Djokovic: A player has a greater chance of winning a slam than number 1

“Grand Slams are historically the most significant tournaments in our sport, there is no doubt about that,” Djokovic told reporters at the Vienna Open.

“Winning a Slam is like winning a world championship, only we have that opportunity four times a year. Those are two exhausting weeks in every sense for every one of us.

“Slams are the pinnacle of our sport and absolutely everyone player tries to be at his best when Slams come. That is what makes them so essential and so challenging.

“On the other hand, you could argue that a player has a greater chance of blossoming, playing tennis of his life in those two weeks and winning a Slam compared to the odds of a player maintaining that rhythm and level of play throughout the year, which would make him the world number one at the end of the season.
“That is why the historic number on is the biggest goal of mine at the moment, because I know how demanding it is.
“It is perhaps the ultimate goal because you need to be at your very best for every tournament, not just the Slams.
“And you need to do it within an extremely competitive environment.
“But again – I do not feel comfortable commenting on who is the GOAT. I will leave that to others.”


Link: https://**********.net/grand-slams-shouldnt-be-main-factor-in-goat-debate-suggests-novak-djokovic/

Edit: The tennis head link is not working. Check at: https://www.sportskeeda.com/tennis/news-a-player-greater-chance-winning-slam-finishing-no-1-novak-djokovic-ranking-record-biggest-goal
 

Beckerserve

Hall of Fame
Looks like he has given up on the slam race. Can’t blame him.
I said that a few days ago. It seems clear now. As close to an admission as you can get really given his previous remarks.
He did say after 2021 he would focus on his family more. I just wonder if he gets weeks at no.1 whether he calls it a day end of 2021.
 

BackhandDTL

Professional
Djokovic confirms what some of have long argued ie. It's not ALL about the Slams.
Why should anything that Djokovic has to say be given any credibility? Isint this the same guy that had claimed water reacts to human emotions? Not to mention he is the one trailing in slams and will do whatever he can to put him in the GOAT conversation, considering how manic he is when it comes to the GOAThood quest.
 

TripleATeam

Legend
It's true that it's much harder to fluke your way to #1 than it is to fluke a slam. Take 1980-1989. In 10 years we had 39 slams with Chang, Cash, Noah, and Teacher as 1 time slam champs. That's 7/79 or roughly 9%.

Now take the #1 during those periods: Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Wilander - each had 7 slams or more.

Same thing during the 70s and 10s. We didn't have a single #1 with fewer than 2 slams. Only in the 90s and 00s did a couple of #1s get in there with not-as-great results at the majors, and even then there were even more fluke slam champions to balance it.

90s and 00s:
1 time slam champs: Gomez, Stich, Muster, Krajicek, Korda, Moya, Ivanisevic, Johansson, Costa, Ferrero, Roddick, Gaudio, Delpo.
#1s with less than 6 slams: Courier, Muster, Rios, Moya, Kafelnikov, Rafter, Safin, Kuerten, Hewitt, Ferrero, Roddick

Really, what caused this was a lack of ATGs between Sampras/Agassi and Federer that could play at top level consistently. Expect a similar thing in the 2020s as well.
 

Beckerserve

Hall of Fame
Why should anything that Djokovic has to say be given any credibility? Isint this the same guy that had claimed water reacts to human emotions? Not to mention he is the one trailing in slams and will do whatever he can to put him in the GOAT conversation, considering how manic is he when it comes to the GOAThood quest.
His comments actually make some sense. Problem is after Australia he said Slams were the main accolade and what goat status was measured by. So now it looks like he is still stung by the FO and/or USO. Not sure which one has hurt him more.
 

USO

Professional
This is proof that Djokovic has literally given up subconsciously on the slam record. The way he is hyping the weeks at number one out of nowhere just because he is close is rather pathetic at this point. Many players who have reached number one like Safina or whoever because they played tons of small tournaments found that it was much more difficult to win a slam. His logic is completely flawed and rather transparent.
 

GabeT

Legend
Who? Not Federer or Nadal or Sampras or Borg not Lendl. Courier has. Andrew Castle has in the past. Who else out of interest?
federer as recently as 2017, when he began to win slams again, was asked if he would aim for #1. He said that he’d love to but that that was much harder than winning a slam.
sampras clearly gave great importance to his YE1 (and rightly so)

any pro player of any sports always aims to be #1. It’s what‘s common to all, they all want to say they were the best in the world.

murray may have destroyed his body in 2016 in pursuit of reaching #1

what Novak said simply isn’t controversial among pro athletes.

also in the Open Era more players have won a slam than have reached number 1
 

Devtennis01

Hall of Fame
He's correct.
However, it doesn't change the fact that the tennis community will treat Nadal's record RG haul with more awe than his record tying y.e no.1.
Why? Sport is about winning that match and holding the trophy. Then comes rankings, etc. It's all well and good being No.1, well and great, even, but it's the rush of winning and holding the trophy that drives these guys primarily.
Djokovic is playing politics here, twisting the message to suit his agenda.
Few care, though.
 

