Djokovic to reach 500 weeks at No. 1

[Sudacafan]

If Djokovic would have never carelessly given away the #1 when he first got it in 2011, he would have already surpassed 500 weeks. Unforgivable.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Yes, he will have 353 on January 1, 2022, so he would need 3 straight years almost or if there are breaks then he would need longer.

I am less optimistic about this and give it only a 5-10% chance of happening because Medvedev has separated himself so that he is a clear No. 2 vying for No. 1 and I was hoping several players would all be about the same in point total (like Tsitsipas and Zverev who are currently tied). Djokovic also does not seem to be paying much attention to this either.

There is 0 chance Novak gets anywhere near to 500. The Medvedev Zverev field has already caught up. Next year definitely new no. 1 will come. Nole may may very remotely regain ranking but will lose soon. He can't play long enough to be no. 1 and that's the truth. He will be 35 in 6 months.

 

[Texas Tennis Fan]

Oh, ye of little faith!

Yes, you are probably right, but time will tell. Let's say he wins 3 slams next year and 2 the following 2 years; that gives him a lot of points to build on and will encourage him to play a bit more at the end of the year. I will be surprised if he does not reach 400 weeks, so realistically maybe 425 is what I am guessing barring injury, retirement, or complete lack of motivation.

 

[skaj]

I just said that is a logical possibility. I think it is a moderate field, stronger than what Federer faced when he got 5 years in a row as No. 1. My argument is that you just have to look at the objective measures such as slam numbers, Masters, YE championships, OG, win rate against top 10, h2h against other top players, years at No. 1, and so on.

This whole argument you and I are having and others on the GOAT debate can only look at those things rather than what is usually said which is opinion. Opinion can be right or wrong, but it is still opinion. After the 2020 FO all we heard is 20>17, no OG, etc. and now the arguments have focused down to mostly weak era. Even if that is true and I do agree it is weaker than say 2015, then it does not matter. The player can only win against who he plays. Federer won his first 10 slams against weak opponents. Nadal wins mostly on clay against a group that is much better on hardcourt. You can also say that Federer and Djokovic win Wimbledon against players who are not very good on grass. You can support that by their wins on grass v other surfaces (Medvedev, for example).

In any case, the only real evidence as oppose to opinion is actual results. Yes, players can be lucky in a draw or because a strong player is injured, but these things tend to even out in time.

Yes, you said that is a logical possibility, but it is not. We are talking about existing players and eras.

Your argument that you have to look at the "objective measures" is also wrong, because they are not objective measures. They are measures for the number of wins, titles, weeks at number one, not measures for how strong the eras were. Thinking that by using those (wrong)measures you can measure the quality of an era is an opinion. A wrong one, as explained above. So, the results are not "evidence" what we are talking about (or "real evidence" as you put it...).

"The player can only win against who he plays"? Yes, that is exactly what I was saying - he is playing a weak field and is dominating. When he was playing a strong field he was not as consistently dominant.

 

[Texas Tennis Fan]

Yes, you said that is a logical possibility, but it is not. We are talking about existing players and eras. OF COURSE, IT IS A LOGICAL POSSIBILITY. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE WAY MEDVEDEV PLAYED AT THE USO WAS THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF TENNIS EVER AND HE WOULD HAVE BEATEN NADAL, FEDERER, AND LAVER IN STRAIGHT SETS. IT IS POSSIBLE, BUT UNLIKELY. ALL ERAS, AND IN FACT YEARS, SEASONS, TOURNAMENTS, AND EVEN MATCHES HAVE MULTITUDES OF THINGS THAT CAN AFFECT THE OUTCOME.

Your argument that you have to look at the "objective measures" is also wrong, because they are not objective measures. They are measures for the number of wins, titles, weeks at number one, not measures for how strong the eras were. THEY ARE OBJECTIVE MEASURES OF WINS ETC. THAT THEN NEED TO BE INTERPRETED. BUT YOU ARE STARTING WITH INTERPRETATION AND MAKING STATEMENTS THAT THIS ERA IS WEAK. MAYBE IT IS, BUT JUST ASSERTING IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE.

