The Green Mile
Bionic Poster
Well, it is only 2014...
I think there will be a better year than 2011 in the future. When? That is the question...
But I WHOLE HEARTEDLY agree with you that Djokovic WILL NOT have another year like 2011.
Djokovic is a 1-year wonder
- Thread starter 1477aces
- Start date
Well, it is only 2014...
I think there will be a better year than 2011 in the future. When? That is the question...
But I WHOLE HEARTEDLY agree with you that Djokovic WILL NOT have another year like 2011.
Noleberic123
G.O.A.T.
I think the problem is mental, it has nothing to do with his game
The Green Mile
Bionic Poster
winstonlim8
Professional
Oh certainly, I agree that Novak's problems are mainly mental.
maratha_warrior
Hall of Fame
As a nole fan , we must admit that novak is over ... Actually he doesnt even deserve slams now . He is happy to settle down ,happy to have babies an all...
A huge talent and one of the greatest athlete gone waste... He is happy to clap for opponents shots ... dat means u really dont hve dat warrior kinda desire and u are ok to lose...
Nadal is less talented dan both fed an novak to be brutal honest... but wat a warrior he is... he is d best fighter an dreamer ever..
rafa just want to win, no babies ,no marriage nothing..
wen rafa is on court he means bussiness . novak had what rafa has but he didnt respect himself n his talent ...
am a big novak fan but very dissappointed after wat happend after AO2012.... Self Destruction...
A huge talent and one of the greatest athlete gone waste... He is happy to clap for opponents shots ... dat means u really dont hve dat warrior kinda desire and u are ok to lose...
Nadal is less talented dan both fed an novak to be brutal honest... but wat a warrior he is... he is d best fighter an dreamer ever..
rafa just want to win, no babies ,no marriage nothing..
wen rafa is on court he means bussiness . novak had what rafa has but he didnt respect himself n his talent ...
am a big novak fan but very dissappointed after wat happend after AO2012.... Self Destruction...
5555
Hall of Fame
Agassi has only one multislam season in his career (ie 1999). Does it make him a 1-year wonder?
Noleberic123
G.O.A.T.
Exactly i just think people hate djokovic thats why
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
How do you work that one out?
Bdarb
Hall of Fame
because he isn't a Djokovic fan, have you been here long.
If you like a player, they are the GOAT. If you don't, every title they get is luck. Look at Fed, he has 17 bs titles....
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
because he isn't a Djokovic fan, have you been here long.
If you like a player, they are the GOAT. If you don't, every title they get is luck. Look at Fed, he has 17 bs titles....
Well I think you can still dislike a player and at the same time acknowledge that they deserve whatever they've won. Otherwise you just come across as being ungracious.
Bdarb
Hall of Fame
I could not agree more. I'm a big Federer fan and believe he is the best tennis tennis player but to get into arguments over a subjective thing like this makes me think these people are not really tennis fans. If you can try and downplay what Nadal did last weekend, you are just not being objective. Nadal winning 8 Roland Garros's does not devalue any achievment Roger has accomplished and vice versa.
People think there is a right answer, it's like asking what is the best color. Of course it's green (
) but how could you prove that to someone?He was the years best player in 2011, 2012, 2013, and has a good shot to be in 2014. He won both the Australian Open and WTF and was probably the years 2nd best player (despite the rankings) in 2008. In 2009 he won several Masters and was a strong contender for slams. way more than a 1 year wonder.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
QFT! Only genuine tennis fans can put aside their likes and dislikes and judge a player fairly. Sadly, there are rather too few on these forums or I probably wouldn't have needed to post half as much as I have done! ;-)
PS. Have you managed to recover yet from Sunday's disappointment? I was thinking about you when I didn't see you on the boards (understandably)!
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Thanks Mainad. I'm feeling a lot better now but you know what it's like, those first 24 hours after are the worst! :wink:
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Well Federer had 4 years like Djokovic's 2011
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Weak era doesn't count. J/K :wink:
Bdarb
Hall of Fame
then he kicked the gluten... lol
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Yes. A two year 3 slam-winning wonder, against Fed, the three year 3 slam-winning wonder.Is Djokovic now a 2-year wonder?
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
As I just pointed out in another thread, Fed won 3 out of 4 slams FOUR times, not just three. But the last time it was not in a calendar year.can't believe flukvac flopovic somehow managed to fluke another 3 slam winning wonder year.
he's twice got lucky with those one-off once in a lifetime years. and he didn't beat nadal at the ao/uso so those two doesn't even count.
