Djokovic has won 48 out of his last 50 matches in grand slam play - 96% win rate

[MichaelNadal]

I've said for years the only three things that give other players a chance against this monster are: a crucifix, a wooden stake and garlic.

For those of us who are not haters but also not a fan of this man, it's very frustrating to watch what he does month after month. I am totally rooting for Carlos or some other young player to finally break through. But I won't be surprised in the least if Djokovic wins this slam.

 

[Bubcay]

Incredible scenes by The Earth's Mightiest Warrior that in his mid 30s he has put up devastating numbers like this.

Who knows what the next 50 will look like, but the last 50 have been insane. It gave him a winning streak of 27 matches, a current winning streak of 17 matches, and five grand slam titles.

Sleep well Earth's Citizens

Unbelievable stat... "Incredible scenes"™

 

[Hitman]

I've said for years the only three things that give other players a chance against this monster are: a crucifix, a wooden stake and garlic.

For those of us who are not haters but also not a fan of this man, it's very frustrating to watch what he does month after month. I am totally rooting for Carlos or some other young player to finally break through. But I won't be surprised in the least if Djokovic wins this slam.

Haha!

 

[BauerAlmeida]

DJokovic's prime ended in 2016.
Wim 18-AO 19 was prime-ish level.
After that its been well past prime and mainly vulturing except for RG 21 where he did actually did get a decent draw for once.

Calling a pathetic field in inflation/(2016-current)/asterisk era (2020-current) as anywhere near the fields before 2016 or so is disrespectful to the players in the past. That well past prime Djokovic got 3 slams in a row and a match away from a CYGS at that mediocre level for CYGS standards is a joke and indicative of how pathetic the field has been. 2 worst generations in a row - Nishi/Rao/Dimi gen and Med/Z/Tpas gen.

W 2018-AO2019 he was playing better than in 2013-2014.

 

[RS]

W 2018-AO2019 he was playing better than in 2013-2014.

8 slams vs 3 though?

Well if just a took a solo it's 4 vs 3 which is nearer

 

[abmk]

W 2018-AO2019 he was playing better than in 2013-2014.

not sure how exactly you are comparing.

firstly lets get outside of the slams, out of the way: Djokovic was clearly better in 13 and in 14 outside of th slams
Won YEC 13, Monte Carlo 13, Shanghai 13, Paris 13, played well in Canada 13 even if he lost to Nadal
Won YEC 14, IW 14, Miami 14, Rome 14, Paris 14, played well in Shanghai 14 even if he lost to Federer
lost YEC 18 final to Zverev in straights, Shanghai 18 was pretty good, won Cincy 18, but not really particularly better than Cincy 13 tbh.

now lets get to the slams

13:

AO 13 > AO 19

Wim 13 ~ Wim 18. Wim 18 djokovic would be atleast just as spent, probably more if he had to play a 4hr 48 min match in 1 day vs a hard hitting in-form delpo. and facing peak Murray instead of a below par, a bit spent himself Anderson - entirely different scene. That is assuming Wim 18 Djokovic does get past delpo - better serve in Wim 18 but reduced return/ground game compared to Wim 13 Djoko.

USO 18 > USO 13

that's just about equal if we look at 3 slams due to USO. USO 18 djoko is still worse than and losing to USO 13 nadal. If we throw in RG 13 vs RG 19, clear edge to 13

14:

AO 14 ~ AO 19 (wasn't tested much in AO 19 and Stan would beat him or at worst outlast him in AO 19)
Wim 14 > Wim 18 (Wim 14 final vs Fed and 4R vs tsonga is better than anything Wim 18 Djokovic could produce)
USO 14 < USO 18

marginal edge to the 2nd one maybe thanks to USO. but throw in RG 14 vs RG 19. clearly swings in favour of 14.

 

[weakera]

not sure how exactly you are comparing.

firstly lets get outside of the slams, out of the way: Djokovic was clearly better in 13 and in 14 outside of th slams
Won YEC 13, Monte Carlo 13, Shanghai 13, Paris 13, played well in Canada 13 even if he lost to Nadal
Won YEC 14, IW 14, Miami 14, Rome 14, Paris 14, played well in Shanghai 14 even if he lost to Federer
lost YEC 18 final to Zverev in straights, Shanghai 18 was pretty good, won Cincy 18, but not really particularly better than Cincy 13 tbh.

now lets get to the slams

13:

AO 13 > AO 19

Wim 13 ~ Wim 18. Wim 18 djokovic would be atleast just as spent, probably more if he had to play a 4hr 48 min match in 1 day vs a hard hitting in-form delpo. and facing peak Murray instead of a below par, a bit spent himself Anderson - entirely different scene. That is assuming Wim 18 Djokovic does get past delpo - better serve in Wim 18 but reduced return/ground game for Wim 18 Djoko compared to Wim 13 Djoko.

