Djokovic plays better when his opponent is hyped up to give him a close match

[Jokervich]

For example against Medvedev in the final of the Australian Open this year. People were hyping this up to be a close match. They were saying how well Medvedev was playing and how he could really push Djokovic and possibly win. The result? Djokovic destroyed him in 3 pretty routine sets (1st set was sort of close and then the other 2 sets were beatdowns).

But take Thiem in the final of the Australian Open in 2020. Djokovic was expected to win. No one really gave Thiem much of a chance. The result? Djokovic was pushed really hard, down 2 sets to 1, had to take an off-court MTO and had to use all of his experience and mental determination to win in 5.

Then look at Fritz in this year's Australian Open. Djokovic was expected to get past him comfortably. The result? Djokovic pushed to 5 sets and had to use every ounce of his courage and experience to pull through in 5.

When the media and the general public hype up an opponent to give Djokovic a tough match, Djokovic destroys them. It's against the players who he is expected to beat comfortably, then that player overperforms, that Djokovic struggles.

I think that's why Djokovic struggled against the younger guys more than the likes of Nadal and Federer. People just expected him to beat them comfortably. Now that the likes of Medvedev, Zverev, Thiem etc. are considered top players who must be taken seriously, Djokovic is far more comfortable against them.

Thoughts?

 

[upchuck]

He's like Serena: the better and more hyped the player, the better he's likely to play. In most tournaments, their worst matches come against lower ranked players.

 

[tonylg]

 

[Deleted member 688153]

humans are lazy. we need to be invested in the outcome to work to our potential, but if invested enough, the results can be scary

 

[Jonesy]

Differently from Nadal that gives his all even against easy opponents.

 

[Jokervich]

is that agreeing with my OP? i guess it is

 

[Jason Swerve]

He's like Serena: the better and more hyped the player, the better he's likely to play. In most tournaments, their worst matches come against lower ranked players.

You said it.

Differently from Nadal that gives his all even against easy opponents.

You also said it. Djokovic is to young Serena as Nadal is to young Graf.

 

[tonylg]

is that agreeing with my OP? i guess it is

Nick was definitely hyped up .. so yes, I agree with you that ******** played at his very best.

His best has just never been good enough to win against Kyrgios. No shame in that, Kyrgios is a talented player.

 

[blablavla]

is that agreeing with my OP? i guess it is

can someone really blame Novak that these "would have been an ATG with at least 50 slams in any other era" aren't good enough?
and then the same folks talk about Fed vulturing in the vacuum era

how do you call a time period when an athlete that was supposed to be retired by now doesn't have any competition from 3 generations after him, and still counting?

 

[nov]

can someone really blame Novak that these "would have been an ATG with at least 50 slams in any other era" aren't good enough?
and then the same folks talk about Fed vulturing in the vacuum era

how do you call a time period when an athlete that was supposed to be retired by now doesn't have any competition from 3 generations after him, and still counting?

I dont know if being much better than everyone (included Nadal and Federer, 2 greatest players ever after Djokovic) can be called as no competition. Nice logic!

 

[blablavla]

I dont know if being much better than everyone (included Nadal and Federer, 2 greatest players ever after Djokovic) can be called as no competition. Nice logic!

please post the entire list of younger ATGs who Novak has to face

 

[tonylg]

please post the entire list of younger ATGs who Novak has to face

Zverev, Medvedev, Thiem, Sonego, Chung, Istomin. Berry tough era, no?

 

[blablavla]

Zverev, Medvedev, Thiem, Sonego, Chung, Istomin. Berry tough era, no?

how may slams Djere would have in any other era?

 

[nov]

please post the entire list of younger ATGs who Novak has to face

He faced prime Federer and early peaked Nadal and they both took many slams from Djokovic. If you change Djokovic with Federer, Federer probably would win 10-12 Slams at max instead 18.

 

[blablavla]

He faced prime Federer and early peaked Nadal and they both took many slams from Djokovic. If you change Djokovic with Federer, Federer probably would win 10-12 Slams at max instead 18.

is Federer or Nadal younger than Novak?
why don't you answer the question that I asked you?

 

[pj80]

please post the entire list of younger ATGs who Novak has to face

18 slams in the Nadal, Federer and Murray era... berry difficult opponents, no? Must play 100 % to have chances, no?

 

[tonylg]

is Federer or Nadal younger than Novak?
why don't you answer the question that I asked you?

 

[nov]

is Federer or Nadal younger than Novak?
why don't you answer the question that I asked you?

Because you cant compare generations, even most people would agree that Federer era was weaker. But you can easily compare that Federer was gathering easy slams, while Djokovic had to beat Nadal + Federer to start gathering slams. Isnt it harder than beat Nabaldians?