Thinking that by using those (wrong)measures you can measure the quality of an era is an opinion. A wrong one, as explained above. So, the results are not "evidence" what we are talking about (or "real evidence" as you put it...). AGAIN, THE WINS, ETC. ARE NOT THE FINAL ANSWER AND WE CAN STILL GIVE OPINIONS ABOUT WHY YOU THINK A CERTAIN PLAYER IS THE GOAT AND I CAN COUNTER WITH DJOKOVIC, BUT YOU START WITH THE OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE OF WINS, SLAMS, WINNING PERCENTAGE, H2H, ETC. ALL OBJECTIVE DATA THEN HAS TO BE INTERPRETED.

IN MY ENTIRE LIFE, I PLAYED ONE BASKETBALL GAME IN A LEAGUE. I SHOT ONCE IN THE GAME AND MADE IT. I HAVE A LIFETIME SCORING PERCENTAGE OF 100%. THAT IS OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE. I COULD THEN INTERPRET THE EVIDENCE BY SAYING NO BASKETBALL PLAYER IN THE NBA WAS EVER AS GOOD AS I WAS BECAUSE THEY SHOOT A MUCH LOWER PERCENTAGE. AND MY INTERPRETATION WOULD BE WRONG, BECAUSE YOU AND I KNOW THAT ANY NBA BASKETBALL PLAYER EVER WOULD DESTROY ME IN A PICK-UP GAME. OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE IS JUST THE STARTING POINT. YOU AND MOST OTHERS HERE START WITH WEAK ERA OR OTHER STATEMENTS AS IF THEY ARE OBJECTIVE. THEY ARE JUST OPINION WHICH MAY BE RIGHT OR WRONG.

"The player can only win against who he plays"? Yes, that is exactly what I was saying - he is playing a weak field and is dominating. When he was playing a strong field he was not as consistently dominant. YOU SAY IT IS A WEAK FIELD, BUT HOW WEAK? IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW. MY OPINION IS THE FIELD IS WEAKER NOW THAN IN 2011 WHEN DJOKOVIC DOMINATED, BUT HOW MUCH WEAKER IS IT NOW IS VERY HARD TO KNOW AND IS OPINION.

MY MAIN ANNOYANCE IN THESE DISAGREEMENTS IS FEDAL PEOPLE KEEP MOVING THE GOAL POSTS (IT USE TO BE 20>17); NOW THAT EVEN THE COMMENTATORS ARE FOR THE MOST PART SAYING DJOKOVIC IS GOAT AT LEAST OF THE OPEN ERA, FEDAL FANS ONLY HAVE THAT IT IS A WEAK ERA; MAYBE IT IS, BUT I CAN ARGUE THAT WHEN FEDERER WAS WINNING THE MOST IT WAS THE WEAKEST ERA AT LEAST ACCORDING TO ELO. I CAN ALSO SAY THAT IT IS A WEAK CLAY ERA THROUGHOUT NADAL'S CAREER AND HE IS NOT NEARLY AS GOOD ON OTHER SURFACES IN STRONG OR WEAK ERAS. (PLUS NADAL IS REALLY OF THE SAME ERA AS DJOKOVIC BEING ONLY 11 MONTHS YOUNGER).

ALL I ASK IS FOR CONSISTENCY AND STATING THINGS AS OPINION, NOT AS FACT WHICH CLAIMING WEAK ERA IS NOT OBJECTIVELY TRUE.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

Laughably possible.

 

[Texas Tennis Fan]

I meant to add that I am not yelling when using CAPITAL letters.