USO 18 > USO 13

that's just about equal if we look at 3 slams due to USO. USO 18 djoko is still worse than and losing to USO 13 nadal. If we throw in RG 13 vs RG 19, clear edge to 13

14:

AO 14 ~ AO 19 (wasn't tested much in AO 19 and Stan would beat him or at worst outlast him in AO 19)
Wim 14 > Wim 18 (Wim 14 final vs Fed and 4R vs tsonga is better than anything Wim 18 Djokovic could produce)
USO 14 < USO 18

marginal edge to the 2nd one maybe thanks to USO. but throw in RG 14 vs RG 19. clearly swings in favour of 14.

you have an amazing amount of energy to continue producing posts like this every day

 

[RaulRamirez]

Beating a washed up Nadal at the 2021 FO is not a big deal

Guys who are washed-up don't win two slams the very next year.

 

[GabeT]

If you take away the era’s three best players, you’re left with a sea of mediocrity where only the least ineffective players win as opposed to the truly great. Look what happened to the competition in the late 90’s when Sampras began to lose his stranglehold over the tour.

A player with as many holes in his game as Tsitsipas being a multi-Slam winner would be a frightening sight indeed.

In the scenario I describe no one would know any of this since you’d have several multi slam winners. And that’s the whole issue. What’s really unique in this era are the Big 3

Without the B3 there would have been a natural progression of generations, and there would be no talk of weak eras or even of homogenization of surfaces.

 

[Deleted member 779124]

In the scenario I describe no one would know any of this since you’d have several multi slam winners. And that’s the whole issue. What’s really unique in this era are the Big 3

Pegging it all down to big 3 doesn't work nor does taking them away. Players in the past also competed with the big 3 and did better than them as of now.

 

[NatF]

In the scenario I describe no one would know any of this since you’d have several multi slam winners. And that’s the whole issue. What’s really unique in this era are the Big 3

Without the B3 there would have been a natural progression of generations and there would be no talk of weak eras or even of homogenization of surfaces.

Nope.

 

[GabeT]

Nope.

Yep

 

[Deleted member 779124]

Nope.

He doesn't get it IMHO

 

[GabeT]

He doesn't get it IMHO

We can’t be all geniuses of hypothetical matches that can’t predict a real life match to save their lives, like the weak era crowd

 

[Deleted member 779124]

We can’t be all geniuses of hypothetical matches that can’t predict a real life match to save their lives, like the weak era crowd

Again still don't get it. It's literally a thing everywhere not just in all sport but almost everything and mostly has been but it's mostly you venting at Federer fans.

And surfaces changing is a factual thing too not made up.

 

[GabeT]

Again still don't get it. It's literally a thing everywhere not just in all sport but almost everything and mostly has been but it's mostly you venting at Federer fans.

A “thing everywhere”? What are you even talking about?

 

[Deleted member 779124]

A “thing everywhere”? What are you even talking about?

Hypotheicals and speculation.

 

[GabeT]

Hypotheicals and speculation.

I have no problem with the discussion of hypotheticals if you find that fun. Just don’t pretend it’s real life

 

[Deleted member 779124]

I have no problem with the discussion of hypotheticals if you find that fun. Just don’t pretend it’s real life

Again it's done by hundreds of millions of sports fans at least and was around long before Federer and the big 3. People come on forum's to have discussions not just to read out numbers that's the whole point of having a forum like this.

 

[GabeT]

Again it's done by hundreds of millions of sports fans at least and was around long before Federer and the big 3. People come on forum's to have discussions not just to read out numbers that's the whole point of having a forum like this.

And i have no problem with that. Actually enjoy reading many of those discussions. Just don’t pretend that it’s anything other than unprovable speculations, that’s all

 

[Deleted member 779124]

And i have no problem with that. Actually enjoy reading many of those discussions. Just don’t pretend that it’s anything other than unprovable speculations, that’s all

Sure a lot of it can't be proven and is far fetche . But many discussions are actually based on numbers and tennis matches that did actually happen and are not just made up.

