Djokovic's Australian Open Record deserves more credit

octogon

Hall of Fame
I criticise Djokovic when he deserves it and kind of find it silly when his Stans claim he is unbeatable at his best across every surface (He isn't).

But man, Djokovic deserves far more credit for what he has done at the Australian Open than he actually gets. 9 titles is nuts, and only looks less impressive because Nadal has won 13 French Open titles.

But winning the same slam 9 times is crazy, especially when it's clear Djokovic doesn't dominate in the same way Nadal does Roland Garros (Nadal's talent for clay is such that no one is really close to him). This most recent Australian title was a struggle for Djokovic. On his way to the final, he could have lost easily. He should have lost easily. But Djokovic has such a champions mentality that he will find a way to win. It may include gamesmanship, but that is a criticism for another time.

Novak's domination at Melbourne Park is a sheer act of will. Bravo!
 
Last edited:

PilotPete

Hall of Fame
Federer is unlucky that his pet slam is the most prestigious and the one that everyone wants to win the most. Conversely, players overall care a lot less about the AO and FO.
 
Last edited:

Nole Slam

G.O.A.T.
True. 9 titles at a hardcourt slam is unbelievable considering it's the favorite surface for the majority of the top players. Moreover, it's played when everyone is physically/mentally fresh and motivated for the new season.

#BOAT.
Yes, the AO is when players really peak.
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
I think it's because everything is compared to Rafa's 13 RG and it looks just "good", rather than great.

But yes, 9 titles at one slam is exceptional.

As is Fed's 8 at Wimbledon, btw.
 

Beckerserve

Legend
I criticise Djokovic when he deserves it and kind of find it silly when his Stans claim he is unbeatable at his best across every surface (He isn't).

But man, Djokovic deserves far more credit for what he has done at the Australian Open than he actually gets. 9 titles is nuts, and only looks less impressive because Nadal has won 13 French Open titles.

But winning the same slam 9 times is crazy, especially when it's clear Djokovic doesn't dominate in the same way Nadal does Roland Garros (Nadal's talent for clay is such that no one is really close to him). This most recent Australian title was a struggle for Djokovic. On his way to the final, he could have lost easily. He should have lost easily. But Djokovic has such a champions mentality that he will find a way to win. It may include gamesmanship, but that is a criticism for another time.

Novak's domination at Melbourne Park is a sheer act of will. Bravo!
Agreed but the AO does not have the kudos of the other 3. Still nowhere near if you look at global viewing figures. That is why he does not get the credit he should.
 

Mediterranean Might

Professional
I was thinking about this after Djoko won this year's Aussie. I remember Nadal winning La Decima and how incredible of an achievement that was. It's very likely we have two dudes who have 10+ slams at their best slam. Crazy
 

Sunny014

Legend
Top Players used to skip AO for nearly 1-2 decades in 70s and 80s, that slam lacks prestige.

Hierarchy of Prestige in Slams

Wimbledon > US Open > French Open > Aus open


If we give 4 prestige points to Wimbledon, 3 prestige points to USO, 2 prestige points to FO and 1 prestige point to AO then prestige value of the slams is

Federer = 8*4 + 5*3 + 1*2 + 6*1 = 55
Nadal
= 2*4 + 4*3 + 13*2 + 1*1 = 47
Sampras
= 7*4 + 5*3 + 0*2 + 2*1 = 45
Djokovic
= 5*4 + 3*3 + 1*2 + 9.1 = 40
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
Top Players used to skip AO for nearly 1-2 decades in 70s and 80s, that slam lacks prestige.

Hierarchy of Prestige in Slams

Wimbledon > US Open > French Open > Aus open


If we give 4 prestige points to Wimbledon, 3 prestige points to USO, 2 prestige points to FO and 1 prestige point to AO then prestige value of the slams is

Federer = 8*4 + 5*3 + 1*2 + 6*1 = 55
Nadal
= 2*4 + 4*3 + 13*2 + 1*1 = 47
Sampras
= 7*4 + 5*3 + 0*2 + 2*1 = 45
Djokovic
= 5*4 + 3*3 + 1*2 + 9.1 = 40
I think the French Open carries more historical prestige than the US Open. People barely cared that Bjorn Borg never won the US Open....his domination of both Wimbledon and the French Open was enough for many to percieve him as the Open Era GOAT for a long time. Wheras Sampras lack of a French Open was always seen as a much bigger hole for him.