Also, I'd be more convinced that Djokovic had declined if there were objective data used that said his forehand and backhand were now 5 mph slower than in 2015, or that he made passing shot 25% less often, or he got to 20% fewer return of serves. But that objective data, if accurate, still would need to be interpreted. Maybe he is doing that for tactical reasons or to decrease the wear and tear on his body or that slower balls make it harder on the current tall and powerful players.

You and a lot of people here who don't want to admit Djokovic has better objective data than FEDAL are like people who say "In 2020, the average temperature of the earth went up 0.1 degrees centigrade, therefore the world is going to die." Well maybe so, but there are about a 100 more steps between that temperature rise and proving the earth is going to die."
Stating weak era also cuts both ways. Nadal is about the same age and Federer probably played in a very weak era before Nadal and then Djokovic came into their own.

 

[skaj]

It's a logical possibility in theory, but that is irrelevant because we have the context. I hope it is more clear now.

I am not "just asserting", my asserting is based on an opinion that the Big Four were better in their prime then the Next Gen. As I said, if you think that the Next Gen is better than the rest of the Big Four, I have nothing to add.

The wins are not the final answer, they are not an answer at all. We are discussing the context of the wins, not counting them.

I don't think you know what "evidence" is. You are probably confusing evidence with facts.

Similarly, you are again acting like what we are giving here are not opinions but ultimate truth, saying that the things I say are "impossible to know". Of course it is impossible to "know" for sure, we are estimating. The difference is that you have nothing to back up your estimation, I do. And then you say, it's "impossible to know".

Your annoyance about "FEDAL PEOPLE KEEP MOVING THE GOAL POSTS" has nothing to do with this discussion nor with me, so I am not going to comment on that.

 

[skaj]

I meant to add that I am not yelling when using CAPITAL letters.

Also, I'd be more convinced that Djokovic had declined if there were objective data used that said his forehand and backhand were now 5 mph slower than in 2015, or that he made passing shot 25% less often, or he got to 20% fewer return of serves. But that objective data, if accurate, still would need to be interpreted. Maybe he is doing that for tactical reasons or to decrease the wear and tear on his body or that slower balls make it harder on the current tall and powerful players.

You and a lot of people here who don't want to admit Djokovic has better objective data than FEDAL are like people who say "In 2020, the average temperature of the earth went up 0.1 degrees centigrade, therefore the world is going to die." Well maybe so, but there are about a 100 more steps between that temperature rise and proving the earth is going to die."
Stating weak era also cuts both ways. Nadal is about the same age and Federer probably played in a very weak era before Nadal and then Djokovic came into their own.

Are you talking to me?

 

[Gonzo_style]

400+ weeks is possible but even that is going to be tough

 

[Texas Tennis Fan]

It's a logical possibility in theory, but that is irrelevant because we have the context. I hope it is more clear now.

I don't "just asserting", my asserting is based on an opinion that the Big Four were better in their prime then the Next Gen. As I said, if you think that the Next Gen is better than the rest of the Big Four, I have nothing to add.

The wins are not the final answer, they are not an answer at all. We are discussing the context of the wins, not counting them.

I don't think you know what "evidence" is. You are probably confusing evidence with facts.

Similarly, you are again acting like what we are giving here are not opinions but ultimate truth, saying that the things I say are "impossible to know". Of course it is impossible to "know" for sure, we are estimating. The difference is that you have nothing to back up your estimation, I do. And then you say, it's "impossible to know".

Your annoyance about "FEDAL PEOPLE KEEP MOVING THE GOAL POSTS" has nothing to do with this discussion nor with me, so I am not going to comment on that.

well all of this may be semantics. It is not saying a lot to say that Djokovic, Nadal, and especially Federer are not as good as they were 10 years ago at least in some aspect. I personally don't think Djokovic has deteriorated as much as people have said, and so when he struggles to beat Medvedev or goes 5 sets with Zverev that suggests they are actually much better than they are given credit for at least at their best.

