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

clayqueen

Talk Tennis Guru
It will be interesting to see where this GOAT debate goes. It's laughable that no sooner Rafa equalled Federer's slam count questions are being asked about the validity of slam count being the yardstick for GOAT when it has been evident all along that it's a strange way to assess greatness. No one can be the GOAT unless they dominate all surfaces.
 

BackhandDTL

Hall of Fame
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.
Again “outside of clay.” Clay is tennis.

Maybe if their slam record is tied then slams across surfaces is a tiebreaker metric. Until then, it isin’t a factor.

And Djokovic arguably shouldn’t have 5 Wimbledon titles. Murray fell off a cliff since 2013 and 35 year old Federer? Please. This is the same logic you are using.

Imagine 06-08 Nadal facing geriatric Federer for 3 years.
 

clayqueen

Talk Tennis Guru
There is no way Rafa can have 13 RG slams and Federer and Djokovic have 1 each for either of them to be the GOAT. No way. Similarly, Rafa cannot be the GOAT because he hasn't won enough on grass, for whatever reason.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
Again “outside of clay.” Clay is tennis.

Maybe if their slam record is tied then slams across surfaces is a tiebreaker metric. Until then, it isin’t a factor.

And Djokovic arguably shouldn’t have 5 Wimbledon titles. Murray fell off a cliff since 2013 and 35 year old Federer? Please. This is the same logic you are using.

Imagine 06-08 Nadal facing geriatric Federer for 3 years.
Yes clay is tennis but clay is only one surface.

Arguably shouldn't have 5 Wimbledons? He actually beat one of Fedal everytime he won it. This is beyond weak.
 

BackhandDTL

Hall of Fame
Yes clay is tennis but clay is only one surface.

Arguably shouldn't have 5 Wimbledons? He actually beat one of Fedal everytime he won it. This is beyond weak.
14, 15? When Federer had significantly declined? I am using your own logic. If Nadal has been favored at the USO then Djokovic has too at Wimbledon, considering the draws he has had and competition on grass. USO 2018 FO 2016? Oh please.

it’s a two way street.
 

Beckerserve

Hall of Fame
Again “outside of clay.” Clay is tennis.

Maybe if their slam record is tied then slams across surfaces is a tiebreaker metric. Until then, it isin’t a factor.

And Djokovic arguably shouldn’t have 5 Wimbledon titles. Murray fell off a cliff since 2013 and 35 year old Federer? Please. This is the same logic you are using.

Imagine 06-08 Nadal facing geriatric Federer for 3 years.
Winning multiple majors on all three surfaces and beating the best on each surface is what makes a GOAT. Only Nadal has done it as it happens.
Wonder who thinks Rios is better than Stich.
 

Thetouch

Professional
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).
Becker and Edberg is a special case imo. You can argue that it was Becker's fault for not having a postive h2h against Edberg in Slams since he was about to beat him in RG '89 and Wimbledon '90 but somehow lost both these matches. On the other hand Edberg has had some bad luck in the AO because he could have probably won 3 in a row had the slam taken place in 1986 and he also had to retire twice when he was playing very well, once against Lendl in the final '90 and another time he didn't even play his QF match.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
14, 15? When Federer had significantly declined? I am using your own logic. If Nadal has been favored at the USO then Djokovic has too at Wimbledon, considering the draws he has had and competition on grass.

it’s a two way street.
:rolleyes: So did this decline disappear in 2019? Djokovic actually had a hellish draw in 2014 and even his 2015 draw was not easy. Show me where Nadal had anything like that at the USO en route to a title.
 
Becker and Edberg is a special case imo. You can argue that it was Becker's fault for not having a postive h2h against Edberg in Slams since he was about to beat him in RG '89 and Wimbledon '90 but somehow lost both these matches. On the other hand Edberg has had some bad luck in the AO because he could have probably won 3 in a row had the slam taken place in 1986 and he also had to retire twice when he was playing very well, once against Lendl in the final '90 and another time he didn't even play his QF match.
AO moved its date just a month forward, nothing changes in this regard. "1986 Dec" -> 1987 Jan, 1987 Dec -> 1988 Jan, etc.
Edberg sure pulled closer to Becker beating him in WB finals despite an overall lopsided H2H in Becker's favour, but overall Becker still clearly more achieved.
 

USO

Professional


As both a Federer and Nadal fan, even I can admit that Nadal is the only one who has won at least 2 slams on each surface, not Federer and certainly not Djokovic. So this whole argument about Nadal being only about clay is ridiculous, he has nothing to prove just like the other 2. At the end of the day a slam is a slam.

