How does Djokovic's Wimbledon defence go?

[kevaninho]

Curious what people think of how Djokovic will perform this year at Wimbledon.

His RG didn't go to plan, with the whole holding the 4 slams for a 2nd time on the line, and his form in general hasn't been his best since AO.
Will his motivation be up or down after that?

He obviously should be the favourite on grass in his best form, but will there be a shock on the cards?

 

[TheAssassin]

If he improves his return compared to last year's Wimbledon, he should definitely be there at the business end of the tournament.

 

[BadBoy666]

Why wasn't his form as good as AO? I thought the game keeps evolving.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Well one thing is for sure, just as all the Rafa supporters came out to party on these threads, I do think the Djoker fans will blow this thread up. And rightfully so, considering it will be a much bigger win then Rafa's.

His RG was not an issue in my opinion, it was a fiasco how it ended. He will be playing great tennis in London, he just can't have those mental hiccups he can have from time to time (Querrey).

 

[Hawkeyedoe]

I think it depends on his draw. If he gets an easy one with players with weak serve and Fed in final the result will be obvious. Well if otherwise, with guys like Kyrgious, Isner etc it will be more challenging for him but he's a clear favourite anyway.

Отправлено с моего HTC U11 через Tapatalk

 

[kevaninho]

Why wasn't his form as good as AO? I thought the game keeps evolving.

I said his form hasn't been as good, which his results have shown.
He easily wins IW and Miami if he was playing great.
Lets not forget how good he was in Australia in the SF and F.

 

[rUDin 21]

Everything less than SF would be disappointing for me.But I think he'll win for the 5th time.

 

[Rosstour]

I have a funny feeling that we may see a new winner this year, would love to be wrong and watch Fed hoist #21 but I think this year could be different and produce a non-Big 3 champ.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

He better be motivated. It's Wimbledon, and he actually has a shot to tie Borg there, which would be insane.

I think we will see him in the 2nd week. Even if he gets some servebot he would still have to be pretty subpar to lose.

 

[Deleted member 762343]

I see a repeat of 2011/2014/2015/2018 (well, basically like every time he won Wimbledon). His defeat at RG will make him hungrier which will help him win the tournament.

 

[MeatTornado]

Either he shows up all mopey and has an early upset or he that look in his eye and blitzes through the draw fueled by the anger of what happened in Paris.

No in between.

 

[Badabing888]

He’s definitely favourite. If he gets taken out by a big server then Federer, then Rafa, as long as he gets past the first week. Could we see another Anderson also be in the final? Quite possibly.

 

[Nadal_Django]

Why wasn't his form as good as AO? I thought the game keeps evolving.

Of course it's evolving. Ask Fedr, Djokovic, Nadal etc everyone will say the same, the game is so much more professional, the players are more dedicated, the field much more deeper with higher quality than 15 years ago.

 

[veroniquem]

Impossible to say ANYTHING before seeing the draw. If Djoko or Nadal get a Kyrgios type in early round, then, hum, ouch.
Draw is absolutely paramount on grass (although in the past Nadal has lost to a non big server early on but he's serving a lot better now.)

 

[MajesticTennisManiac]

More likely to lose a QF on a smaller court than the Final on CC.

IMO he'll win but hoping he gets upset

 

[True Fanerer]

Hopefully, bad.

Either win, lose the final/SF to Fed, or get spanked by a nobody.

 

[True Fanerer]

Of course it's evolving. Ask Fedr, Djokovic, Nadal etc everyone will say the same, the game is so much more professional, the players are more dedicated, the field much more deeper with higher quality than 15 years ago.

That explains all the new Wimbledon winners the last few years.

 

[EasyGoing]

His serve looks to be working great, which bodes well for Wimby. His returning is solid even on his bad days. However, grass is unforgiving even in Bo5. If he doesn’t have the right attitude he can easily lose to a bunch off guys. Well, not a bunch, but at least a few more than just Rog and Rafa.