 

[GabeT]

Sure a lot of it can't be proven and is far fetche . But many discussions are actually based on numbers and tennis matches that did actually happen and are not just made up.

And that’s fine. Some of those debates are great. I have no issue with any of that.

My issue is with those that use these hypothetical debates to constantly attack the results of a player they don’t like. That’s just trolling.

 

[NatF]

Yep

We found a clown for the circus.

 

[GabeT]

We found a clown for the circus.

Marvelous!

 

[NatF]

Marvelous!

Only way to describe someone who tries to argue that we haven't had multiple generations without real talent

 

[The Fedfather]

And i have no problem with that. Actually enjoy reading many of those discussions. Just don’t pretend that it’s anything other than unprovable speculations, that’s all

You have quite a problem with that. You were jabbing and mocking posters for discussing hypothetical matchups in every single thread about hypothetical matchups. "Actually enjoy reading those discussions". Sure you do.

"Just don't pretend..." Don't go around a tennis forum telling posters not to discuss tennis. How about that?

 

[tennisandtennis]

Definition of a weak era, when a player in his mid-30s can outgrind and outmaneuver younger men in their athletic primes. Still amazing, but hoping Alcaraz or Rune ends up being an ATG and takes the old man out. IIRC, Agassi was pretty tough in his mid-30s, and probably would have kept going a few more years if not for sciatica. He didn't play Djoker's game, though. Fed was pretty good in his mid-30s, too, but he, like Agassi, had ATG talent in their primes as challengers.

EPO is a miracle drug.

 

[GabeT]

You have quite a problem with that. You were jabbing and mocking posters for discussing hypothetical matchups in every single thread about hypothetical matchups. "Actually enjoy reading those discussions". Sure you are.

"Just don't pretend..." Don't go around a tennis forum telling posters not to discuss tennis. How about that?

I think I’ve been pretty clear as to which hypothetical discussions I have an issue with. But maybe not.

I have an issue with (a relatively small group of) posters that constantly and non stop use “hypotheticals” to attack a player they don’t like. It’s mostly Fed fans attacking Novak’s results and trying to diminish his accomplishments.

Since several of those posters were caught making actual predictions that were disastrously wrong it’s easy to make fun of them. You’ll notice that those posters no longer make any predictions about real matches, only about time travel tennis

 

[GabeT]

Only way to describe someone who tries to argue that we haven't had multiple generations without real talent

If those generations had multiple multislam winners (as they would in the absence of the Big3) no one would talk of weak eras

 

[The Fedfather]

I think I’ve been pretty clear as to which hypothetical discussions I have an issue with. But maybe not.

I have an issue with (a relatively small group of) posters that constantly and non stop use “hypotheticals” to attack a player they don’t like. It’s mostly Fed fans attacking Novak’s results and trying tl diminish his accomplishments.

You being clear about it is irrelevant. It's not your place to police posters talking about hypothetical scenarios, it's not your place to tell people not to discuss tennis on a tennis forum simply because you dislike the context of the discussion.

 

[GabeT]

You being clear about it is irrelevant. It's not your place to police posters talking about hypothetical scenarios, it's not your place to tell people not to discuss tennis on a tennis forum simply because you dislike the context of discussion.

As you point out this is a forum and we all voice our opinions. Everyone should feel free to opine about whatever they want, subject to forum rules.

 

[The Fedfather]

As you point out this is a forum and we all voice our opinions. Everyone should feel free to opine about whatever they want, subject to forum rules.

Of course. Just pointing out that your opining here, as in mocking people for discussing hypotheticals, shows that you have a problem which you denied having.

 

[GabeT]

Of course. Just pointing out that your opining here, as in mocking people for discussing hypotheticals, shows that you have a problem which you denied having.

I’ve never denied I have an issue with posters that use hypotheticals to attack the results of players they don’t like, particularly when those same posters have repeatedly shown they have no ability to predict real life matches

 

[TennisManiac]

 

[The Fedfather]

I’ve never denied I have an issue with posters that use hypotheticals to attack the results of players they don’t like, particularly when those same posters have repeatedly shown they have no ability to predict real life matches

Posters using hypotheticals to attack the results of players they don't like sounds like yours and some of your fellow Djokovic fans' stance on how Novak's presence in the AO 2022 draw would affect the result. But I guess your issue starts and ends with your own opinion of what results can never be put into question (Djokovic's) as opposed to those that can be (not Djokovic's).