It's also often said that the French Open is the hardest slam to win, both mentally and physically.
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
People barely cared that Bjorn Borg never won the US Open.
Totally false, it was discussed endlessly in the early 80's, "will Bjorn ever win the USO?" And Borg himself spectacularly contradicts your assertion by saying in the 2011 book High Strung, "People say I was burned out. I don't know about that. I thought so at the time, but I think the thing, the big thing, that drove me from the game was not being able to win the US Open. The press was on me, Lennart (coach) was on me.... it was a huge thing to me, not winning it." (pg 113-14).
 

MeatTornado

G.O.A.T.
Top Players used to skip AO for nearly 1-2 decades in 70s and 80s, that slam lacks prestige.

Hierarchy of Prestige in Slams

Wimbledon > US Open > French Open > Aus open


If we give 4 prestige points to Wimbledon, 3 prestige points to USO, 2 prestige points to FO and 1 prestige point to AO then prestige value of the slams is

Federer = 8*4 + 5*3 + 1*2 + 6*1 = 55
Nadal
= 2*4 + 4*3 + 13*2 + 1*1 = 47
Sampras
= 7*4 + 5*3 + 0*2 + 2*1 = 45
Djokovic
= 5*4 + 3*3 + 1*2 + 9.1 = 40
Complaining about the prestige is a moot point in 2021. Who cares if Borg and Connors used to skip it back in the day? In Novak's era his top rivals were there every single year and took the event as seriously as any other slam.

Things change. The Olympics mean more than they used to. Miami means less. Australia means more. etc.
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
Totally false, it was discussed endlessly in the early 80's, "will Bjorn ever win the USO?" And Borg himself spectacularly contradicts your assertion by saying in the 2011 book High Strung, "People say I was burned out. I don't know about that. I thought so at the time, but I think the thing, the big thing, that drove me from the game was not being able to win the US Open. The press was on me, Lennart (coach) was on me.... it was a huge thing to me, not winning it." (pg 113-14).

Maybe at the time he was playing it was a big deal that he never won the US Open (I don't know, as I wasn't even alive when he was playing), but honestly, I never saw him get much pushback for it from fans or media in the decades after his career ended, where I've actually been around to see how he was talked about from a historical perspective. People just talked about how amazing it was that the same guy dominated both Wimbledon and the French Open. His lack of a US Open title felt like it was dismissed as a minor aberration when Borg was discussed. How Borg himself felt about not winning the US Open is irrelevant to what I'm talking about. It didn't appear to affect his standing in the game long after his retirement....no one for example ever claimed Agassi was greater than him because he won all 4 slams, including the US Open. I hardly ever saw anyone claim Borg wasn't a well rounded player because he didn't have a US Open title. Borg's dominance of the French and Wimbledon allowed people to overlook holes in his resume and he had almost a mythological quality to him.
 
Last edited:

Third Serve

G.O.A.T.
Maybe at the time he was playing it was a big deal that he never won the US Open (I don't know, as I wasn't even alive when he was playing), but honestly, I never saw him get much pushback for it from fans or media in the decades after his career ended, where I've actually been around to see how he was talked about from a historical perspective. People just talked about how amazing it was that the same guy dominated both Wimbledon and the French Open. His lack of a US Open title felt like it was dismissed as a minor aberration when Borg was discussed. How Borg himself felt about not winning the US Open is irrelevant to what I'm talking about. It didn't appear to affect his standing in the game long after his retirement....no one for example ever claimed Agassi was greater than him because he won all 4 slams, including the US Open. Borg's dominance of the French and Wimbledon allowed people to overlook holes in his resume and he had almost a mythological quality to him.
If Andre had won something like 11 or 12 Slams instead of 8, I'm sure people would be singing a different tune.
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
If Andre had won something like 11 or 12 Slams instead of 8, I'm sure people would be singing a different tune.