Now Novak has two years with three slams.
When you consider what these two guys have done, then throw in Nadal's 9 out of 10 years dominance of the FO, you have to think that ANY of these guys would have even more slams if their careers had not overlapped.
It reminds me a lot of the Connors/Borg/McEnroe/Lendl years. These four guys were born between 1952 and 1956, and they all stole slams from each other.
In most eras there are only two players, or maybe three. For instance, the 90 were pretty much the Agassi-Sampras show. As Sampras rose in fame, most years there was no one to stop him on HCs and grass but Agassi, and that was mostly on HCs. In his case there was a whole cast of characters to stop him at the FO.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Djokovic 2015 > Djokovic 2011.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
As I just pointed out in another thread, Fed won 3 out of 4 slams FOUR times, not just three. But the last time it was not in a calendar year.
Now Novak has two years with three slams.
When you consider what these two guys have done, then throw in Nadal's 9 out of 10 years dominance of the FO, you have to think that ANY of these guys would have even more slams if their careers had not overlapped.
It reminds me a lot of the Connors/Borg/McEnroe/Lendl years. These four guys were born between 1952 and 1956, and they all stole slams from each other.
In most eras there are only two players, or maybe three. For instance, the 90 were pretty much the Agassi-Sampras show. As Sampras rose in fame, most years there was no one to stop him on HCs and grass but Agassi, and that was mostly on HCs. In his case there was a whole cast of characters to stop him at the FO.
Connors: September 1952
Borg: June 1956
McEnroe: February 1959
Lendl: March 1960
Lendl's first Slam final was also Borg's last Slam title. They didn't overlap as much as you suggest.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
For a guy that was supposedly majoring in minors, who was laughed at for not winning anything outside of AO with the exception of a fluke 2011, having won 1 out of 9 slams...he sure came back with a vengence.
He has won four of the last six slams, has become a three time Wimbledon champion, AO Open Era GOAT, and a two time US Open champion, not to mention he is still accumilating WTFs and Masters titles at quite an astonishing rate.
He has now beaten Nadal, Federer and Murray three times each in slams finals. I think it is safe to say he is no longer a one year wonder.
He has won four of the last six slams, has become a three time Wimbledon champion, AO Open Era GOAT, and a two time US Open champion, not to mention he is still accumilating WTFs and Masters titles at quite an astonishing rate.
He has now beaten Nadal, Federer and Murray three times each in slams finals. I think it is safe to say he is no longer a one year wonder.
Dedans Penthouse
Legend
Where'd he go? . Well if I'm not mistaken he won 3 of the 4 grand slams in 2015 and made the finals of the the French, technically getting closer to the grand slam than Serena Williams.
The guy just won the U.S. Open..... why are you're looking to marginalize his accomplishments? just sayin'...
Flint
Hall of Fame
People usually win by luck. Federer won all his slams in a weak era. Nadal won his against an old man. Murray had the wind. And Djokovic was lucky to win outside of 2011 because of reasons.
Flint
Hall of Fame
More like he is a wonder all year.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Because Lendl's first slam was greatly delayed, and Borg's first came very early. That's a spread of 7.5 years between Connors, the oldest, and Lendl, the youngest.
The spread between Fed and Novak/Murray is very close to 6 years.
The difference now is probably not the age spread but the fact that these players continue to press. But right now we don't know if Nadal will be a factor. His last slam was at age 28, right? And just about at this birthday.
All these guys seem like they are going to go on winning forever, until suddenly they can't win any more. And this has been true for as far back as I can remember.
Borg took himself out of the mix. Connors was still competitive at around age 30, about the time Borg quit. The guy who appeared to have the clearest path at that point was JMac, but Lendl turned things around in a way not so different from what Novak is now doing to Fed.
Serve&Bash
Semi-Pro
I'm seeing a lot of "in your face" bumps, which is no problem as I think loony posters need to be put in their place. However, I think its shameful that almost none of these guys log back in and admit they were wrong and laugh it off. It's a just a tennis forum. Some of these weirdos take themselves too seriously.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
I only have followed tennis since 1986, so I can't really speak about Borg, McEnroe, or Connors [as Grand Slam champions, I do remember McEnroe and Connors in the later years of their careers], but it does seem to me that the first two burned out and Connors faded gradually, rather than looking like he's going to win forever until suddenly he can't win any more.
