novak didn't achieve the CYGS. The Novak slam was a nice achievement but it will never be enough to make him GOAT. In order to be GOAT he would have to get the slam record and perhaps the weeks @ #1 record as well. If he managed a CYGS the conversation would have been different and he may have been able to have less than 18 slams and be perceived as GOAT.

 

[cc0509]

Even Djokovic's mom recognizes he doesn't have a GOAT argument at the moment. Lotta work to do.

Precisely.

 

[reaper]

Djokovic has the nole slam. In 30 years time that may propel him to goat status. At the moment the significance of that achievement is not properly celebrated

You think people will be talking about Djokovic's non calendar slam in about 2047?

 

[Mr Feeny]

Oh well, at least he achieved something special that the "grandpa" never will, which is why I suspect you detest him so much

Hardly detest him. Nor do I care. I'm sitting pretty cheering for the guy with the slam record. That's all I or any Federer fans care about. Everything else is small fish. We got bigger fish to fry.

 

[cc0509]

You think people will be talking about Djokovic's non calendar slam in about 2047?

Commentators and the media didn't talk much about it in 2016; by 2047 it will be forgotten.

 

[Mainad]

Commentators and the media didn't talk much about it in 2016; by 2047 it will be forgotten.

The talk was mainly about him achieving the CGS by finally winning Roland Garros. That put him in the very select company of just 5 players in the open era to have done that (along with Laver, Agassi, Federer and Nadal). I'm guessing that is more likely to be recalled in 30 years time than just winning 4 in a row.

 

[Gary Duane]

I know that. But does that mean that everything that is not a Slam is a 'Minor'?

To be clear, I was making fun of a former poster, AngieB.

I was merely pointing out that Djokovic has been amazingly consistent and has put a lot of effort into winning M1000s.

The moment was say that a M1000 is "minor", then that means a victory such as Fed's victory over Djokovic at Cincinnati was "minor" and that it has almost no importance.

You can be very sure that Fed's win at that tournament was not "minor" to his fans.

 

[Gary Duane]

The talk was mainly about him achieving the CGS by finally winning Roland Garros. That put him in the very select company of just 5 players in the open era to have done that (along with Laver, Agassi, Federer and Nadal). I'm guessing that is more likely to be recalled in 30 years time than just winning 4 in a row.

I disagree a bit. Who else has won four slams in a row on the men's side in the Open era?

Unless I have lost my mind, only Laver, right? That's pretty damned hard to do and thus very special!

 

[cc0509]

The talk was mainly about him achieving the CGS by finally winning Roland Garros. That put him in the very select company of just 5 players in the open era to have done that (along with Laver, Agassi, Federer and Nadal). I'm guessing that is more likely to be recalled in 30 years time than just winning 4 in a row.

Yes, I think the CGS is something which was talked about more and put him in rarefied air but this notion that a NCYGS is something which is the gold standard in tennis is fabrication. The highest goal a player can achieve in tennis is the CYGS. Then it's about slam count and then things like weeks@ #1, YE #1,etc. I'm not saying the NCYGS isn't a credible achievement but this nonsense that it puts him in the GOAT debate when he's 7 slams away from surpassing the slam record holder is nonsense.

 

[cc0509]

I disagree a bit. Who else has won four slams in a row on the men's side in the Open era?

Unless I have lost my mind, only Laver, right? That's pretty damned hard to do and thus very special!

It's hard to do and an excellent achievement but it's not a CYGS like Laver actually accomplished twice. The media glossed over the NCYGS because it's not the CYGS and most people don't care.

 

[Mainad]

To be clear, I was making fun of a former poster, AngieB.

I know. I have to admit she was quite amusing with her "majoring in minors" postings.

I was merely pointing out that Djokovic has been amazingly consistent and has put a lot of effort into winning M1000s.

I still can't quite get over the fact that, by the end of the 2010 season (when he had just won DC for Serbia), he still only had 5 M1000 titles and hadn't even made a final that year. He was 4th among active players behind Fed, Nadal and even Murray! From 2011 onwards, he just went berserk!!!

The moment was say that a M1000 is "minor", then that means a victory such as Fed's victory over Djokovic at Cincinnati was "minor" and that it has almost no importance.

You can be very sure that Fed's win at that tournament was not "minor" to his fans.

Strange, isn't it, how these events are pretty 'major' for some fans when their hero is winning them and then suddenly become 'minor' when some rival or someone they despise starts winning them too?

 

[Mainad]

I disagree a bit. Who else has won four slams in a row on the men's side in the Open era?

Unless I have lost my mind, only Laver, right? That's pretty damned hard to do and thus very special!

To be honest, I don't know Gary. I can recall who won the CYGS and CGS but not which ones won 4 in a row although I'm certainly not knocking that achievement. Maybe that's just me or maybe it tells us something?