Djokovic is a dominant #1

[uscwang]

The ''majoring in minors'' has really backfired. Now we have threads saying Novak 18 slams, not a problem.I'm thinking, why not? lol Crazy world indeed. I should know better. He is just so hot right now. It all points towards a fourth round Australian Open defeat to Rafa.

Absolutely. Where do you see Nadal drop in ranking to meet the No. 1 in the 4th round?

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

Absolutely. Where do you see Nadal drop in ranking to meet the No. 1 in the 4th round?

If Nadal drops to #9, a 4th round clash is possible. But since he has no points to defend this year, that scenario is impossible at 2016 Aussie Open.

 

[Fedfan34]

Please explain to me how Federer avoided Nadal at the 2009 French Open. I'd love to hear this.

You know that Fed publicly admitted his fear of facing Nadal was why he lost to Djokovic in 2010 at the US Open, right?

 

[The_18th_Slam]

You know that Fed publicly admitted his fear of facing Nadal was why he lost to Djokovic in 2010 at the US Open, right?

No, he just said he didn't want to tire himself out for the final by going all-out in all the sets. And you didn't answer my question. How did Federer avoid Nadal at the 2009 French Open?

 

[Fedfan34]

No, he just said he didn't want to tire himself out for the final by going all-out in all the sets. And you didn't answer my question. How did Federer avoid Nadal at the 2009 French Open?

And you never responded to the original question which is- How are you considered the dominant player when you are thoroughly dominated by another player, in slams and out?

Also, are you suggesting that the same Federer who was points away from losing to Haas would have beaten his master Nadal had the two actually met in 2009? I'm a Fed fan too, but I can acknowledge clear realities. And the fact is, Federer has needed someone else to beat Nadal in order to win grand slams since 2008.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

And you never responded to the original question which is- How are you considered the dominant player when you are thoroughly dominated by another player, in slams and out?

You are considered the dominant player by winning 11 Slams in 4 years, and 17 Slams overall.

Also, are you suggesting that the same Federer who was points away from losing to Haas would have beaten his master Nadal had the two actually met in 2009?

I didn't suggest that. Are you suggesting that Nadal, who was slapped aside by Soderling, who was in turn straight-settled by Federer, would challenge Federer that year? For the record, their H2H on clay that year was 1-0 to Federer.

I'm a Fed fan too, but I can acknowledge clear realities. And the fact is, Federer has needed someone else to beat Nadal in order to win grand slams since 2008.

You still haven't answered my question. How did Federer avoid Nadal at the 2009 French Open?

 

[veroniquem]

After Novak's 2011 run, I thought he would for sure pocket 2 slams a year, but you know how that went down.

But this time around, I am more convinced that he can do just that: at least 2 slams a year for the next 2 years.

I think it is more spectacular to have 2 seasons with 3 slams than, let's say, 3 seasons with 2. 3+ is much more difficult to achieve. That's why Fed and Djoko are the only ones who've done it more than once. But ultimately, it doesn't matter how one does it, overall # of slams is what prevails (whether through consistency, longevity or outstanding peak years).

 

[Hollywood401k]

FiveThiryEight had a blurb about Elo ratings applied to tennis and Djokovic comes out pretty dominant there as well: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/djokovic-and-federer-are-vying-to-be-the-greatest-of-all-time/

Hadn't seen it mentioned and I don't know much about Elo. But boy, I do love graphs.

 

[Goosehead]

These stats make it clear that Federer won his trophies post 2007 by avoiding Nadal, rather than overcoming him. So to say he was a truly dominant world #1 is excluding the fact that in order for that to be the case, his high profile rival had to be absent.

wut?..that's just 100% wrong Federer didn't "win those trophies by avoiding nadal".. nadal wasn't good enough to reach those finals, for whatever reason..poor form, injuries (due to grinding style of play and/or overplaying), or whatever other reason/excuse..

Federer cheerily carried on and faced whoever where-ever, weather nadal was playing the tourney or not, weather nadal was his opponent in the final or not. Federer just carried on win or lose.

Federer is like the sun, whatever happens you just know that the next day he will pop up again all warm n bright n cheery n optimistic, ready to go again.

 

[Fedfan34]

wut?..that's just 100% wrong Federer didn't "win those trophies by avoiding nadal".. nadal wasn't good enough to reach those finals, for whatever reason..poor form, injuries (due to grinding style of play and/or overplaying), or whatever other reason/excuse..

Federer cheerily carried on and faced whoever where-ever, weather nadal was playing the tourney or not, weather nadal was his opponent in the final or not. Federer just carried on win or lose.