As for Djokovic, the fact that he is all of a sudden hyping up the weeks at no.1 means that after the FO 2020 he has realized that the slam record is going to be difficult. But everyone knows that his ultimate goal was always the slams as he has said it a million times. He is not fooling anyone (except his fans obviously).
 

Beckerserve

Hall of Fame
Why is Djokovic droning on and on about weeks at #1? He passed Sampras and plastered it all over his social media. When Fed passed Pete, he didn't say anything and just went about his business. The self-absorption is really tedious with him.
I think Nadal really has hurt Djokovic 3 weeks ago. Contrast to Federer reaction.
Seems to me we have two contented ATGs and one incomplete one.
 

Beckerserve

Hall of Fame


As both a Federer and Nadal fan, even I can admit that Nadal is the only one who has won at least 2 slams on each surface, not Federer and certainly not Djokovic. So this whole argument about Nadal being only about clay is ridiculous, he has nothing to prove just like the other 2. At the end of the day a slam is a slam.

As for Djokovic, the fact that he is all of a sudden hyping up the weeks at no.1 means that after the FO 2020 he has realized that the slam record is going to be difficult. But everyone knows that his ultimate goal was always the slams as he has said it a million times. He is not fooling anyone (except his fans obviously).
Seems to confirm we have a Big 2 now.
 

mehdimike

Rookie
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.
Because we have four slams in a year but just one #1 at the end of the season?!
It's mathematically impossible to have fewer number of slam winners than players reaching #1. It could be tougher in a sense but not always.
 

Beckerserve

Hall of Fame
:rolleyes: So did this decline disappear in 2019? Djokovic actually had a hellish draw in 2014 and even his 2015 draw was not easy. Show me where Nadal had anything like that at the USO en route to a title.
2010 and 2013. Beat the self procliamed best hard court player of all time on his best surface.
 

myth

Semi-Pro
“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
I agree with Novak.
 

USO

Professional
Also as mentioned in other threads, everyone knows that ranking points are not a real representation of greatness. 1 slam (2000 points) is not equal to 2 masters 1000 (2000 points). No player would choose the 2 masters 1000 over 1 slam. In fact no player would choose 5 masters 1000 over 1 slam. That alone shows how slams are more important than rankings.
 

Thetouch

Professional
AO moved its date just a month forward, nothing changes in this regard. "1986 Dec" -> 1987 Jan, 1987 Dec -> 1988 Jan, etc.
Edberg sure pulled closer to Becker beating him in WB finals despite an overall lopsided H2H in Becker's favour, but overall Becker still clearly more achieved.
You are right nothing changed actually. I agree that Becker is probably viewed as the more accomplished player but as a Becker fan myself I also have to admit that Edberg could have won more than he did, if not for his retirements. Becker might have won Wimbledon '96 instead.
 

TripleATeam

Legend
Because we have four slams in a year but just one #1 at the end of the season?!
It's mathematically impossible to have fewer number of slam winners than players reaching #1. It could be tougher in a sense but not always.
Mathematically improbable, but since #1 doesn't require having a slam, you can have more #1s than slam winners (Rios).
 

clayqueen

Talk Tennis Guru
This GOAT business means more to Novak than it does to Rafa and Roger. Roger has said a few times that he is not the GOAT and Rafa only says let's wait until we are all retired. Djokovic is unfulfilled.
 

BackhandDTL

Hall of Fame
:rolleyes: So did this decline disappear in 2019? Djokovic actually had a hellish draw in 2014 and even his 2015 draw was not easy. Show me where Nadal had anything like that at the USO en route to a title.
2014 at best was a normal draw. 2015 was straightforward. Beating the 2nd best/best HC player of all time in his prime years twice in a final is more impressive than beating a heavily declined Fed.

38 year old Fed is the best competition on grass in 2019. Which is once again, shocking.
 

Beckerserve

Hall of Fame
This GOAT business means more to Novak than it does to Rafa and Roger. Roger has said a few times that he is not the GOAT and Rafa only says let's wait until we are all retired. Djokovic is unfulfilled.
Nadal and Federer know they are in box seat so do not need to bang on about it. Djokovic continues to destroy his credibility each presser. 2020 has been a disaster for him really. I liked him up to this year. Bet millions feel the same way. It is like a car wreck for him getting worse.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
Because we have four slams in a year but just one #1 at the end of the season?!
It's mathematically impossible to have fewer number of slam winners than players reaching #1. It could be tougher in a sense but not always.
That's not a good explanation because multiple people could become #1 in one year. I didn't say there were 26 players to end the year #1. It's less than that.
 

