Djokovic has won as many slams (8) after turning 31 than Lendl in his entire career

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
From Wimbledon 18 to wimbledon 21
Grand slams = 12
won by Djokovic = 8

Lost one semifinal and one final in FO
Twice 4Round in us open

3 consecutive AO
3 consecutive WIM
One FO
One USO

he wasn't this efficient in his prime also.
if he is not in his prime now, do you have any idea why he wasn't this efficient in his prime which by definition is supposed to be higher performance?
 

HashDump

Rookie
Lendl, McEnroe, Connors, Edberg, Wilander, Becker had stiff competition compared to 2003-2007 and 2016-2021.

I think everyone agrees players perform better at a high age these days, for a number of reasons.
Federer disagree, he is old since 2011. His age is main reason Djokovic owned him.
 

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
It's still curious that the methods by which 30+ players can boost their levels compared to their ageing predecessors don't work for 20-25 year olds.
I guess the answer is because the 20-25 years old folks are pretty much kids by the freshly introduced 'tennis years' as opposed to calendar years
normally they would peak around 33-35 years old, but some of them get badly injured as kids, and fade out without every reaching the peak
 

jga111

Hall of Fame
Ronaldo is playing top level football at the age of 35.
Today’s generation simply look after themselves better with the bar for professionalism, diet, fitness and health raised. And yet you trying level up the eras for the purposes of a schoolboy comparison is quite daft…
 

Lgoel

New User
if he is not in his prime now, do you have any idea why he wasn't this efficient in his prime which by definition is supposed to be higher performance?
It the period 2012- 2014, he had 3 titles, 5 finals, 3 semis and one quarter final

He lost important matches more then compared to today. There were more players challenging him and Djokovic was less experienced and less sure of himself

Now he knows how to squeeze victory out of the matches whatever be the situation.
FO2021 final against tsitsipas , I think 2012 Djokovic would have lost. Now he manages the play better, is more calm confident and sure if himself even though he might be playing worse
 

junior74

G.O.A.T.
Federer disagree, he is old since 2011. His age is main reason Djokovic owned him.
Federer at his very best and Djokovic at his very best is that same level; the highest ever in our sport all over (excluding Nadal at RG).

When one of them is a little below that level, he loses more often. That's what happened in their rivalry since Federer started declining, as I see it. If the age was reversed, Federer would likely have won more often. The age gap between the two is 6 years, that's a lot in tennis.
 

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
There were more players challenging him
I think this is the key
more players capable to challenge him back then
and less players capable to challenge him now, if we are kind of diplomatically correct, cause in the real world out there, who can challenge him other than Nadal on clay? nobody
 
just another random stat that was supposed to show how great he is, when in fact it shows how pathetic his opposition is
It is disgusting. The next gen and the ones before them are useless. All the praise we heard about people from 2010 on has amounted to nothing. Stan deserves tremendous commendation for doing it on 3 different surfaces (2 different HC) and Murray underperformed for his talent. If Fed wasn’t a dingbat, we wouldn’t have had to talk about JMDP for all these years. If he were not injured, it would be the same story. Nadal and Djokovic were just too good against him.

People don’t understand how this has killed the sport with these ridiculous wins Djokovic had at an old tennis age. Fed won most of his while young. Weak competition the last 8 years is an understatement. Nadal at RG is special so his winning the way he didn’t doesn’t deserve condemnation.
 
Federer at his very best and Djokovic at his very best is that same level; the highest ever in our sport all over (excluding Nadal at RG).

When one of them is a little below that level, he loses more often. That's what happened in their rivalry since Federer started declining, as I see it. If the age was reversed, Federer would likely have won more often. The age gap between the two is 6 years, that's a lot in tennis.
Absolutely true, however, Fed had match points on his serve at W and at the USO semi. He breakpoints in the fifth at W and break points to serve for the match (In 2014/2015). It’s not that Djokovic was beating him. Fed’s subpar level of play got him infinitesimally close to winning and he lost on his own racket. Fed deserves disdain for doing that.
 

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
It is disgusting. The next gen and the ones before them are useless. All the praise we heard about people from 2010 on has amounted to nothing. Stan deserves tremendous commendation for doing it on 3 different surfaces (2 different HC) and Murray underperformed for his talent. If Fed wasn’t a dingbat, we wouldn’t have had to talk about JMDP for all these years. If he were not injured, it would be the same story. Nadal and Djokovic were just too good against him.