Federer is like the sun, whatever happens you just know that the next day he will pop up again all warm n bright n cheery n optimistic, ready to go again.

This may possibly be the best post I've read all year...no arguments for successfully pulling off a Federer as the sun metaphor.

 

[Fedfan34]

You are considered the dominant player by winning 11 Slams in 4 years, and 17 Slams overall.

I didn't suggest that. Are you suggesting that Nadal, who was slapped aside by Soderling, who was in turn straight-settled by Federer, would challenge Federer that year? For the record, their H2H on clay that year was 1-0 to Federer.

You still haven't answered my question. How did Federer avoid Nadal at the 2009 French Open?

Nobody is questioning he was a dominant number one from 2003-2007. During this period, Nadal also did not dominate Federer in slams.
I will ask you the question again, this time very explicitly. From 2008 on, Nadal has a 15-4 record against Federer and is the #1 or #2 player for most of this period. With the benefit of history as your guide, how do you rightfully consider Federer the dominant player during this period?

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

Pretty simple, Federer was dominating the tour but was losing to Nadal most of the times they played especially in big matches, everytime he didnt have to face Nadal it boosted his chances to win any tournament apart from the world tour finals or any indoors event.

No, he just said he didn't want to tire himself out for the final by going all-out in all the sets. And you didn't answer my question. How did Federer avoid Nadal at the 2009 French Open?

Federer didnt avoid Nadal at the French open 2009, he benefited from Nadal losing early to win his only French open
Federer himself implies so:

“I feel like if I play my game, it’s more on my racket. Whereas at the French, I feel like I am slightly more dependent on Rafa. ”

If Federer himself says so....

 

[beast of mallorca]

Djokovic is a better version of Hewitt.

Hewitt is the Ferrer of the early 2000 era. He was very fortunate that there was all but ageing greats then and no Mighty Fed yet or only baby Rafa and Djoko. Hewitt was very lucky indeed.......

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Federer didnt avoid Nadal at the French open 2009, he benefited from Nadal losing early to win his only French open
Federer himself implies so:

If Federer himself says so....

Thank you.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

From 2008 on, Nadal has a 15-4 record against Federer and is the #1 or #2 player for most of this period. With the benefit of history as your guide, how do you rightfully consider Federer the dominant player during this period?

Nadal was the dominant player in 2008. Federer was the dominant player in 2009. Federer hasn't been dominant post-AO 2010.

 

[Fedfan34]

Nadal was the dominant player in 2008. Federer was the dominant player in 2009. Federer hasn't been dominant post-AO 2010.

That's all I was getting at.

For my part, Federer didn't "avoid" Nadal in 2009 in the sense of tanking against a player to not have to play him (US Open 2013 style). He got lucky to not have to play him because someone else did the dirty work. I don't think its controversial to say Federer was a God blessed man that year at Rolland Garros.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

I don't think its controversial to say Federer was a God blessed man that year at Rolland Garros.

As opposed to being a God-cursed man at 5 other French Open events, so it evens out.

 

[Fedfan34]

As opposed to being a God-cursed man at 5 other French Open events, so it evens out.

I wish he'd taken luck/curses out of it and just beaten Nadal in one of those finals. God knows he had the game to do it.

I don't know what's worse - getting crushed because a player is superior to you technically, or getting crushed because said player dominates your mind.
On paper I think its the first option, but in reality its probably the second.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

I wish he'd taken luck/curses out of it and just beaten Nadal in one of those finals. God knows he had the game to do it.

I don't know what's worse - getting crushed because a player is superior to you technically, or getting crushed because said player dominates your mind.
On paper I think its the first option, but in reality its probably the second.

Federer, as a package, couldn't beat Nadal at the French Open the 5 times they played. It doesn't matter if it was because he didn't have the game or if it was because he is a mental midget. He is still the same player.

 

[Fedfan34]

Federer, as a package, couldn't beat Nadal at the French Open the 5 times they played. It doesn't matter if it was because he didn't have the game or if it was because he is a mental midget. He is still the same player.

Amen

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

Hewitt is the Ferrer of the early 2000 era. He was very fortunate that there was all but ageing greats then and no Mighty Fed yet or only baby Rafa and Djoko. Hewitt was very lucky indeed.......

hard to disagree

 

[The_18th_Slam]

hard to disagree

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

Beating Janowicz in a M1000 final is worth 2 slams at least

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Hewitt is the Ferrer of the early 2000 era. He was very fortunate that there was all but ageing greats then and no Mighty Fed yet or only baby Rafa and Djoko. Hewitt was very lucky indeed.......

Agassi, Safin, Sampras and various others would disagree with you.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Beating Janowicz in a M1000 final is worth 2 slams at least

It's worth half an MS title.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

....