I will say that it was not my impression of Lendl that he looked like he'd go on winning forever and then suddenly couldn't win anymore. Nor was it my impression of Sampras. As early as the summer of 1998, it was clearly becoming more difficult for Sampras. That's a full two years before he won his last Wimbledon and four years before his sudden last US Open.
Even with Federer, 2008 and 2009 were already a step down from the previous years, so although the loss of form was marked in 2010, it wasn't without any warning at all. And he did win one more Slam after that.
Nadal's decline has been more rapid, but he had his injury problems for many years, and his form in the first half of 2014 was already shaky.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Decline can be sneaky and gradual, or it can happy suddenly, and in the past it mostly happened faster because surgery was not as good, there were not as many legal "treatments" for all sorts of things, and players get physical help now that did not even exist.
In addition there are players lose their will to live and the discipline to train, true of Borg, JMac and Agassi. Agassi is probably the only player I can think of who made a complete turn-around.
Lendl was pretty much on top through 1989 and started on that path in 1985, I think. He fell to #2 in 88. But starting in 1990 suddenly a whole bunch of very talented people came of age - Wilander, Edberg and Becker and were born between 1964 and 1967. Those three had 19 slams between them. It's a lot like what happened to Fed starting in 2008. A lot of Nadal's slams came earlier, on clay, but if you count up the slams won by Novak starting around that time, add in Nadal's later FOs and other slams, it's a little similar. Only Fed did not have to work his way out of anyone else's shadow.
And this is nothing against Fed. It's just the ebb and flow of the way things change. Every now and then history is ripe for a new champion. It was a lot like that for Connors, who did not run into major competition until later.
Most people overlook the fact that between the USO of 2008 and AO of 2010 Fed was in every final and won 3 out of 5 in a row. 2008 was an anomaly that can be explained by sickness. Through the AO of 2010 no one had reason to believe that he would not continue. The change after the AO of 2010 was like falling off a cliff.
Nadal's decline has been more rapid, but he had his injury problems for many years, and his form in the first half of 2014 was already shaky.[/QUOTE]
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
Not any more
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
On losing the will to live, that's what I meant by burnout. I would say the main characters on the men's side who stopped winning because of it are Borg, McEnroe, and Wilander. As you point out, Agassi recovered, so he doesn't count as more than temporary burnout. Djokovic might burnout, but it seems unlikely. My speculation would be that burnout is more likely to happen to players from a relatively privileged background, as they are more likely to start questioning the meaning of life, something that less privileged people rarely do to the same extent. Djokovic grew up in a war zone, so I think he won't burn out. But this is just speculation. I can't prove it and have no intention of trying.
Agreed that recovery times are improved because of treatment and surgery. I was reading Becker's autobiography last night, and he says the same thing: that treatment has improved out of all proportion since 1985. This on its own ought to make it easier for players in the late 20s and early 30s to keep competing despite the increasing build up of niggling injuries.
About Lendl: his #1 position in 1989 is hotly debated, as Becker beat him at both Wimbledon and the US Open and claimed both titles. Even if you take Lendl to be #1 in 1989, he was clearly less dominant than he had been in 1986 and 1987. In both those years, the only major matches he lost were on grass (Wimbledon final in 86 and 87, Australian semis in 87), as he won Roland Garros, the US Open, and the Masters (YEC) in both years. But in 89, he was a narrow #1, not a dominant #1. Besides the Becker defeats, which are partially explainable by the head to head advantage Becker had over him in major matches, he also lost to Edberg in the semis of the Masters and, inexplicably, to a cramping 17-year-old Chang in Roland Garros from two sets up. So, I'd say that his decline was gradual. Also, the WTF voted him world player of the year in 1990. All in all, I would say that his performance in 1990 wasn't that much worse than it had been in 1989, and that his performance in 1991 wasn't that bad either. He didn't win a Slam, but he still beat the #1 in the Australian Open semis to make the final (and lose to his nemesis), and beat the Wimbledon champion to make the US Open semis. His decline definitely accelerated in 92, but even then he finally beat Becker in a Slam to make the US Open quarters, and but for rain would probably have beaten Edberg from two sets down in the quarters. He'd have had a shot at beating Chang in the semis too, but probably not Sampras in the final. Only in 93 did Lendl's decline become terrible.
Wilander did not come of age in 1990! He was finished by then. He came of age in 1983, I would say. Some experts thought he deserved to be the #2 that year, even though he was only 18 until August.