 

[Hitman]

500 weeks is really far off. Reaching 400 would be a massive moment, which I think he only has an outside chance of reaching, think he has 354 weeks locked in right now. He would need another full year just to hit 400.

Its incredible we can be even talking about such insane numbers for the heavyweight champion.

 

[skaj]

well all of this may be semantics. It is not saying a lot to say that Djokovic, Nadal, and especially Federer are not as good as they were 10 years ago at least in some aspect. I personally don't think Djokovic has deteriorated as much as people have said, and so when he struggles to beat Medvedev or goes 5 sets with Zverev that suggests they are actually much better than they are given credit for at least at their best.

It is obvious that he has deteriorated physically, which is normal for a tennis player in his mid 30s(plus had covid). When he plays a long exhausting semifinals match, he loses the next one in straight sets. It happened in Paris last year, in New York this year.

 

[Kralingen]

It is obvious that he has deteriorated physically, which is normal for a tennis player in his mid 30s(plus had covid). When he plays a long exhausting semifinals match, he loses the next one in straight sets. It happened in Paris last year, in New York this year.

Hell that was true even in his prime, see USO ‘10, ‘13, Wimby ‘13, etc. long 5 setters in the semis are always bad for finalists, no matter who they are and no matter the age.

 

[skaj]

Hell that was true even in his prime, see USO ‘10, ‘13, Wimby ‘13, etc. long 5 setters in the semis are always bad for finalists, no matter who they are and no matter the age.

I saw Nadal in Melbourne in 2009, Djokovic in 2012, the same tournament. 22, 24.

 

[Kralingen]

I saw Nadal in Melbourne in 2009, Djokovic in 2012, the same tournament. 22, 24.

Would still argue that the long 5 setter (especially if it’s a late match) affecting finals is a consistent enough factor across the history of tennis that it can’t be ignored unless you’re trying to be dishonest.

Of course there are outliers, and it does disproportionately affect older players who have less stamina to begin with. Agassi’s ‘95 US Open is the example I always go back to with this phenomenon. Less rest, later match, usually is a large disadvantage.

 

[skaj]

Would still argue that the long 5 setter (especially if it’s a late match) affecting finals is a consistent enough factor across the history of tennis that it can’t be ignored unless you’re trying to be dishonest.

Of course there are outliers, and it does disproportionately affect older players who have less stamina to begin with. Agassi’s ‘95 US Open is the example I always go back to with this phenomenon. Less rest, later match, usually is a large disadvantage.

Nobody's saying that it isn't a factor, just that a healthy, fit player in his prime can still pull it off.

 

[Jonesy]

Come on OP, why no poll?

 

[I Am Finnish]

There is 0 chance Novak gets anywhere near to 500. The Medvedev Zverev field has already caught up. Next year definitely new no. 1 will come. Nole may may very remotely regain ranking but will lose soon. He can't play long enough to be no. 1 and that's the truth. He will be 35 in 6 months.

Agree it's not going to happen

 

[Texas Tennis Fan]

It is obvious that he has deteriorated physically, which is normal for a tennis player in his mid 30s(plus had covid). When he plays a long exhausting semifinals match, he loses the next one in straight sets. It happened in Paris last year, in New York this year.

That is a good point though a limited number to look at. There were other things going on at both of those. Nadal also doesn't seem to have the stamina that he did.

 

[skaj]

That is a good point though a limited number to look at. There were other things going on at both of those. Nadal also doesn't seem to have the stamina that he did.

Of course Nadal doesn't have the same stamina. In his case it's even more drastic, and apparent since his game rallies on physique so much.

 

[Texas Tennis Fan]

and he is overweight frankly.

 

[nolefam_2024]

It is obvious that he has deteriorated physically, which is normal for a tennis player in his mid 30s(plus had covid). When he plays a long exhausting semifinals match, he loses the next one in straight sets. It happened in Paris last year, in New York this year.