 

[Nadal_Django]

That explains all the new Wimbledon winners the last few years.

All of them much better players than 15 years ago. They have to keep improving, they must evolve, otherwise stagnation for them means becoming irrelevant in no time.

 

[chimneysweep]

I think he is the most likely winner honestly. I think the only one who might stop him is Nadal. Federer has a shot to win if he doesnt play Djokovic, I dont see him beating Djokovic head to head other than a best of 3 indoors anymore.

 

[Sport]

I do think the Djoker fans will blow this thread up. And rightfully so, considering it will be a much bigger win then Rafa's.

Stop dismissing Nadal's victories. All Grand Slams are equally relevant, and so a hypothetical victory of Djokovic at Wimbledon would not be a "much bigger win" than Nadal's victory at RG.

 

[BadBoy666]

I said his form hasn't been as good, which his results have shown.
He easily wins IW and Miami if he was playing great.
Lets not forget how good he was in Australia in the SF and F.

Maybe he was playing his best and competition was just better.

 

[Deleted member 762343]

Stop dismissing Nadal's victories. All Grand Slams are equally relevant, and so a hypothetical victory of Djokovic at Wimbledon would not be a "much bigger win" than Nadal's victory at RG.

It’d be a greater achievement in the sense that he’d have won 2 GS the same year. But I do agree to say that winning Wimbledon is not a greater achievement than winning RG.

 

[True Fanerer]

All of them much better players than 15 years ago. They have to keep improving, they must evolve, otherwise stagnation for them means becoming irrelevant in no time.

Djokovic and Nadal are since 15 years ago was 2004.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Stop dismissing Nadal's victories. All Grand Slams are equally relevant, and so a hypothetical victory of Djokovic at Wimbledon would not be a "much bigger win" than Nadal's victory at RG.

I am not dismissing Rafa's victory, I think it is absolutely incredible, but it was expected and will be expected next year. It was his 12th RG...

If Djoker wins Wimbledon, it will be bigger, as it will be his 5th Wimbledon (more prestigious than RG) and is less expected then Rafa's RG. He will essentially seal up number one for a long time (probably sealing the deal on passing Fed in weeks). He also will have narrowed the slam race to 4 which is the closest he has been to Fed, and Djoker getting closer to Fed is more scary than Rafa's resume.

Then you have the fact that 3 out of 4 times Djoker has won Wimbledon, he has gone on to win USO. This means he has a very good chance of defending that as well. The actual act, I agree, is about the same, but what it means going forward will mean more in MY opinion.

But we get it, you will defend Rafa everytime.

 

[Nadal_Django]

Djokovic and Nadal are since 15 years ago was 2004.

Fed also.

 

[DSH]

He is the favourite until AO 2020.
Can he win the next 3 Majors?
It will be extremely difficult, but at the same time, he will be harder to beat than at RG.
1 or 2 GS in the time frame is the safest bet.

 

[Lleytonstation]

It’d be a greater achievement in the sense that he’d have won 2 GS the same year. But I do agree to say that winning Wimbledon is not a greater achievement than winning RG.

Depends on who you ask... most people will say winning Wimbledon is the biggest event you can win. Rafa, Djoker, and many ATG's have said this. Now winning over Rafa at RG would be a different story.

 

[chimneysweep]

He is the favourite until AO 2020.
Can he win the next 3 Majors?
It will be extremely difficult, but at the same time, he will be harder to beat than at RG.
1 or 2 GS in the time frame is the safest bet.

I would guess he wins 2 of the next 3, with probably Rafa winning the other one.

 

[Deleted member 762343]

Depends on who you ask... most people will say winning Wimbledon is the biggest event you can win. Rafa, Djoker, and many ATG's have said this. Now winning over Rafa at RG would be a different story.