Federer's Slam performance was indeed great in 2009, but his performance in other tournaments was already far below what it had been in 2004-6, and even in Slams he was being pushed harder than before. I think that in the early stages, decline is mostly marked by declining performance in minor tournaments, as the player has to really reach overdrive to keep winning, and by being pushed more in majors.
Agreed that recovery times are improved because of treatment and surgery. I was reading Becker's autobiography last night, and he says the same thing: that treatment has improved out of all proportion since 1985. This on its own ought to make it easier for players in the late 20s and early 30s to keep competing despite the increasing build up of niggling injuries.
About Lendl: his #1 position in 1989 is hotly debated, as Becker beat him at both Wimbledon and the US Open and claimed both titles. Even if you take Lendl to be #1 in 1989, he was clearly less dominant than he had been in 1986 and 1987. In both those years, the only major matches he lost were on grass (Wimbledon final in 86 and 87, Australian semis in 87), as he won Roland Garros, the US Open, and the Masters (YEC) in both years. But in 89, he was a narrow #1, not a dominant #1. Besides the Becker defeats, which are partially explainable by the head to head advantage Becker had over him in major matches, he also lost to Edberg in the semis of the Masters and, inexplicably, to a cramping 17-year-old Chang in Roland Garros from two sets up. So, I'd say that his decline was gradual. Also, the WTF voted him world player of the year in 1990. All in all, I would say that his performance in 1990 wasn't that much worse than it had been in 1989, and that his performance in 1991 wasn't that bad either. He didn't win a Slam, but he still beat the #1 in the Australian Open semis to make the final (and lose to his nemesis), and beat the Wimbledon champion to make the US Open semis. His decline definitely accelerated in 92, but even then he finally beat Becker in a Slam to make the US Open quarters, and but for rain would probably have beaten Edberg from two sets down in the quarters. He'd have had a shot at beating Chang in the semis too, but probably not Sampras in the final. Only in 93 did Lendl's decline become terrible.
Wilander did not come of age in 1990! He was finished by then. He came of age in 1983, I would say. Some experts thought he deserved to be the #2 that year, even though he was only 18 until August.
Federer's Slam performance was indeed great in 2009, but his performance in other tournaments was already far below what it had been in 2004-6, and even in Slams he was being pushed harder than before. I think that in the early stages, decline is mostly marked by declining performance in minor tournaments, as the player has to really reach overdrive to keep winning, and by being pushed more in majors.
[/QUOTE]
mattosgrant
Banned
I agree with helter on all his examples.
Lendl was completely dominant in 85-87. In 88-90 he was sometimes #1 but much less dominant. IMO he was not the best player of any of those years (1988 would be Wilander, 1989 would be Becker despite the computer saying otherwise, 1990 was probably Edberg although there is no clear winner of that year). 1991-1992 he was more a bit contender now, and while he still could bid for slams (didn't win one) was no longer a threat to be #1. 1993-1994 he was through as a serious contender. So it was a phase by phase decline, and also younger all court power players like Becker and Sampras who were tough opponents for him emerging.
Federer was less formidable in 2008-2010 than 2004-2006 by far. His return to 2009 was greatly aided by Nadal's knee problems mid year as he clearly could no longer beat Nadal in big matches anywhere but the WTF, just as his 2008 decline and Nadal's rise to the dominance was probably aided by Fed's mono, so without those factors the straightforward downfall from dominance and even #1 is probably much more obviously gradual and direct. 2011-2012 even less a contender, but still won a Wimbledon, made slam finals, and got to #1 again briefly. 2014-2015 still a contender, but less than even 2011-2012.
Nadal has been the far more sudden like a boom decline, but before his return from his latest injury, he had already been in a slow decline for several years before that. His absolute best years of tennis overall would be middle of 2007, 2008, first half of 2009, 2010, and even 2011 where he got Novak-ed could be argued as well. So the 2007-2011 period mostly. 2012-2014 overall is still below that level. His 2013 surge back was impressive, but he didn't win a match at 2 of the 4 slams, and was aided by Novak's nerves in big matches and still lost the ITF award to Novak.
Lendl was completely dominant in 85-87. In 88-90 he was sometimes #1 but much less dominant. IMO he was not the best player of any of those years (1988 would be Wilander, 1989 would be Becker despite the computer saying otherwise, 1990 was probably Edberg although there is no clear winner of that year). 1991-1992 he was more a bit contender now, and while he still could bid for slams (didn't win one) was no longer a threat to be #1. 1993-1994 he was through as a serious contender. So it was a phase by phase decline, and also younger all court power players like Becker and Sampras who were tough opponents for him emerging.