 

[GabeT]

Posters using hypotheticals to attack the results of players they don't like sounds like yours and some of your fellow Djokovic fans' stance on how Novak's presence in the AO 2022 draw would affect the result. But I guess your issue starts and ends with your own opinion of what results can never be put into question (Djokovic's) as opposed to those that can be (not Djokovic's).

I can only speak for myself.

 

[adil1972]

Can we call Big3 that is fed / nadal / djok

New 3 Tennis Muskeeters of 21st Century

or

Big3 title is enough

The Four Musketeers (tennis) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[RS]

As always the thread turns to the usual.

 

[Third Serve]

In the scenario I describe no one would know any of this since you’d have several multi slam winners. And that’s the whole issue. What’s really unique in this era are the Big 3

Without the B3 there would have been a natural progression of generations, and there would be no talk of weak eras or even of homogenization of surfaces.

“no one” meaning casual viewers of course

but I’m not describing the opinions and misconceptions of casual viewers; I’m just telling you what would happen in the real world

if you took away the top 100 players, then of course the 101st best player would probably win multiple Slams—that says zilch about his level

 

[GabeT]

As always the thread turns to the usual.

If you go back this particular sub thread started with this post:

its incredible that posters don’t understand that several of these so-called mugs would be multi slam winners and even ATGs without the Big 3 around

Given that the Big 3 won a total of 64 slams. and 21 slams since 2017, it’s practically a mathematical certainty that had they not existed several of the players some call mugs would be multi slam winners today

 

[BauerAlmeida]

8 slams vs 3 though?

Well if just a took a solo it's 4 vs 3 which is nearer

True, hard to compare different time periods. But the fact he won 3 slams out of 3 in one period (or 4 out of 5 if you extend it a bit) vs 2 out of 8 in the other one is telling enough.

 

[GabeT]

“no one” meaning casual viewers of course

but I’m not describing the opinions and misconceptions of casual viewers; I’m just telling you what would happen in the real world

But of course

 

[BauerAlmeida]

not sure how exactly you are comparing.

firstly lets get outside of the slams, out of the way: Djokovic was clearly better in 13 and in 14 outside of th slams
Won YEC 13, Monte Carlo 13, Shanghai 13, Paris 13, played well in Canada 13 even if he lost to Nadal
Won YEC 14, IW 14, Miami 14, Rome 14, Paris 14, played well in Shanghai 14 even if he lost to Federer
lost YEC 18 final to Zverev in straights, Shanghai 18 was pretty good, won Cincy 18, but not really particularly better than Cincy 13 tbh.

now lets get to the slams

13:

AO 13 > AO 19

Wim 13 ~ Wim 18. Wim 18 djokovic would be atleast just as spent, probably more if he had to play a 4hr 48 min match in 1 day vs a hard hitting in-form delpo. and facing peak Murray instead of a below par, a bit spent himself Anderson - entirely different scene. That is assuming Wim 18 Djokovic does get past delpo - better serve in Wim 18 but reduced return/ground game compared to Wim 13 Djoko.

USO 18 > USO 13

that's just about equal if we look at 3 slams due to USO. USO 18 djoko is still worse than and losing to USO 13 nadal. If we throw in RG 13 vs RG 19, clear edge to 13

14:

AO 14 ~ AO 19 (wasn't tested much in AO 19 and Stan would beat him or at worst outlast him in AO 19)
Wim 14 > Wim 18 (Wim 14 final vs Fed and 4R vs tsonga is better than anything Wim 18 Djokovic could produce)
USO 14 < USO 18

marginal edge to the 2nd one maybe thanks to USO. but throw in RG 14 vs RG 19. clearly swings in favour of 14.

Outside the slams yeah, he was better in 2013 and 2014.

But at the slams, he was just much better in 2018/2019, at least mentally. He was still very consistent in 2013-2014 going deep but he was losing tons of finals/semis.

From AO 2012 to Wimbledon 2014 he won only one slam despite regularly making SFs and Fs.