 

[blablavla]

Because you cant compare generations, even most people would agree that Federer era was weaker. But you can easily compare that Federer was gathering easy slams, while Djokovic had to beat Nadal + Federer to start gathering slams. Isnt it harder than beat Nabaldians?

why can't we compare generations?
and which people will agree that Fed era was weaker? Fed haters and Nole fans?

In my opinion Fed had at least decent competition, or actually tough competition:
Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, all got to #1 and won GS, all defeated Sampras, Agassi, Kuerten
then youngsters popped up: Nadal, DJokovic, Del Potro, Murray

and who is Nole biggest threat? Federer? the same Federer "most people would agree that Federer era was weaker"? you can't be serious about this

 

[pj80]

Because you cant compare generations, even most people would agree that Federer era was weaker. But you can easily compare that Federer was gathering easy slams, while Djokovic had to beat Nadal + Federer to start gathering slams. Isnt it harder than beat Nabaldians?

any unbias tennis fan would agree that it is more impressive to gather slam tally vs Federer, Nadal and Murray than Roddick, Nalbandian and Baghdatis

 

[blablavla]

any unbias tennis fan would agree that it is more impressive to gather slam tally vs Federer, Nadal and Murray than Roddick, Nalbandian and Baghdatis

dude, answer me please one question.
if Fed is only a weak era champion, how defeating Fed is an achievement? isn't that like taking a candy away from a toddler?

if you want to glorify taking away a candy from a toddler, then yeah, sure go ahead
otherwise, to prove Novak's glory, you need to first find tough competition, and given that Fed is only a weak era champion, Fed is obviously not tough competition
I mean, doesn't Fed has losing H2H vs Nadal and Nole?
isn't Fed according to Nole fans just a lucky vulture?

sorry to tell you mate, you can't have it both ways

 

[nov]

why can't we compare generations?
and which people will agree that Fed era was weaker? Fed haters and Nole fans?

In my opinion Fed had at least decent competition, or actually tough competition:
Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, all got to #1 and won GS, all defeated Sampras, Agassi, Kuerten
then youngsters popped up: Nadal, DJokovic, Del Potro, Murray

and who is Nole biggest threat? Federer? the same Federer "most people would agree that Federer era was weaker"? you can't be serious about this

I dont think anyone here would won argument against you, no matter what arguments thrown at you. To say Djokovic have weakest era from all big 3 is just absurd.

 

[blablavla]

I dont think anyone here would won argument against you, no matter what arguments thrown at you. To say Djokovic have weakest era from all big 3 is just absurd.

can you answer a simple question?
please post the entire list of younger ATGs Novak has to face

 

[pj80]

dude, answer me please one question.
if Fed is only a weak era champion, how defeating Fed is an achievement? isn't that like taking a candy away from a toddler?

if you want to glorify taking away a candy from a toddler, then yeah, sure go ahead
otherwise, to prove Novak's glory, you need to first find tough competition, and given that Fed is only a weak era champion, Fed is obviously not tough competition
I mean, doesn't Fed has losing H2H vs Nadal and Nole?
isn't Fed according to Nole fans just a lucky vulture?

sorry to tell you mate, you can't have it both ways

Fed is NOT ONLY a weak era champ he did get some slams from 2007-2018 when competition from 2003-2006 increased.

 

[nov]

can you answer a simple question?
please post the entire list of younger ATGs Novak has to face

So you want to say competition is all about young gen you have to face?

 

[nov]

Fed is NOT ONLY a weak era champ he did get some slams from 2007-2018 when competition from 2003-2006 increased.

Fed is NOT ONLY a weak era champ he did get some slams from 2007-2018 when competition from 2003-2006 increased.

Yes but as sad as it sounds, Djokovic was injuried at the time Fed gathered those slams 2017-2018.

 

[blablavla]

So you want to say competition is all about young gen you have to face?

answer my question first.
then I'll answer your question

 

[tonylg]

can you answer a simple question?
please post the entire list of younger ATGs Novak has to face

 

[blablavla]

Fed is NOT ONLY a weak era champ he did get some slams from 2007-2018 when competition from 2003-2006 increased.

seriously?
you want to hide behind that the slams accumulated starting with 2017?

if something, the slams won starting with 2017 were weak era lucky vulturing

and the fact that he was disputing #1 with Nadal only, talks volumes about strength of the opposition Fed, Nadal and Nole face.
are you sure you want to have the weak era in your narrative?
cause I can prove fact based that Nole is the biggest beneficiary of it

 

[pj80]

seriously?
you want to hide behind that the slams accumulated starting with 2017?

if something, the slams won starting with 2017 were weak era lucky vulturing

and the fact that he was disputing #1 with Nadal only, talks volumes about strength of the opposition Fed, Nadal and Nole face.
are you sure you want to have the weak era in your narrative?
cause I can prove fact based that Nole is the biggest beneficiary of it

2007 bro...I'd give Fed credit for 2007 slams, despite Djoker, Murray and Rafa still being undeveloped, because they pushed aside the weak era warriors (Roddick, Ljubicic etc.) and occupied the 2nd and 3rd spot.