Yes, because most people say Wimbledon is the most prestigious GS. Personally I think it’s unfair to say that winning Wimbledon is a greater/more important achievement.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Yes, because most people say Wimbledon is the most prestigious GS. Personally I think it’s unfair to say that winning Wimbledon is a greater/more important achievement.

I guess, but when the stats say that 75% of the time Djoker wins Wimbledon he wins USO, so I would say him winning WC is probably going to mean more knowing what it could bring. There is no correlation to Rafa winning the FO.

 

[Sport]

I am not dismissing Rafa's victory

Yes, you are.

I think it is absolutely incredible, but it was expected and will be expected next year. It was his 12th RG...

If Djoker wins Wimbledon, it will be bigger, as it will be his 5th Wimbledon (more prestigious than RG)

How? Nadal became the ONLY player in the history of the Open Era to win the same Grand Slam 12 times, surpassing Margarter Courts' 11 titles at the AO.
Djokovic winning a 5th Wimbledon title, while undoubdtedly important, has already been done before. So you are basically saying that achieving something that has never been done before is less relevant than achieving something that has already been done before.

Plus, with regard to your claim that Wimbledon is more prestigious than Roland-Garros.

Wimbledon in NOT the most important Grand Slam. Here's why:

1) Are all Grand Slams equally prestigious?
No. All Grand Slams are not equally prestigious. Wimbledon is the most well-known worldwide Grand Slam and so the most prestigious.

2) Is prestige (or popularity) a synonym with importance?
No. Prestige (or popularity) is given by TV audience and social network followers, while importance is given by ATP points. Wimbledon is the most prestigious tournament because it is the Grand Slam with more TV audience and more social network followers. But Wimbledon is not the most important Grand Slam, all Grand Slams value 2000 points and so all are equally important.

3) Is there a correlation between the longevity of a tournament and its prestige?
No. There is no correlation between the longevity of a tournament and its prestige. For example, the Monte-Carlo Masters 1000 was first held back in 1897. The Australian Open was founded in 1905 and the Indian Wells Masters was first held in 1974. Yet, no one would say that the Monte-Carlo Masters is more prestigious than the Australian Open or Indian Wells. So the reason why Wimbledon is the most prestigious Grand Slam cannot be its longevity. One could argue that Wimbledon is different than Monte-Carlo, but that would be double standard logic. Either all tournaments which are older are more prestigious than the newer ones, or there is no correlation between longevity and prestige.

 

[Sport]

It’d be a greater achievement in the sense that he’d have won 2 GS the same year. But I do agree to say that winning Wimbledon is not a greater achievement than winning RG.

I fully agree with your comment.

Yes, because most people say Wimbledon is the most prestigious GS. Personally I think it’s unfair to say that winning Wimbledon is a greater/more important achievement.

I agree with this again.

 

[Deleted member 762343]

I guess, but when the stats say that 75% of the time Djoker wins Wimbledon he wins USO, so I would say him winning WC is probably going to mean more knowing what it could bring. There is no correlation to Rafa winning the FO.

Yeah, at the end, it all comes down to how many GS both of them will win this year. But everything is possible, numbers don’t mean anything because they’re just human after all.

Plus I have the feeling that Djokovic won’t win USO this year. Before 2019 started, I predicted 2 GS wins for Djoko (AO and Wimbledon). We’ll see how it goes.

 

[True Fanerer]

Fed also.

K.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Yes, you are.

How? Nadal became the ONLY player in the history of the Open Era to win the same Grand Slam 12 times, surpassing Margarter Courts' 11 titles at the AO.
Djokovic winning a 5th Wimbledon title, while undoubdtedly important, has already been done before. So you are basically saying that achieving something that has already been done before is more relevant than achieving something that has never been done before.

Plus, with regard to your claim that Wimbledon is more prestigious than Roland-Garros.

Wimbledon in NOT the most important Grand Slam. Here's why:

1) Are all Grand Slams equally prestigious?
No. All Grand Slams are not equally prestigious. Wimbledon is the most well-known worldwide Grand Slam and so the most prestigious.