He played most exhausting schedule in RG and still won. He was 25 in 2013 and lost to Murray and Nadal in finals after 5 set semis vs Delpo and Wawrinka respectively. He lost to Wawrinka in 2015 at the peak of his tennis after tough five setter vs Murray. Maybe the opponents were good enough to beat him.

 

[Texas Tennis Fan]

Yes, this shows that even earlier he needed a smoother SF to win.

One of the other annoyances I have with people is this assumption that Djokovic has had a great deterioration. He hasn't. Maybe a slow one, but 35 years old is the new 28 in tennis because of diet, stretching, and other innovations. Djokovic is ahead of the curb on this in part because he had respiratory problems when he was younger. I think a lot of this Fedal fan commentary about weak era is to question how can a 34 year old win 3 slams and be in the final of the 4th. Well, it must be because it is a weak era. But maybe it is because Djokovic is not that much below 2015 and the younger players are actually quite good and it is not a weak era at all.

The commentators don't think Djokovic is down from where he was at least not significantly and they know a heck of a lot more about this than we do.

 

[ttwreader]

What are you guys talking about? Djokovic will be #1 when he's 40 so it will be more than 500 weeks. He solved the Medvedev's puzzle and spoke it out loud so now anyone who can play S&V can beat the mad lad who always stands 15 feet in the back of the court.

 

[skaj]

He played most exhausting schedule in RG and still won. He was 25 in 2013 and lost to Murray and Nadal in finals after 5 set semis vs Delpo and Wawrinka respectively. He lost to Wawrinka in 2015 at the peak of his tennis after tough five setter vs Murray. Maybe the opponents were good enough to beat him.

Not saying that they necessarily weren't but that after exhausting semifinals five-setters, he was losing easily in straight sets in the finals.

 

[skaj]

Yes, this shows that even earlier he needed a smoother SF to win.

One of the other annoyances I have with people is this assumption that Djokovic has had a great deterioration. He hasn't. Maybe a slow one, but 35 years old is the new 28 in tennis because of diet, stretching, and other innovations. Djokovic is ahead of the curb on this in part because he had respiratory problems when he was younger. I think a lot of this Fedal fan commentary about weak era is to question how can a 34 year old win 3 slams and be in the final of the 4th. Well, it must be because it is a weak era. But maybe it is because Djokovic is not that much below 2015 and the younger players are actually quite good and it is not a weak era at all.

The commentators don't think Djokovic is down from where he was at least not significantly and they know a heck of a lot more about this than we do.

Really, I've never heard that. If anything I hear the opposite all the time, and I must say I pretty much agree - his physique is very good for someone who's been playing this sport with such intensity for 15 years now.

And no, he did not need a smoother SF to win, he won some and lost some. He is losing them now. So, of course he has lost the edge a bit in the physique department.

 

[Hayole]

This is an epic prediction worthy of Srdjan-level chutzpah. Most of his fans feel like they are sticking their neck out with an outrageous prediction when they forecast 400 weeks at #1.

400 weeks isn't outrageous at all because he will be at 380 by end of June

 

[itrium84]

If they are all strong and similar level, how come they don't take turns at the number one position?

There's literally a GOAT blocking them from reaching no1.
You don't have to be better than GOAT to be considered strong - it's puzzling how you fail to understand this.

 

[skaj]

There's literally a GOAT blocking them from reaching no1.
You don't have to be better than GOAT to be considered strong - it's puzzling how you fail to understand this.

I will explain it if it is puzzling to you, however puzzling it is that you are failing to understand that I am not failing to understand, but that you are failing to understand and are puzzled because of that.

(As I already said...)Because we are talking about strong eras, where there are strong players playing. Like the era before this one, where that same GOAT could not block strong players from reaching no1, even though he was closer to his peak.
I hope it is clear now.

 

[Texas Tennis Fan]

I will explain it if it is puzzling to you, however puzzling it is that you are failing to understand that I am not failing to understand, but that you are failing to understand and are puzzled because of that.