 

[blablavla]

2007 bro...I'd give Fed credit for 2007 slams, despite Djoker, Murray and Rafa still being undeveloped, because they pushed aside the weak era warriors (Roddick, Ljubicic etc.) and occupied the 2nd and 3rd spot.

since Roddick is a "weak era warrior", how would you describe following titans of the game:
Berdych, Goffin, Raonic, Nishikori, Dimitrov, Vesely, Pouille, Edmund, Nick Kyrgios, Berrettini, Khachanov

 

[pj80]

since Roddick is a "weak era warrior", how would you describe following titans of the game:
Berdych, Goffin, Raonic, Nishikori, Dimitrov, Vesely, Pouille, Edmund, Nick Kyrgios, Berrettini, Khachanov

irrelevant

 

[blablavla]

irrelevant

irrelevant players?

 

[pj80]

irrelevant players?

yes, all of them. It's all about the big 3 and to some extent big 4 (with Murray). They made each other better and increased the gap with others....Fed was the first and then came the other 2

 

[blablavla]

yes, all of them. It's all about the big 3 and to some extent big 4 (with Murray). They made each other better and increased the gap with others....Fed was the first and then came the other 2

which Big 3?
let me break it down as Nole fans describe them:

1. weak era champion, who has losing H2H vs the other 2
2. one surface master, who didn't win a set off Novak in a few centuries on HC, and didn't win a match on grass since Nole matured his game on grass

how these 2 guys can be considered stronk competition?
if anything, this is the opposite to the definition of strong competition

 

[pj80]

which Big 3?
let me break it down as Nole fans describe them:

1. weak era champion, who has losing H2H vs the other 2
2. one surface master, who didn't win a set off Novak in a few centuries on HC, and didn't win a match on grass since Nole matured his game on grass

how these 2 guys can be considered stronk competition?
if anything, this is the opposite to the definition of strong competition

Its all about the big 3 bro....at first it was Big 1 who accumulated roughly 10 slams and nobody could stop him until the other 2 showed up and formed the big 3 coalition. From then on nobody could stop them whether it was Rodddick, Hewitt, Berdych, Raonic, Zverev, Tsitsipas it didn't matter...only they could cancel each other

 

[blablavla]

Its all about the big 3 bro....at first it was Big 1 who accumulated roughly 10 slams and nobody could stop him until the other 2 showed up and formed the big 3 coalition. From then on nobody could stop them whether it was Rodddick, Hewitt, Berdych, Raonic, Zverev, Tsitsipas it didn't matter...only they could cancel each other

tell me please how Fed was able to 'cancel' them, if he has negative H2H

and tell me please how Nadal is able to 'cancel' Nole on HC and grass

I'm curios

 

[pj80]

tell me please how Fed was able to 'cancel' them, if he has negative H2H

and tell me please how Nadal is able to 'cancel' Nole on HC and grass

I'm curios

now you trolling...W2012, AO2017 FO 2011, USO 10/13. etc

 

[tonylg]

please post the entire list of younger ATGs who Novak has to face

 

[mike danny]

He faced prime Federer and early peaked Nadal and they both took many slams from Djokovic. If you change Djokovic with Federer, Federer probably would win 10-12 Slams at max instead 18.

 

[mike danny]

He faced prime Federer and early peaked Nadal and they both took many slams from Djokovic. If you change Djokovic with Federer, Federer probably would win 10-12 Slams at max instead 18.

Conversely, he faced a worse Federer and a worse Nadal to win the vast majority of his slams.

 

[mike danny]

Because you cant compare generations, even most people would agree that Federer era was weaker. But you can easily compare that Federer was gathering easy slams, while Djokovic had to beat Nadal + Federer to start gathering slams. Isnt it harder than beat Nabaldians?

And Djokovic started gathering easy slams after 2014. Isn't it easier to face worse Fedal and no younger ATGs than prime Djokodal?

 

[mike danny]

So you want to say competition is all about young gen you have to face?

After 2014 obviously.

 

[tonylg]

please post the entire list of younger ATGs who Novak has to face

The answer is of course: NONE.

Throughout the Open Era, ATGs have enjoyed a few years of domination until they were displaced by the younger new generation of ATGs.

Laver, Rosewall and Roche
Newcombe, Smith and Nastase
Connors, Borg and McEnroe
Becker, Lendl and Edberg
Agassi, Sampras and Rafter
Hewitt, Safin and Federer
Nadal, Djokovic and Murray
Raonic, Cilic and Anderson?
Thiem, Medvedev and .. fark, I dunno .. Karatsev?

 

[Jokervich]

Today's result in the Djokovic Evans match confirms my OP.

 

[Djokovic_is_the_best#1]

humans are lazy. we need to be invested in the outcome to work to our potential, but if invested enough, the results can be scary

That’s very true. Motivation can take you a long way.