Beckerserve

Hall of Fame
federer as recently as 2017, when he began to win slams again, was asked if he would aim for #1. He said that he’d love to but that that was much harder than winning a slam.
sampras clearly gave great importance to his YE1 (and rightly so)

any pro player of any sports always aims to be #1. It’s what‘s common to all, they all want to say they were the best in the world.

murray may have destroyed his body in 2016 in pursuit of reaching #1

what Novak said simply isn’t controversial among pro athletes.

also in the Open Era more players have won a slam than have reached number 1
Are you sure? Pretty sure Federer values 20 Majors more than his weeks at no.1. Sampras does. He says so in his book.
YE1 is a big deal i agree there but its not as big as Slam count.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
Win a Slam. You can become no.1 by a clever schedule as Marcelo Rios proved. You could be no.1 by always losing big finals but consistently making the finals. To me winning is the ultimate test.
Simple question back to you. Borg v Connors. Becker v Courier. Who was better.
Then why is there only one Slamless #1 and countless Slam winners who were never #1? Why have 56 people won a Slam (in the OE) and only 26 reached #1? Take your time and come up with a decent rebuttal.
 

Beckerserve

Hall of Fame
Then why is there only one Slamless #1 and countless Slam winners who were never #1? Why have 56 people won a Slam and only 26 reached #1? Take your time and come up with a decent rebuttal.
Because players main goal is winning a slam! Obviously.
Now Becker v Courier and Borg v Connors
 

Beckerserve

Hall of Fame
The comparison shouldn’t even be winning a slam vs being #1.

Winning 20 slams is probably way harder than being #1 for a period of time. It proves longevity across different eras, whereas #1 can be accumulated against periods with weaker competition. IE, Raonic Nishikori, 35 year old Federer
Worth a poll dont you think? Who was better out of 1) Becker v Courier 2) borg v connors.
 

topher

Professional
Being that there are over 50 Slam winners in the OE (don't know the exact number) and 26 players to reach #1, no one should argue against what he is saying. It won't stop them though. Lol
Not that part, but this:
“It is perhaps the ultimate goal because you need to be at your very best for every tournament, not just the Slams.
That is very arguable. And a convenient opinion given his current position in the slam race (although he is far from out of it). Personally, the lady doth protest a bit too much.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
Because players main goal is winning a slam! Obviously.
Now Becker v Courier and Borg v Connors
Lol nooo. It's because they weren't consistent and good enough, to do it day in and day out, to reach it. Why do you keep bringing up these players and trying to make a equivalent between Nadal and Djokovic? Becker was better than Courier on 3 surfaces: hard, grass and carpet. Case closed. Borg was better than Connors on two surfaces at least and probably better on carpet too. Another case closed. That is NO comparison with Nadal and Djokovic, where Nadal is only better than Djokovic on clay.
 

JadeC

Hall of Fame
You don't even have to read the comments to know who will reply and what they will say. TTW posters are so predictable.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
Not that part, but this:


That is very arguable. And a convenient opinion given his current position in the slam race (although he is far from out of it). Personally, the lady doth protest a bit too much.
Its not like he just woke and said he wanted this record. He said it last year. Lol. It makes sense for him to focus more now on this record, being that no more Slams are being played this year, and with him so close. He has always craved being #1 and being the best, and had this view about the ranking for a very long time.
 

Beckerserve

Hall of Fame
Lol nooo. It's because they weren't consistent and good enough, to do it day in and day out, to reach it. Why do you keep bringing up these players and trying to make a equivalent between Nadal and Djokovic? Becker was better than Courier on 3 surfaces: hard, grass and carpet. Case closed. Borg was better than Connors on two surfaces at least and probably better on carpet too. Another case closed. That is NO comparison with Nadal and Djokovic, where Nadal is only better than Djokovic on clay.
So USO is on what? I thought it was the biggest HC Major. And Nadal has 4. So you have kind of defeated your whole argument lol.
So you accept Becker is better than courier and borg than connors. So by your own admission Nadal is better than Djokovic. Nadal even has a Surface Slam and multiple Majors on all the 3 surfaces so the gap between Nadal and Djokovic is larger than Becker and courier and borg and connors.
Players value Slams more tham no.1. Yet to hear Thiem say no.1 was his main goal. His 2 big aims were a Major and winning his home event.
As you say. Case closed. Slams matter more.
 
Anyway, Becker and Edberg are equal in slam titles with Edberg having a massive edge in #1 (2 YE#1 to 0, 60-something weeks to 12), but history buffs naturally agree Becker is superior due to his significantly better non-slam record (3 YEC to 1, 3 WCT/GSC to 0, more masters too).
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
So USO is on what? I thought it was the biggest HC Major. And Nadal has 4. So you have kind of defeated your whole argument lol.
So you accept Becker is better than courier and borg than connors. So by your own admission Nadal is better than Djokovic. Nadal even has a Surface Slam and multiple Majors on all the 3 surfaces so the gap between Nadal and Djokovic is larger than Becker and courier and borg and connors.
Players value Slams more tham no.1. Yet to hear Thiem say no.1 was his main goal. His 2 big aims were a Major and winning his home event.
As you say. Case closed. Slams matter more.
Dude there are two hardcourt majors. He is not even close to Djokovic in Australia and has only one more at the USO, thanks to some favorable draws while having a lower winning percentage, less finals and less wins over top players. Djokovic has 11 hardcourt Slams and Nadal has 5. You sound beyond silly even trying to argue this. Outside of clay, Nadal can't touch Djokovic. Everyone knows this except Nadal fanatics like you who are completely delusional.
 
Top