(As I already said...)Because we are talking about strong eras, where there are strong players playing. Like the era before this one, where that same GOAT could not block strong players from reaching no1, even though he was closer to his peak.
I hope it is clear now.

I like your first sentence.

However, your next sentence is pretty outlandish. I mean Medvedev is the first person who has taken the No. 2 spot other than the Big 3 plus Murray in 15 or so years. So no one was taking the No. 1 from Djokovic at earlier times except other all time greats. Murray became No. 1 by overplaying at the end of 2016 and winning the last match against Djokovic. Some think this hastened his career-threatening injuries. Djokovic has been 1st at year end for 7 years from 2011-2021. He has finished 2nd in all the other years except 2017 which was due to injury and surgery. My point is that Djokovic has been dominating all years since 2011 including your strong era, so not much has changed other than cries of weak era. Your assertions do not follow the objective results. They are merely assertions without basis in fact and are only due to the thinking that a 34 year old cannot be doing what he has done this year.

 

[BGod]

The biggest question is just volume of tournaments for other top guys and splitting points.

Obviously we are still in early stages but Tsitsipas, Zverev and Medvedev are enough to cannibalize eachother along with guys like Berrettini, Felix, Shap and Thiem contending.

Just look at Fed's 2017 or hell Novak just this year for reference on limited scheduling. And I dare say Medvedev has pushed Novak more than he's guaranteed to in future seasons.

Med made 2 Slam Finals winning 1 while final four at 3 Masters making two finals and winning 1. He also nabbed a couple 250s. Could easily have worse seasons and Novak can attend 1-2 more Masters than the freaking 2 he did this year.

 

[Hayole]

The biggest question is just volume of tournaments for other top guys and splitting points.

Obviously we are still in early stages but Tsitsipas, Zverev and Medvedev are enough to cannibalize eachother along with guys like Berrettini, Felix, Shap and Thiem contending.

Just look at Fed's 2017 or hell Novak just this year for reference on limited scheduling. And I dare say Medvedev has pushed Novak more than he's guaranteed to in future seasons.

Med made 2 Slam Finals winning 1 while final four at 3 Masters making two finals and winning 1. He also nabbed a couple 250s. Could easily have worse seasons and Novak can attend 1-2 more Masters than the freaking 2 he did this year.

I said this earlier too

I don't see Medvedev being this consistently good because no one except big 3 and Murray has maintained that kind of level past 20 years

I actually think Nole if he plays a few m1000 in 2022 can finish world #1 comfortably for an 8th time

 

[skaj]

I like your first sentence.

However, your next sentence is pretty outlandish. I mean Medvedev is the first person who has taken the No. 2 spot other than the Big 3 plus Murray in 15 or so years. So no one was taking the No. 1 from Djokovic at earlier times except other all time greats. Murray became No. 1 by overplaying at the end of 2016 and winning the last match against Djokovic. Some think this hastened his career-threatening injuries. Djokovic has been 1st at year end for 7 years from 2011-2021. He has finished 2nd in all the other years except 2017 which was due to injury and surgery. My point is that Djokovic has been dominating all years since 2011 including your strong era, so not much has changed other than cries of weak era. Your assertions do not follow the objective results. They are merely assertions without basis in fact and are only due to the thinking that a 34 year old cannot be doing what he has done this year.

Medvedev the first who has taken the No. 2 spot other than the Big 3, I wonder why, must be because he is so strong in his strong era... OR maybe, just maybe - because the rest of the big 3 is not even playing, for months. Djokovic has not dominated the rest of the big 4 the way he is dominating these boys today, and he was younger and stronger back then - 7 out of 11 is not "all", neither is 4 out of 7. Please stop with those desperate attempts to prove something that every rational person who follows tennis(and who can count) know is wrong - that the field today is as strong as it was when Federer, Nadal, Murray were still in their prime.