 

[gn]

His results in the remainder of 2011 after US Open were awful, but he won Australian Open 2012 the hard way. Not to mention he is still here dominating again 4 years after that memorable season.

I have no idea who is the record holder, but Agassi won his only FO and completed Career Grand Slam at 29 years of age.

And Wawrinka at 30

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

And Wawrinka at 30

Thanks for saying that. Another reason why Djoko should not be written off anytime soon.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

While Soderling was a rare type of late bloomer, those others in that group were making an impact quite a bit younger. I have already seen enough to be convinced Raonic, Dmitrov, Tomic, are well inferior to that group. If any of them prove me wrong then good for them, it is better for the game, but I am pretty confident they wont. Kei is the one possible exception I am still holding out some hope for, but he has to make a move now.

In complete agreement here. I have given up on this generation. Had hopes from Nishi, but if he keeps getting injured so frequently then it's not going to work out. Of the next gen, Zverev has solid groundstrokes, Kyrgios has one big fat weapon in the form of the serve and can bluff up to a point in crucial phases of the match, Kokkinakkis looks fairly organised (but not too spectacular). With Kyrgios running into so many problems, I am not feeling so confident of his progress as I did when he beat Nadal. I really thought a future champion had been born but he's been a real letdown since then. Maybe Zverev. Don't like Coric's forehand. He will get moved around into exhaustion with that shot.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

I don't know what the general perception was here, but nobody I talked to felt Federer would reach 20. I also never heard commentators call for 20.

Then you must be alone there. I distinctly remember some commentators on quote saying Fed would win 20 slams EVEN after Wimb 2012. I was like, what, they're still singing this broken record, not gonna happen anymore. I realised then he's going to keep playing instead of making it a fine swansong.

 

[duaneeo]

Then you must be alone there. I distinctly remember some commentators on quote saying Fed would win 20 slams EVEN after Wimb 2012. I was like, what, they're still singing this broken record, not gonna happen anymore. I realised then he's going to keep playing instead of making it a fine swansong.

Really?

As early as 2008--the year Djokovic won the AO, and Nadal won RO, Wimbledon and became #1--many commentators questioned whether Roger would even break Pete's slam tally. He eventually did of course, but by the end of 2010 they predicted Roger's days of winning slams were basically over. That talk went into overdrive when Djokovic came into his prime the following year.

After 2012 Wimbledon, I remember Federer suggesting that he could win 20 slam titles, but don't recall any commentators agreeing. Most said that maybe he can win another Wimbledon (not 3 more Wimbledons). None of them predicted more titles for him at the AO, FO, or USO.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Really?

As early as 2008--the year Djokovic won the AO, and Nadal won RO, Wimbledon and became #1--many commentators questioned whether Roger would even break Pete's slam tally. He eventually did of course, but by the end of 2010 they predicted Roger's days of winning slams were basically over. That talk went into overdrive when Djokovic came into his prime the following year.

After 2012 Wimbledon, I remember Federer suggesting that he could win 20 slam titles, but don't recall any commentators agreeing. Most said that maybe he can win another Wimbledon (not 3 more Wimbledons). None of them predicted more titles for him at the AO, FO, or USO.

Yeah, I can't find articles from 2012 now and it's late here so I am not gonna try but I am positive that I read it not from Fed's mouth (in fact I don't remember and am shocked he thought so, though maybe not really given the nature of typical sportsman hype) but commentators and went WTF. I didn't think he was going to be winning any more slams thereafter so the thought that people still contemplated 20 slams for Fed sounded pretty far out to me. I don't disagree with your first para. That's the nature of the beast. They just keep changing their tune depending on how the game evolves and who's winning. So the moment Fed won Wimbledon, they went over the top. And, as I learnt today, so did he. Good grief!

 

[duaneeo]

Yeah, I can't find articles from 2012 now and it's late here so I am not gonna try but I am positive that I read it not from Fed's mouth (in fact I don't remember and am shocked he thought so, though maybe not really given the nature of typical sportsman hype) but commentators and went WTF.

I'm sure there are some 2012 articles out there with a casual tennis commentator (who writes mostly about football, baseball, and golf than tennis) saying Roger would win 20 slams; or perhaps a tennis great of the past making this claim in an interview. But I'm just as positive that the commentators we've been forced to listen to on ESPN and The Tennis Channel over the many years (McEnroe brothers, Cahill, Shriver, Carillo, Gilbert, Austin, Fowler, etc) never said after 2012 Wimbledon that Roger would win 20 slams.