2) Is prestige (or popularity) a synonym with importance?
No. Prestige (or popularity) is given by TV audience and social network followers, while importance is given by ATP points. Wimbledon is the most prestigious tournament because it is the Grand Slam with more TV audience and more social network followers. But Wimbledon is not the most important Grand Slam, all Grand Slams value 2000 points and so all are equally important.

3) Is there a correlation between the longevity of a tournament and its prestige?
No. There is no correlation between the longevity of a tournament and its prestige. For example, the Monte-Carlo Masters 1000 was first held back in 1897. The Australian Open was founded in 1905 and the Indian Wells Masters was first held in 1974. Yet, no one would say that the Monte-Carlo Masters is more prestigious than the Australian Open or Indian Wells. So the reason why Wimbledon is the most prestigious Grand Slam cannot be its longevity. One could argue that Wimbledon is different than Monte-Carlo, but that would be double standard logic. Either all tournaments which are older are more prestigious than the newer ones, or there is no correlation between longevity and prestige.

So since I said Djoker's Wimbledon win would be more important and bigger is dismissing Rafa's win? So now we cant have opinions about one player without it dis-respecting others? I think Sampras did an amazing thing by winning 14 slams, in fact it was absolutely incredible, but if I say Fed has done better it means I am ripping Sampras?

Now on the prestigious of the tournament it is an OPINION obviously, but I was also referring to what the actual win means going forward.

 

[TheAssassin]

Yes, you are.

How? Nadal became the ONLY player in the history of the Open Era to win the same Grand Slam 12 times, surpassing Margarter Courts' 11 titles at the AO.
Djokovic winning a 5th Wimbledon title, while undoubdtedly important, has already been done before. So you are basically saying that achieving something that has never been done before is less relevant than achieving something that has already been done before.

Plus, with regard to your claim that Wimbledon is more prestigious than Roland-Garros.

Wimbledon in NOT the most important Grand Slam. Here's why:

1) Are all Grand Slams equally prestigious?
No. All Grand Slams are not equally prestigious. Wimbledon is the most well-known worldwide Grand Slam and so the most prestigious.

2) Is prestige (or popularity) a synonym with importance?
No. Prestige (or popularity) is given by TV audience and social network followers, while importance is given by ATP points. Wimbledon is the most prestigious tournament because it is the Grand Slam with more TV audience and more social network followers. But Wimbledon is not the most important Grand Slam, all Grand Slams value 2000 points and so all are equally important.

3) Is there a correlation between the longevity of a tournament and its prestige?
No. There is no correlation between the longevity of a tournament and its prestige. For example, the Monte-Carlo Masters 1000 was first held back in 1897. The Australian Open was founded in 1905 and the Indian Wells Masters was first held in 1974. Yet, no one would say that the Monte-Carlo Masters is more prestigious than the Australian Open or Indian Wells. So the reason why Wimbledon is the most prestigious Grand Slam cannot be its longevity. One could argue that Wimbledon is different than Monte-Carlo, but that would be double standard logic. Either all tournaments which are older are more prestigious than the newer ones, or there is no correlation between longevity and prestige.

Are couple of Masters as important as one Slam? Same amount of points.

 

[van_Loederen]

Curious what people think of how Djokovic will perform this year at Wimbledon.

His RG didn't go to plan, with the whole holding the 4 slams for a 2nd time on the line, and his form in general hasn't been his best since AO.
Will his motivation be up or down after that?