And you are telling others that they are making "assertions without basis in fact"...

 

[BGod]

I said this earlier too

I don't see Medvedev being this consistently good because no one except big 3 and Murray has maintained that kind of level past 20 years

I actually think Nole if he plays a few m1000 in 2022 can finish world #1 comfortably for an 8th time

Well next season after skipping AO, Novak will surely play at least one additional Masters if not two. My guess would be Canada and Shanghai if he maintains #1 ranking up to then or he plays Miami after the AO to keep #1 in the event Medvedev or Zverev gain too close to him. With the ATP Cup though I'm sure Novak may very well skip the Sunshine Double until retirement. But the USO series appears more due to Olympics and not him skipping both tournaments in the future.

 

[Texas Tennis Fan]

Medvedev the first who has taken the No. 2 spot other than the Big 3, I wonder why, must be because he is so strong in his strong era... OR maybe, just maybe - because the rest of the big 3 is not even playing, for months. Djokovic has not dominated the rest of the big 4 the way he is dominating these boys today, and he was younger and stronger back then - 7 out of 11 is not "all", neither is 4 out of 7. Please stop with those desperate attempts to prove something that every rational person who follows tennis(and who can count) know is wrong - that the field today is as strong as it was when Federer, Nadal, Murray were still in their prime.

And you are telling others that they are making "assertions without basis in fact"...

Oh, my goodness! You are really trying to say that Medvedev, etc. of this era are not as strong as Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and prime Murray? Stop the presses!!!!

I am not arguing that, nor would anyone else. Water is wet. Just because there is not an extremely high level player other than Djokovic and Nadal right now does not prove it is a weak era. Do you think the current crop of players in the Top 5 are weaker than the ones in the Top 5 when Federer was dominating and had his almost 5 years as No. 1?

 

[itrium84]

I will explain it if it is puzzling to you, however puzzling it is that you are failing to understand that I am not failing to understand, but that you are failing to understand and are puzzled because of that.

(As I already said...)Because we are talking about strong eras, where there are strong players playing. Like the era before this one, where that same GOAT could not block strong players from reaching no1, even though he was closer to his peak.
I hope it is clear now.

Just read comment #81 until you feel you understand it.

 

[itrium84]

I don't believe Novak will reach 500 weeks. He is capable of doing it, but I feel too many stars would have to align for him. From 2022 moving on, no1 position will be more in the hands of nextgen than his own.
I just hope he'll reach most important milestones: 375, 378 and of course 418 (209x2).

 

[nolefam_2024]

Medvedev the first who has taken the No. 2 spot other than the Big 3, I wonder why, must be because he is so strong in his strong era... OR maybe, just maybe - because the rest of the big 3 is not even playing, for months. Djokovic has not dominated the rest of the big 4 the way he is dominating these boys today, and he was younger and stronger back then - 7 out of 11 is not "all", neither is 4 out of 7. Please stop with those desperate attempts to prove something that every rational person who follows tennis(and who can count) know is wrong - that the field today is as strong as it was when Federer, Nadal, Murray were still in their prime.

And you are telling others that they are making "assertions without basis in fact"...

7 out of 11 plus the other 3 were near misses. Novak owned the tennis since 2011, be the number 2 be Medvedev or big4. Its Novak who matters.

 

[skaj]

Oh, my goodness! You are really trying to say that Medvedev, etc. of this era are not as strong as Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and prime Murray? Stop the presses!!!!

I am not arguing that, nor would anyone else. Water is wet. Just because there is not an extremely high level player other than Djokovic and Nadal right now does not prove it is a weak era. Do you think the current crop of players in the Top 5 are weaker than the ones in the Top 5 when Federer was dominating and had his almost 5 years as No. 1?

No, I don't. If they are, the difference is insignificant. Now what does that have to do with what I was saying?