People don’t understand how this has killed the sport with these ridiculous wins Djokovic had at an old tennis age. Fed won most of his while young. Weak competition the last 8 years is an understatement. Nadal at RG is special so his winning the way he didn’t doesn’t deserve condemnation.
disagree on Nadal on clay though

sure thing, he stands out, but as Nole showed at RG 2021, even he is a man
and Thiem and others defeated him en-route to RG, so it all goes down to their mentality and folding before the match, collectively
 

ibbi

Legend
On this forum people love to talk about how you can't compare the game they play today to the one played in generations gone by. Well, the same absolutely applies to age related stats. It isn't specific to Djokovic, the great age shift is real.

27 used to be the age at which guys started trending downward. Half the guys today don't even get their careers going in earnest till they hit that number. Novak has won three quarters of his majors after it.
 

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
On this forum people love to talk about how you can't compare the game they play today to the one played in generations gone by. Well, the same absolutely applies to age related stats. It isn't specific to Djokovic, the great age shift is real.

27 used to be the age at which guys started trending downward. Half the guys today don't even get their careers going in earnest till they hit that number. Novak has won three quarters of his majors after it.
if GAS is real, then how do you explain that beyond the Big 3, everyone else in top 10 is 22-27 years old
and the 27 years old is Thiem, who is long time contender to be the best among the rest of the tour except Big 3

wouldn't the GAS theory say that top 10 should be dominated by players 27+ years old?
Wawrinka, Isner, Gasquet, Monfils, Fognini, RBA, Cilic, Nishikori, Dimitrov, Goffin, Raonic, Schwartzman, they all should have been ranked above the guys that are 22-25 years old
 

Lgoel

New User
I think this is the key
more players capable to challenge him back then
and less players capable to challenge him now, if we are kind of diplomatically correct, cause in the real world out there, who can challenge him other than Nadal on clay? nobody
From the whole reply, you picked up that one line , right?

Wimbledon final vs berretini.In the first set djokovic had a setpoint on Berretini serve, did not convert. Was serving for the set, lost the serve . Then lost the tiebreaker to loose the set

Currently Djokovic is able to manage this part better. He doesn't loose focus, doesn't get frustated, just keeps on playing cool , looking for further opportunities . This makes it harder for the opponent, because they have to win a set 3 times, rather than having a less confident player in second and third set. On the other hand as soon as Djokovic wins one set, the opponents confidence drop

Tsitsipas challenged him, took 2 sets.
Musetti took sets off him
Wimbledon 2019 with federer turned on single point.
Australian open final with Thiem went 5. But now everyone believes that if match goes 5 , Djokovic is not loosing it. Most importantly Djokovic belives that and plays accordingly
 

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
From the whole reply, you picked up that one line , right?
the most important one

and no, it's not about the match going to 5 sets, the youngsters fold before stepping the court
they can show some nice quality tennis when trailing behind, but as soon as they are leading, or have the chance to break back and equalize, then they sh*t their pants
 

Lgoel

New User
the most important one

and no, it's not about the match going to 5 sets, the youngsters fold before stepping the court
they can show some nice quality tennis when trailing behind, but as soon as they are leading, or have the chance to break back and equalize, then they sh*t their pants
So Djokovic has created an aura around himself. Which youngsters are not able to break through. Well some credit has to go to Djokovic for that.

FO semi final 2019 . Thiem defeats djokovic in 5 sets. Then loses in AO 2020 in 5 after leading 2-1

You can decide whether we can credit Djokovic for this or blame Thiem for it

Medvedev went 5 sets with Nadal in US open 2019. But lost to Djokovic in straight sets in 2021 AO. Again you can give Djokovic credit or blame Medvedev. Your choice
 

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
So Djokovic has created an aura around himself. Which youngsters are not able to break through. Well some credit has to go to Djokovic for that.

FO semi final 2019 . Thiem defeats djokovic in 5 sets. Then loses in AO 2020 in 5 after leading 2-1

You can decide whether we can credit Djokovic for this or blame Thiem for it

Medvedev went 5 sets with Nadal in US open 2019. But lost to Djokovic in straight sets in 2021 AO. Again you can give Djokovic credit or blame Medvedev. Your choice
Fed had an aura as well, but Djokodal didn't care, they simply kicked his ass on the court
just like other youngsters didn't care about the aura of the top dogs they had to face

and that's the difference, last 3 generations of youngsters wait till Big 3 will retire, but some of them in fact retire before the Big 3 does
 

beard

Legend
It is disgusting. The next gen and the ones before them are useless. All the praise we heard about people from 2010 on has amounted to nothing. Stan deserves tremendous commendation for doing it on 3 different surfaces (2 different HC) and Murray underperformed for his talent. If Fed wasn’t a dingbat, we wouldn’t have had to talk about JMDP for all these years. If he were not injured, it would be the same story. Nadal and Djokovic were just too good against him.