GabeT

Legend
Because we have four slams in a year but just one #1 at the end of the season?!
It's mathematically impossible to have fewer number of slam winners than players reaching #1. It could be tougher in a sense but not always.
No, you are confusing YE1 with weeks at number 1. there is only one YE1 per year but players can reach #1 anytime during the year. So many more opportunities than with the slams
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
Djokovic would of said the same thing if he was holding the slam record. Its hilarious people think this is agenda driven hahahahahaha.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Why is Djokovic droning on and on about weeks at #1? He passed Sampras and plastered it all over his social media. When Fed passed Pete, he didn't say anything and just went about his business. The self-absorption is really tedious with him.
Social media is one thing but this is a press conference, he gets asked questions. Has nothing to do with self-absorption but simply giving his opinion and promoting the game.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
2014 at best was a normal draw. 2015 was straightforward. Beating the 2nd best/best HC player of all time in his prime years twice in a final is more impressive than beating a heavily declined Fed.

38 year old Fed is the best competition on grass in 2019. Which is once again, shocking.
2014 was probably the hardest draw of his career, besides maybe USO 2011, but you said it was a normal draw? Lol.
 

irishnadalfan1983

Hall of Fame
Why does Nole keep talking and talking about records, weeks at number 1, slams, etc.....Maybe journalists are pushing towards these topics on him but I am kind of sick of it :)
 

mehdimike

Rookie
No, you are confusing YE1 with weeks at number 1. there is only one YE1 per year but players can reach #1 anytime during the year. So many more opportunities than with the slams
Cool. I got it now. You're right I was thinking of YE1 for some reason:eek: Quarantine effect maybe?!:p
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame

Roger Federer spoke about his childhood memories. The Basel native said: "I remember as a kid I always wanted to be a tennis player, be number one, able to win Wimbledon. You dream big but you never know if it will happen.
 
Last edited:

Milanez82

Semi-Pro
What he said is true, everybody knows it.
He also stated once he gets to 311 he will adapt his schedule to focus on slams.
Same thing Fed did last 10 years.
Except that one time he had a shot to be NO1 in 2018 and added Roterdam to gain critical 500 points.
And it paid off.
 
You are right nothing changed actually. I agree that Becker is probably viewed as the more accomplished player but as a Becker fan myself I also have to admit that Edberg could have won more than he did, if not for his retirements. Becker might have won Wimbledon '96 instead.
I would say Becker underachieved in slams being inconsistent, and unclutch at Wimbledon where he was consistent. He was especially clutch against Lendl though (barring 1992-93 walkabout losses marking his general mental disarray at the time), winning their AO/USO finals somewhat against the run of play. Funny how this works.
 

TheNachoMan

Hall of Fame
I can imagine how #1 being scribed next to your name is the best feeling in the world. Murray pretty much killed his body to be #1 in 2016
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
Of course Novak Djokovic would say this.

He's in with a shout of getting the world No 1 record, but the slam record is slipping ever further from his reach.
 

6august

Hall of Fame
Obviously.

Rios and who else?

Meanwhile, there are multiple players who win (more than 1) Slam and never reach No. 1.
 

BackhandDTL

Hall of Fame
2014 was probably the hardest draw of his career, besides maybe USO 2011, but you said it was a normal draw? Lol.
He looked pretty mediocre against Cilic and Dimitrov. Whose fault is that? Dimitrov was getting the 4th set wrapped in a gift basket and still blew it.

And Cilic folded like a deck of cards in the last two sets. Passive grindfest and Cilic erroring his way to another loss. How he managed to play like Jesus in the entirety of USO 2014, only God knows.
 

topher

Professional
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.
It’s pretty new to me to hear him say he thinks the number 1 ranking weeks record is his ultimate goal over slams.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
He looked pretty mediocre against Cilic and Dimitrov. Whose fault is that? Dimitrov was getting the 4th set wrapped in a gift basket and still blew it.

And Cilic folded like a deck of cards in the last two sets. Passive grindfest and Cilic erroring his way to another loss. How he managed to play like Jesus in the entirety of USO 2014, only God knows.
That's maybe because he had some decent players to face before reaching the final so they made him look less than great. At the end of that day, he navigated that draw and won the title yet you think it was just a run of the mill normal draw. I'm still waiting for you to show me where Nadal went through a draw like that at the USO.
 

GabeT

Legend
Of course Novak Djokovic would say this.

He's in with a shout of getting the world No 1 record, but the slam record is slipping ever further from his reach.
Really? He is tied with Federer and two slams behind Nadal on slams won at age 33. He is, comfortably, the world number 1 (not true for either Federer or Nadal at the same age) indicating he can manage most of the field most of the time. He has not been beaten by another player in 44 matches, except for Nadal at RG. Nothing is certain in tennis or life but he is much better placed to win more slams than he was 28 months ago, when he was #22 in the world, and floundering. And we all remember what happened after that.
 
Top