It doesn't prove that it is a weak era, I wasn't trying to "prove" it by saying that. We did not get to that, cause I was busy explaining the obvious to you - that Djokovic did not dominate the previous era/period the way he dominates this one.

 

[skaj]

Just read comment #81 until you feel you understand it.

If you are trying to hypnotize me in order to make me accept the illogical, it's not working.

I suggest you to read the posts #80 and #84 instead.

 

[skaj]

7 out of 11 plus the other 3 were near misses. Novak owned the tennis since 2011, be the number 2 be Medvedev or big4. Its Novak who matters.

I understand that he matters to you a great deal, but Novak "owned" the tennis since 2011? What does that mean exactly, and how does it fit to what I was saying in this thread. 3 were near misses?

 

[Red Rick]

He will in fact, most likely not.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Without pandemic Nole would have 21 extra weeks in 2020. And he never loses the ranking to alcaraz. Medvedev ok but not alcaraz. Yolita already has calculated it.

So 36 +21 + 399 which is right now guaranteed brings the total to 456 already. Yes Djokovic could have gone to 500. But not without the 21 weeks in 2020 which OP had not counted.

Still 400 weeks is damn good achievement, something hard to break as second best is 310. And number 1 ranking was always prestigious unlike AO in some past years.

 

[Jonesy]

I still think he can do it. But first things first, hundred over Fed and double Nadal.

Obs: OP, where is the poll?

 

[nolefam_2024]

I still think he can do it. But first things first, hundred over Fed and double Nadal.

Obs: OP, where is the poll?

No.

He is 36. To do so he has to win till 38/39.

Alcaraz was a kid last year he has already grown up this year. And improving. By January 2024 you will see age reflecting.

Even fed was good in 2019, but he lost to tsitsipas in AO, narrowly lost to Thiem in IW and Madrid. Then got injured in late summer and lost to Rublev of all people and Dimitrov.

Age is very real and our guy's reckoning is coming. Fed had his serve. That bailed him out on grass. Let's see.

 

[Razer]

440-450 is still possible.

Beyond that is very hard to even fathom, he will have to hold off Alcaraz, Rune, Sinner, Shelton etc etc until they are all 24-25, looks very tough as Novak himself will be 40+ then.

 

[nolefam_2024]

He should even

440-450 is still possible.

Beyond that is very hard to even fathom, he will have to hold off Alcaraz, Rune, Sinner, Shelton etc etc until they are all 24-25, looks very tough as Novak himself will be 40+ then.

He should not even have this much tbh. What he achieved already is too good.

 

[Jonesy]

No.

He is 36. To do so he has to win till 38/39.

Alcaraz was a kid last year he has already grown up this year. And improving. By January 2024 you will see age reflecting.

Even fed was good in 2019, but he lost to tsitsipas in AO, narrowly lost to Thiem in IW and Madrid. Then got injured in late summer and lost to Rublev of all people and Dimitrov.

Age is very real and our guy's reckoning is coming. Fed had his serve. That bailed him out on grass. Let's see.

Never in doubt when it comes to Djokovic surpassing expectations. At this point i wouldn't be surprised if he does it. I will say this, now is that his different diet and lifestyle will come into effect. He already is the great, now is the time to go beyond greatness.

 

[Texas Tennis Fan]

Really, I've never heard that. If anything I hear the opposite all the time, and I must say I pretty much agree - his physique is very good for someone who's been playing this sport with such intensity for 15 years now.

And no, he did not need a smoother SF to win, he won some and lost some. He is losing them now. So, of course he has lost the edge a bit in the physique department.

It is clear to me as a physician that his recovery takes longer which is why it is less likely for him to win a Masters 1000 and YEC than a slam (at least 3/4 of them.).

The slams he has a clear advantage in that you get a day off and now that all of the slams have covered courts, he is much less likely to have a situation where he plays two matches in 2 days like he did at the FO a few years ago (was it Them and then Nadal?)