He obviously should be the favourite on grass in his best form, but will there be a shock on the cards?

his RG performance was as i predicted. he's just not that good on clay.
but since he knows that himself, his motivation won't be affected that much.

the reasons for his form since AO are similar to Nadal's. aside from the battered bodies, the two are also getting older. (Nadal has bigger injury problems, but DJ is not so robust either.)
it doesn't tell much about their Wimbly form.

basically i think that DJ is The Favorite for Wimbly.
Nadal could need some help with the weather again, but might also indeed get it again (because of the climate change).
it's still likely that DJ will be able to be in better form than last year. last year he was only on a comeback and shaky.
my feeling is that Nadal otoh will have problems, regardless of the weather, as he seems to have aged since last year, and that might show on grass.

 

[StrongRule]

So since I said Djoker's Wimbledon win would be more important and bigger is dismissing Rafa's win? So now we cant have opinions about one player without it dis-respecting others? I think Sampras did an amazing thing by winning 14 slams, in fact it was absolutely incredible, but if I say Fed has done better it means I am ripping Sampras?

Now on the prestigious of the tournament it is an OPINION obviously, but I was also referring to what the actual win means going forward.

If you say that 5 Wimbledons>12 RG titles, then yes, you do dismiss Nadal's achievements. Federer obviously did better than Sampras in slams because 20>14. Irrelevant to that discussion.

 

[Lleytonstation]

If you say that 5 Wimbledons>12 RG titles, then yes, you do dismiss Nadal's achievements. Federer obviously did better than Sampras in slams because 20>14. Irrelevant to that discussion.

What? I never said anything about 12 vs 5, I am not talking about overall picture of slams. I am talking about this Wimbledon vs Rafa RG THIS year. Winning Wimbledon will do more for Djoker this year than Rafa winning the FO.

 

[augustobt]

He's the main favorite along with Nadal (if this one goes through the first week).

 

[PerilousPear]

He's gonna get servebotted out in the first week just like Nadal.

 

[Justin Side]

I think this year could be different and produce a non-Big 3 champ.

Djokovic wins Wimbledon. If he doesn't, Fed will. If Fed doesn't, Rafa will vulture the title.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

I said his form hasn't been as good, which his results have shown.
He easily wins IW and Miami if he was playing great.
Lets not forget how good he was in Australia in the SF and F.

Let's not forget he continued to look terrible during last year's clay season before winning Wimbledon.

 

[King No1e]

Nadal, Tsitsipas, and Kyrgios are his biggest concerns. He should beat the rest.

Edit: Raonic and Dimitrov are dark horses who could either present a threat or lose in R128

 

[Towser83]

Stop dismissing Nadal's victories. All Grand Slams are equally relevant, and so a hypothetical victory of Djokovic at Wimbledon would not be a "much bigger win" than Nadal's victory at RG.

Agree. Nadal's actually gave him a record 12 slams at a single major overtaking Court's 11 AO titles, Djokovic winning Wimbledon takes him level with Borg's 5 titles but I wouldnt say that's a bigger win

 

[KINGROGER]

Fed also.

Maybe his serve is slightly better.

Everything else was much better 10-15 years ago.

 

[Djokodal Fan]

Yeah, at the end, it all comes down to how many GS both of them will win this year. But everything is possible, numbers don’t mean anything because they’re just human after all.

Plus I have the feeling that Djokovic won’t win USO this year. Before 2019 started, I predicted 2 GS wins for Djoko (AO and Wimbledon). We’ll see how it goes.

I actually wouldn't be surprised if thiem wins US open. It's slow as molasses and it give him more time to set up his shots. He almost defeated Nadal last year.

 

[DerekNoleFam1]

I actually wouldn't be surprised if thiem wins US open. It's slow as molasses and it give him more time to set up his shots. He almost defeated Nadal last year.

On slow hard courts, Nole is still the favourite at the USO this year, possibly even more so than Wimbledon- despite his overall inferior record there.

 

[Deleted member 762343]

I actually wouldn't be surprised if thiem wins US open. It's slow as molasses and it give him more time to set up his shots. He almost defeated Nadal last year.

Yeah, Thiem can do it. Del Potro too. Tsitsipas has a shot as well. And Nadal, obviously.