Maybe, but I still never heard many claim Borg was lacking in "versatility" because he lacked a US Open title (wheras it's been a constant stick to beat Sampras with his lack of a French title). Winning the French Open/Wimbledon combo so often was seen as such a great feat of tennis versatility, that I think people just eventually saw his lack of a US Open title as not a big deal and just one of those things. At least that was the impression I got when fans, former pros and media talked about Borg in a modern context.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
Top Players used to skip AO for nearly 1-2 decades in 70s and 80s, that slam lacks prestige.

Hierarchy of Prestige in Slams

Wimbledon > US Open > French Open > Aus open


If we give 4 prestige points to Wimbledon, 3 prestige points to USO, 2 prestige points to FO and 1 prestige point to AO then prestige value of the slams is

Federer = 8*4 + 5*3 + 1*2 + 6*1 = 55
Nadal
= 2*4 + 4*3 + 13*2 + 1*1 = 47
Sampras
= 7*4 + 5*3 + 0*2 + 2*1 = 45
Djokovic
= 5*4 + 3*3 + 1*2 + 9.1 = 40
In 2021 all slams carry the same weight. Wimbledon is the only one with greater historical prestige but in practical terms it means very little. Does anyone think that Murray’s slam record is greater than Wawa’s? Don’t think so. If anything the opposite could be true due to Wawa’s greater diversity (and even that is debatable)
 

MeatTornado

G.O.A.T.
Maybe at the time he was playing it was a big deal that he never won the US Open (I don't know, as I wasn't even alive when he was playing), but honestly, I never saw him get much pushback for it from fans or media in the decades after his career ended, where I've actually been around to see how he was talked about from a historical perspective. People just talked about how amazing it was that the same guy dominated both Wimbledon and the French Open. His lack of a US Open title felt like it was dismissed as a minor aberration when Borg was discussed. How Borg himself felt about not winning the US Open is irrelevant to what I'm talking about. It didn't appear to affect his standing in the game long after his retirement....no one for example ever claimed Agassi was greater than him because he won all 4 slams, including the US Open. I hardly ever saw anyone claim Borg wasn't a well rounded player because he didn't have a US Open title. Borg's dominance of the French and Wimbledon allowed people to overlook holes in his resume and he had almost a mythological quality to him.
Because he hasn't been seriously considered in the modern GOAT debate. Otherwise he'd constantly be getting torn down for never winning the US Open.

Borg isn't a real threat to anyone's favorite player, so we're free to just focus on how great his achievements were.
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
Because he hasn't been seriously considered in the modern GOAT debate. Otherwise he'd constantly be getting torn down for never winning the US Open.

Borg isn't a real threat to anyone's favorite player, so we're free to just focus on how great his achievements were.
Before the Big 3 (Fed, Rafa, Djokovic) started carving up and rewriting the record books, Borg was in every modern GOAT debate. And high up on it. Some would still for example pick him over Sampras, when Sampras overtook him in slam count.
 

Kiam

New User
Federer is unlucky that his pet slam is the most prestigious and the one that everyone wants to win the most. Conversely, players overall care a lot less about the AO and FO.
Not true. Most players want to win the US Open the most, because it pays the best, and has the biggest crowds, by far. Some players have a sentimental attachment to one slam or another, but $ talks. To me, a wimbledon win is the least impressive win at this point, since no one grows up playing on grass, and it is only played upon for one month a year....so it's not the best reflection of a guy's tennis skills. Hard courts are the best, and clay is the second best...especially since most top players grow up in Europe, where clay is the common surface (as it is also in south America). Clay or Har-Tru have also become quite ubiquitous in the States and Asia.
 