 

[AngieB]

Djokovic has put together two of the best seasons I've seen from a player in a long time. He's better than McEnroe and Lendl. He's a level above everybody up until Sampras, in my honest opinion.

For all the talk of Djokovic being a subpar #1 and not dominant, he's put those questions to rest. Can he repeat this feat in 2016? Who knows.. But one thing is for sure is that Nole is not going away any time soon.

#FlipFloppingGlorySeeker

Someone of #Novaks age would best enjoy his aged accomplishments because men's tennis history tells us he's ready for a lull......#GirlBye

#PTL #JC4EVER

Angie
​

 

[BHServe]

In complete agreement here. I have given up on this generation. Had hopes from Nishi, but if he keeps getting injured so frequently then it's not going to work out. Of the next gen, Zverev has solid groundstrokes, Kyrgios has one big fat weapon in the form of the serve and can bluff up to a point in crucial phases of the match, Kokkinakkis looks fairly organised (but not too spectacular). With Kyrgios running into so many problems, I am not feeling so confident of his progress as I did when he beat Nadal. I really thought a future champion had been born but he's been a real letdown since then. Maybe Zverev. Don't like Coric's forehand. He will get moved around into exhaustion with that shot.

Zverev looks to be a real threat in 2-3 years. Already beat Anderson in DC 500 tourney, and his overally he has all the tools. Coric is pretty solid already as well, but Zverev has higher ceiling.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

#FlipFloppingGlorySeeker

Someone of #Novaks age would best enjoy his aged accomplishments because men's tennis history tells us he's ready for a lull......#GirlBye

#PTL #JC4EVER

Angie
​

So I'm glory seeking by giving Djokovic some credit for his win? Do you even know what "glory seeking" is, Granny?

 

[Dolgopolov85]

I'm sure there are some 2012 articles out there with a casual tennis commentator (who writes mostly about football, baseball, and golf than tennis) saying Roger would win 20 slams; or perhaps a tennis great of the past making this claim in an interview. But I'm just as positive that the commentators we've been forced to listen to on ESPN and The Tennis Channel over the many years (McEnroe brothers, Cahill, Shriver, Carillo, Gilbert, Austin, Fowler, etc) never said after 2012 Wimbledon that Roger would win 20 slams.

Not casual commentators, but yeah, former players. Not anybody on the ESPN crowd, IIRC, so maybe that's why it sounds like news to you.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

.

 

[nowhereman]

Wait, but I thought you were a firm believer in Djokovic's weak era? What happened?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Wait, but I thought you were a firm believer in Djokovic's weak era? What happened?

I feel it's a weaker era, but he still deserves credit for what he's achieved.

 

[nowhereman]

I feel it's a weaker era, but he still deserves credit for what he's achieved.

Cool. Glad you're giving credit where it's due. I'm sure @Djokovic2011 will be happy too.

 

[Bruno Santiago]

Now Djokovic has joined a very private club.

Few players never lost the lead for an entire season: Connors, Lendl, Sampras, Hewitt, Federer and now Djokovic.

We have:
---25 official #1 since ATP rankings in early 70's;

---16 of them finished a year as #1

--- 6 players, only, have been #1 from the begining to the end of the season.

 

[Bruno Santiago]

And I have already seen enough to be convinced Djokovic isn't close to the same caliber of player that Federer is.

Djokovic is definitely at the very same caliber as Federer or Nadal, no question about that.

We have field to argue about Murray, but those Fedalovic 3?... they all live on the top of Mt. Olympus.

 

[Bruno Santiago]

I'm not Nole's biggest fan, but he is just getting more and more impressive. I am not disappointed with the results at the slam level this year -- I am happy that tennis has another dominating figure once again.

We are 2.

When we tought tennis trend was many (5-8) great competitive players in 2000-2003, then Federer peaked, to the joy of all of us.

When we though Nadal was an eternal poor #2, he peaked in 2008.

When we were conviced to have re-lived an Era of 2 grat players (like Sampras - Agassi), Djokovi told us in 2011 they were actually 3 (similar to Connors-Borg-McEnroe).

Tennis is just such a cool sport to watch...

 

[duaneeo]

Djokovic is definitely at the very same caliber as Federer or Nadal, no question about that.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Depends what's meant by caliber. I would rank Nole's 2011 season above the best seasons of either Fed or Nadal. To win 3 slams in such a strong field was an incredible achievement.

 

[duaneeo]

I rank Nole's 2015 season above the best seasons of either Federer or Nadal. But if we're talking overall achievements (not individual seasons), Djokovic has to add many more to be at the very same caliber as Federer. If we're talking overall dominance as a #1 player, Nole's 2012 and 2014 seasons put him below Federer's caliber when he was #1.