 

[NatF]

If those generations had multiple multislam winners (as they would in the absence of the Big3) no one would talk of weak eras

I thought you hated hypotheticals? That's not necessarily true and regardless of what people would say or wouldn't, it wouldn't make those players any better in absolute terms - which is the actual problem.

 

[Third Serve]

But of course

you know making a prediction about whether Tsitsipas would actually be a multi-Slam winner without the Big 3 is itself a hypothetical? you can’t really avoid them when you’re making subjective assessments of level or comparing different eras

 

[GabeT]

I thought you hated hypotheticals? That's not necessarily true and regardless of what people would say or wouldn't, it wouldn't make those players any better in absolute terms - which is the actual problem.

I thought I had explained i have no problem with hypotheticals per se, only when they are used by one fan base to attack a player they dislike.

And are you saying that if the Big 3 had not won those 64 slams they would have been won by 64 different players? I think it unlikely.

as for not making those players better in absolute terms you are right. The problem is there is no way to measure absolute levels across time.

 

[NatF]

I thought I had explained i have no problem with hypotheticals per se, only when they are used by one fan base to attack a player they dislike.

And are you saying that if the Big 3 had not won those 64 slams they would have been won by 64 different players? I think it unlikely.

as for not making those players better in absolute terms you are right. The problem is there is no way to measure absolute levels across time.

You're missing the forest for the trees as always.

 

[GabeT]

you know making a prediction about whether Tsitsipas would actually be a multi-Slam winner without the Big 3 is itself a hypothetical? you can’t really avoid them when you’re making subjective assessments of level or comparing different eras

That’s not my point though

 

[GabeT]

You're missing the forest for the trees as always.

Fascinating

Is this a real forest or a hypothetical one?

 

[abmk]

Outside the slams yeah, he was better in 2013 and 2014.

But at the slams, he was just much better in 2018/2019, at least mentally. He was still very consistent in 2013-2014 going deep but he was losing tons of finals/semis.

From AO 2012 to Wimbledon 2014 he won only one slam despite regularly making SFs and Fs.

Nah, don't see the difference. Mentally similar. Difference in winning is only due to much much better competition in 12-14.
Djokovic was only really tested once mentally in Wim 18-AO 19 in slams - vs Nadal in Wim 18. (doesn't include minor ones like delpo at 4 all in 2nd set or Fucsovics in 3rd set)

Djokovic won 3 slams from AO 12 to Wim 14. He was simply outplayed by better opposition in most of the losses or else opposition was good enough to test him mentally unlike in Wim 18 to AO 19.
Only USO 13 final was a strong letdown mentally. But then he had AO 12 SF/F vs Murray/Djokovic, RG 12 4R/QF vs Seppi/Tsonga, AO 13 4R vs Stan, RG 13 SF vs Nadal, USO 13 SF vs Wawa as net positives mentally worth talking about. (yeah, there are other minor ones, but not strong letdowns mentally)

If you want more proof about Wim 18- AO 19, Djokovic was outclutched or outdone mentally in Bo3 multiple times in Wim 18-AO 19: tpas in Canada 18, Khachanov in Paris 18, Zverev in YEC 18, RBA in Doha 19. Aka opposition atleast somewhat capable to push him in Bo3 unlike in Bo5.

And if you want to bring in Djoko only cared more about the slams, Cincy 18, Shanghai 18 and YEC 18 disprove that. He won his first Cincy, was dominant in Shanghai. Djokovic was dominant in YEC 18 till the final. Lost 8 games max in first 4 matches.It took 8 games in the YEC 18 final for Zverev to crack open djoko mentally by being relentless and serving really well.

Yeah, djoko had moments of roughness on Bo3 in Wim 18-AO 19, like Cincy couple of matches, Paris semi vs fed, but cracks also showed clearly as mentioned above.

Djoko of Wim 18 would still lose to fed of Wim 12 not too dissimilarly. Would lose Murray of Wim 13 convincingly if he got past delpo that is.
Djoko of USO 18 would still lose to Murray of USO 12 in a contested one in windy conditions.
Djoko AO19 would lose to wawa of AO 13/AO 14 in contested matches.

Only things you can really complain significantly mentally in AO 12 to RG 14 about is USO 13. Which 18 USO djoko would have lost in the end vs USO 13 Nadal anyways.

Of course there is USO 14 vs nishi which was a significant mental letdown, but that's outside the timeframe you mentioned.