Kiam

New User
Maybe, but I still never heard many claim Borg was lacking in "versatility" because he lacked a US Open title (wheras it's been a constant stick to beat Sampras with his lack of a French title). Winning the French Open/Wimbledon combo so often was seen as such a great feat of tennis versatility, that I think people just eventually saw his lack of a US Open title as not a big deal and just one of those things. At least that was the impression I got when fans, former pros and media talked about Borg in a modern context.
Sampras gets a knock because he not only never won a French Open, he never got to the finals, and only got to the semis once, the year the weather was extremely dry, and the courts played like cement....he lost a one-sided match in the semis. Pete won only ONE clay tournament in his life (the prestigious Italian Open), and he was knocked out in the first or second round of the French seven times, if I remember correctly. So his relative lack of success on clay (he was still a VERY good clay player) kind of sticks out when you compare him to the other GOAT candidates
 

Kiam

New User
Maybe, but I still never heard many claim Borg was lacking in "versatility" because he lacked a US Open title (wheras it's been a constant stick to beat Sampras with his lack of a French title). Winning the French Open/Wimbledon combo so often was seen as such a great feat of tennis versatility, that I think people just eventually saw his lack of a US Open title as not a big deal and just one of those things. At least that was the impression I got when fans, former pros and media talked about Borg in a modern context.
Borg got to several US Open finals during his career, and he won MANY hard court titles. Sampras only won one clay title, and never made it to the finals of RG, and made the semis only once
 

Kiam

New User
Borg got to four US Open finals during his career (including one played on clay!), and he won MANY hard court titles. Sampras only won one clay title, and never made it to the finals of RG, and made the semis only once.
 

Kiam

New User
If Andre had won something like 11 or 12 Slams instead of 8, I'm sure people would be singing a different tune.
Borg only played the Australian Open ONCE..as a teenager. ......yet he still won 11 slams by the age of 24, then quit, except to come back for one tournament. that's a pretty amazing domination of the competition. In one 5 1/4 year stretch ('76-'81) he entered 16 slam tournaments, won nine of them (56%), got to five finals, and was ousted once in the 4th round and once in the quarters. That's a record of 100-7 at slam tournaments....only Roger had that kind of domination over a five year period.
 

daphne

Hall of Fame
True. 9 titles at a hardcourt slam is unbelievable considering it's the favorite surface for the majority of the top players. Moreover, it's played when everyone is physically/mentally fresh and motivated for the new season.

#BOAT.
Your finger slipped.
 

nov

Semi-Pro
But 9 slams at main tour surface is a bit different than clay surface. Nadal's 13 maybe better, but if Djokovic manage to win like 11 AO and Nadal 13 FO, i would rate 11 AO better than 13 FO.
 

Cortana

Hall of Fame
But 9 slams at main tour surface is a bit different than clay surface. Nadal's 13 maybe better, but if Djokovic manage to win like 11 AO and Nadal 13 FO, i would rate 11 AO better than 13 FO.
This.

There are way more and way better HC players than there are clay players. Most tournaments are HC tournaments, so there you have the highest competition. Plus everyone is very fresh and very motivated at the beginning of the year.

This makes it pretty hard to win the AO. No wonder Nadal just managed to win it only once.
 

nov

Semi-Pro
This.

There are way more and way better HC players than there are clay players. Most tournaments are HC tournaments, so there you have the highest competition. Plus everyone is very fresh and very motivated at the beginning of the year.

This makes it pretty hard to win the AO. No wonder Nadal just managed to win it only once.
Exactly my thoughts.
 

serbiavic

Rookie
This.

There are way more and way better HC players than there are clay players. Most tournaments are HC tournaments, so there you have the highest competition. Plus everyone is very fresh and very motivated at the beginning of the year.

This makes it pretty hard to win the AO. No wonder Nadal just managed to win it only once.
Which is why Djokovic needed "gamesmanship" to win 9 titles.
Just kidding.
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
But 9 slams at main tour surface is a bit different than clay surface. Nadal's 13 maybe better, but if Djokovic manage to win like 11 AO and Nadal 13 FO, i would rate 11 AO better than 13 FO.

The Australian Open is not the tours "main surface". If it was, Djokovic would dominate at the US Open, not have less US Open titles than Nadal.

Hardcourts differ everywhere. Plexicushion and decoturf are not the same and play differently, and a players game can change or become less effective depending on which kind of "hardcourt" they are playing on. I always thought it was the dumbest thing to act as if hardcourts were one, uniform surface. There is a reason Nadal is a better US Open player than Djokovic, even though it's apparently still "hardcourt".