People don’t understand how this has killed the sport with these ridiculous wins Djokovic had at an old tennis age. Fed won most of his while young. Weak competition the last 8 years is an understatement. Nadal at RG is special so his winning the way he didn’t doesn’t deserve condemnation.
You good man? :confused:
 

ibbi

Legend
if GAS is real, then how do you explain that beyond the Big 3, everyone else in top 10 is 22-27 years old
and the 27 years old is Thiem, who is long time contender to be the best among the rest of the tour except Big 3

wouldn't the GAS theory say that top 10 should be dominated by players 27+ years old?
Wawrinka, Isner, Gasquet, Monfils, Fognini, RBA, Cilic, Nishikori, Dimitrov, Goffin, Raonic, Schwartzman, they all should have been ranked above the guys that are 22-25 years old
Things are trending a little more downwards now because contrary to the mockery we all like to pour on them the Next Gen are half decent.

Still, presumably none of them have played their best tennis yet, and they're all basically in their historic prime years now.

Thiem played the best tennis of his life at the age of 26/27, the entire significant part of Wawrinka's career was played from 27 onwards, the best years of Isner's entire career were from about 27-33, RBA's career didn't even get off the ground till he was 26, his career years were like 28-31, Fognini was of note earlier, but his best years were also about 26 to 31. La Monf played basically the best year of his entire life when he was 30, Schwartzman has also only really started playing his best stuff from like 26 onwards. What used to be the end of guys peaks is more and more starting to become the beginning.

The other guys you mention generally followed more traditional career trajectories, but even Cilic in 17-18 had a career boom period when he was pushing 30, and the fact that all of them are all still going at a decent level (when they're healthy) at an age when 90% of guys used to be all but finished is further proof that things are not as they once were.
 

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
Things are trending a little more downwards now because contrary to the mockery we all like to pour on them the Next Gen are half decent.

Still, presumably none of them have played their best tennis yet, and they're all basically in their historic prime years now.

Thiem played the best tennis of his life at the age of 26/27, the entire significant part of Wawrinka's career was played from 27 onwards, the best years of Isner's entire career were from about 27-33, RBA's career didn't even get off the ground till he was 26, his career years were like 28-31, Fognini was of note earlier, but his best years were also about 26 to 31. La Monf played basically the best year of his entire life when he was 30, Schwartzman has also only really started playing his best stuff from like 26 onwards. What used to be the end of guys peaks is more and more starting to become the end.

The other guys you mention generally followed more traditional career trajectories, but even Cilic in 17-18 had a career boom period when he was pushing 30, and the fact that all of them are all still going at a decent level (when they're healthy) at an age when 90% of guys used to be all but finished is further proof that things are not as they once were.
long post that doesn't answer my question
so let's try once again, if GAS is real, then why Wawrinka, Isner, Gasquet, Monfils, Fognini, RBA, Cilic, Nishikori, Dimitrov, Goffin, Raonic, Schwartzman are not in top 10? but some 22-25 years old dudes dominate top 10, excluding the Big 3 players?
 

ibbi

Legend
long post that doesn't answer my question
so let's try once again, if GAS is real, then why Wawrinka, Isner, Gasquet, Monfils, Fognini, RBA, Cilic, Nishikori, Dimitrov, Goffin, Raonic, Schwartzman are not in top 10? but some 22-25 years old dudes dominate top 10, excluding the Big 3 players?
The answer is because they're not as good (some of them never were, some of them are not anymore) as the guys ranked above them? The fact remains that they played their best/most successful tennis and were in fact ranked over younger guys after the age of 25. Take a look at the year end rankings from a few years ago and regularly see these guys you listed (and others) ranked over younger guys. They don't just indefinitely continue getting better as they get older.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Lendl, McEnroe, Connors, Edberg, Wilander, Becker had stiff competition compared to 2003-2007 and 2016-2021.

I think everyone agrees players perform better at a high age these days, for a number of reasons.
Add 2015 in there too. Those guys had stiffer competition than the 2015 field.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Remember people were raving about Fed winning X slams after X year's old.
Well, Fed was gonna won dozens of slams too in his 30's if he had Thiem and the Next Gen. But no luck.

If you win a lot in your 30's, competition contributes a lot.
 

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
They don't just indefinitely continue getting better as they get older.
or in other words it tells us that the younger guys weren't that good as to send them into retirement

Things are trending a little more downwards now because contrary to the mockery we all like to pour on them the Next Gen are half decent.
again, if the next gen was not half decent, but 100% decent, or good, we'd probably not be talking about GAS, right?
which boils down to the weak competitive quality of the next gens, who are fine waiting till the older guys retire voluntaily
 

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
He is simply too good, no two ways about it.
he is good, there is no discussion about it
but so was Fed when Djokodal popped up, and somehow Djokodal weren't ready to wait
and there are many other examples when the emerging youngsters weren't willing to wait till the great oldsters will voluntarily retire
 
Top