Federer was less formidable in 2008-2010 than 2004-2006 by far. His return to 2009 was greatly aided by Nadal's knee problems mid year as he clearly could no longer beat Nadal in big matches anywhere but the WTF, just as his 2008 decline and Nadal's rise to the dominance was probably aided by Fed's mono, so without those factors the straightforward downfall from dominance and even #1 is probably much more obviously gradual and direct. 2011-2012 even less a contender, but still won a Wimbledon, made slam finals, and got to #1 again briefly. 2014-2015 still a contender, but less than even 2011-2012.
Nadal has been the far more sudden like a boom decline, but before his return from his latest injury, he had already been in a slow decline for several years before that. His absolute best years of tennis overall would be middle of 2007, 2008, first half of 2009, 2010, and even 2011 where he got Novak-ed could be argued as well. So the 2007-2011 period mostly. 2012-2014 overall is still below that level. His 2013 surge back was impressive, but he didn't win a match at 2 of the 4 slams, and was aided by Novak's nerves in big matches and still lost the ITF award to Novak.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Djokovic is about to become a 4-year wonder (#1 for 4 years). Actually, I believe it's wrapped up. He'll probably make it 5 next year.
This is just lol "Without 2011...", Year with 3 slams and destroying Nadal and Fed 7 times each... Funny way to make judgment.
mattosgrant
Banned
In 2013 it could be considered Nadal and Djokovic are co-#1s for the year. Nadal as the ATP #1, Novak as the ITF. So Novak is wrapping up his 5th straight year as #1 IMO. Nadal has a claim to be #1 for 2013 too so I say he has also been #1 for 3 years, but likewise Novak has been for 5.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
I don't think it makes sense to award two people in one year with full on #1 accolades and I have a similar problem with people who count both YEC type tournaments as Majors in some of the '70s and possibly '80s years. I think the majority feel that Nadal was the rightful #1 in 2013 due to winning more Slams but also in that he conquered Djokovic in the H2H sense to achieve those Slams... so the US Open final in a sense was the match that would confirm who was superior and Nadal won it. In my mind, I have to award just one of them the accolade, or if both, then it should somehow only count for half a point or have a very clear asterisk. I don't think it's fair to call both of them #1 and at the same time to say neither was #1 (no clear #1, no real #1). I consider Nadal #1 for 2013 but understand and see the case for Djokovic.
@mattosgrant
@mattosgrant
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
This much is just pretty obvious, isn't it?
I agree with you about Lendl.
I always forget about Wilander's career because I was in all ways totally uninterested in him. But you are probably 100% correct. His peak was very close to that of Lendl.
I have to plead guilty to being a lot like a lot of fanboys in this forum at the time that Borg retired, JMac stopped winning, and Connors got older. That era was the era I pretty much grew up with. I probably felt a lot like them the way Fedal fans feel right now, when neither can currently win a slam.
V
VexlanderPrime
Guest
What I like about this thread, and its a GREAT thread, is that some of the best posters like NN didn't jump on the bandwagon when Djoker was struggling and just bury him.
Now I'll say this, Green Mile is one of my fav posters - always intelligent, often witty, great insight. But he kinda walked right into this one!
-
The Green Mile
Bionic Poster
Haha, I'll be honest, I didn't think Djokovic would have another 2011 like year. I'm pretty sure I was just being cheeky to Noleberic in these posts though.
Novak And The Net.
Banned
Well, you and many others should have been right this whole time. If it weren't for the state of the tour right now, no way in hell Faker wins 3 slams this year.
IGNORE MY RESPONSE HERE - I ENTERED IT BY MISTAKE
The Green Mile
Bionic Poster
Well, it's not Novak's problem now is it? This is all subjective anyway. You're stating it like a fact. I don't like or believe in "weak era" talk, so lets just not.
Predicting things to happen years from now is extremely hard to do anyway. You just never know what's gonna happen in tennis. Much more difficult than predicting the outcome of a match.
Novak And The Net.
Banned
Yes, I get that. Aren't you just sick of how Faker is allowed to win time and time again with all these factors in place for him though? Do you like him winning again and again?
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Let it go mate. It's really not good for you to have so much hate in your heart.