Whereas, clay is the same pretty much everywhere, whether you play it in South America or in France. So no, winning the Australian Open 11 times wouldn't be more impressive than winning the French 13 times.
 

Enceladus

Legend
Why does on TTW forum still mention in connection with the AO that many tennis players skipped the AO until the 1980s? After all, it is an ancient history, in the last 30 years and more all top players have participated in the AO, the entire TOP 100. It seems that people who write about AO as an "inferior grandslam" don't register or don't want to register the rise of AO's prestige compared to 40 years ago. It is obvious that this is related to the agenda against Djokovic. The claim "inferior AO" is not used against Federer (6 AO titles) or Agassi (4 AO titles).
 

Enceladus

Legend
Djoker on AO gained more titles, than Connors, Lendl, Agassi or McEnroe in grandslams. Just to give you an idea of how amazing Djoker's dominance in Melbourne is, only AO titles would be enough for him to reach the ATG category. :cool:
 

nov

Semi-Pro
The Australian Open is not the tours "main surface". If it was, Djokovic would dominate at the US Open, not have less US Open titles than Nadal.

Hardcourts differ everywhere. Plexicushion and decoturf are not the same and play differently, and a players game can change or become less effective depending on which kind of "hardcourt" they are playing on. I always thought it was the dumbest thing to act as if hardcourts were one, uniform surface. There is a reason Nadal is a better US Open player than Djokovic, even though it's apparently still "hardcourt".

Whereas, clay is the same pretty much everywhere, whether you play it in South America or in France. So no, winning the Australian Open 11 times wouldn't be more impressive than winning the French 13 times.
There is. USA open is last slam on year and have stupid crowd.
 

Sunny014

Legend
Do the top players skip the AO nowadays?
Complaining about the prestige is a moot point in 2021. Who cares if Borg and Connors used to skip it back in the day? In Novak's era his top rivals were there every single year and took the event as seriously as any other slam.

Things change. The Olympics mean more than they used to. Miami means less. Australia means more. etc.
Every slam becomes great based on how old it is, how many multiple times winner it has ..... till early 00s Agassi was the highest winner of that I think so with 3-4 times?? .... this was until Roger and Novak crossed the 5 time mark ... now novak is on 9 and roger on 6.....

US open, french has had like 5 time winners before 00s too , wimbledon has the most prestige as it is the oldest and the one with so many great champions
 

Third Serve

G.O.A.T.
Every slam becomes great based on how old it is, how many multiple times winner it has ..... till early 00s Agassi was the highest winner of that I think so with 3-4 times?? .... this was until Roger and Novak crossed the 5 time mark ... now novak is on 9 and roger on 6.....

US open, french has had like 5 time winners before 00s too , wimbledon has the most prestige as it is the oldest and the one with so many great champions
[citation needed]
 

PilotPete

Hall of Fame
Not true. Most players want to win the US Open the most, because it pays the best, and has the biggest crowds, by far. Some players have a sentimental attachment to one slam or another, but $ talks. To me, a wimbledon win is the least impressive win at this point, since no one grows up playing on grass, and it is only played upon for one month a year....so it's not the best reflection of a guy's tennis skills. Hard courts are the best, and clay is the second best...especially since most top players grow up in Europe, where clay is the common surface (as it is also in south America). Clay or Har-Tru have also become quite ubiquitous in the States and Asia.
Luckily your opinion on what is least impressive is meaningless.
 

Sunny014

Legend
[citation needed]
Lol, how can be citations to all this ?

Wimbledon has 6 people with 5+ Titles ..... if you keep 7 as cutoff then 3 people
US open has 6 people with 5+ titles ..... if you keep 7 as cutoff then 3 people
French has 4 people with 5+ titles ..... if you keep 7 as cutoff then 2 people
AO has just 3 people with 5+ titles ..... if you keep 7 as cutoff then 1 person

Historically quite a few great champions from USA and BRITAIN, then a few EUROPEANS made clay popular.

Aus has just had Emerson, Laver and Rosewell have also won that but not many times as Emerson., the slam has not been that hardly competed until the 90s

Legacy always matters, people like playing against History, keeps them motivated.
 
Top