If you removed Nadal and Federer, in how many seasons would Djokovic have won 3 or 4 slams?

[weakera]

If you removed Nadal and Federer, in how many seasons would Djokovic have won 3 or 4 slams?

Put it more simply - if you removed Nadal and Federer, in which seasons would Djokovic *not* have won 3 or 4 slams?


Now, I understand the nuance behind Nadal and Federer raising the bar and forcing Djokovic to push his game/longevity to chase down the big records, but I'm not talking about adjusting for complacency. I'm talking about based on the level of play displayed in each season.

Thanks in advance for any thoughtful answers. This is for the record not an agenda-based question, strictly academic.

 

[Deleted member 629564]

[content deleted by user]

 

[weakera]

Why have they banned you from Federer News thread?
I don't get mod logic, I'm banned from Djokovic News, Federer News, and Nadal News threads.

I think that at some point I expressed that I didn't enjoy barilla pasta.... ban hammer swiftly followed

 

[Hitman]

If Federer and Nadal didn't exist and everything else remains the same

Djokovic gets three slam seasons in 2007, 2008, 2012, 2013

 

[weakera]

If Federer and Nadal didn't exist and everything else remains the same

Djokovic gets three slam seasons in 2007, 2008, 2012, 2013

I see 2019 as well, don't think there's any way Thiem defeats Djokovic with a heightened French Open aura due to the non-existence of Nadal. Same likely applies to 2015 RG.

 

[Djokodalerer31]

If Federer and Nadal didn't exist and everything else remains the same

Djokovic gets three slam seasons in 2007, 2008, 2012, 2013

2007 is perhaps a little too early? I can see him winning the USO and at absolutely most maybe RG...AO was still played on Rebound Ace that season and it was too fast for someone as unexperienced as Novak at the time and Gonsalez was goating until he met Federer...can't see him beating Gonza there, while being still green. Same goes to Wimbledon, lack of the experience on the surface and i'm not sure he would be able to handle whoever replaces Nadal and Federer there in the semis or the final! But i can picture a two-slam 2007 still!

 

[Hitman]

I see 2019 as well, don't think there's any way Thiem defeats Djokovic with a heightened French Open aura due to the non-existence of Nadal. Same likely applies to 2015 RG.

Thiem out played him though in those blustery conditions. Djokovic looked like he was hit off the court and simply couldn't contend with Thiem's firepower in those conditions.

We need to keep in mind, that if Nadal didn't exist, Thiem would likely be the defending RG champion heading into the 2019 match.

 

[Hitman]

2007 is perhaps a little too early? I can see him winning the USO and at absolutely most maybe RG...AO was still played on Rebound Ace that season and it was too fast for someone as unexperienced as Novak at the time and Gonsalez was goating until he met Federer...can't see him beating Gonza there, while being still green. Same goes to Wimbledon, lack of the experience on the surface and i'm not sure he would be able to handle whoever replaces Nadal and Federer there in the semis or the final!...

Djokovic was playing very good in 2007. His form was solid heading into AO, he won in Adelaide, and straight after AO, he pushed peak Federer very hard in Dubai in conditions suited to Federer's game. Then without Nadal, he likely wins the sunshine double.

His form on clay and grass were very good also. I think he can win three slams in 2007 without Fedal.

 

[weakera]

Thiem out played him though in those blustery conditions. Djokovic looked like he was hit off the court and simply couldn't contend with Thiem's firepower in those conditions.

We need to keep in mind, that if Nadal didn't exist, Thiem would like be the defending RG champion heading into the 2019 match.

Del Potro is very likely the defending champion

No one should ever underestimate aura and confidence. Confidence and setting are far more important in a big three matchup than the more granular details, as we have seen time and time again. Not to mention Thiem could play freely vs Djokovic knowing no one would blame him even if he ended up losing to Nadal. Whereas with no Nadal, Thiem would choke given the heightened stakes.

 

[RS]

Djokovic was playing very good in 2007. His form was solid heading into AO, he won in Adelaide, and straight after AO, he pushed peak Federer very hard in Dubai in conditions suited to Federer's game. Then without Nadal, he likely wins the sunshine double.

His form on clay and grass were very good also. I think he can win three slams in 2007 without Fedal.

What 3 you think Djokovic wins in 2007. Assuming both the 2 last slams and one of AO/RG.

 

[Hypo Crisis]

If you removed Nadal and Federer, in how many seasons would Djokovic have won 3 or 4 slams?

Put it more simply - if you removed Nadal and Federer, in which seasons would Djokovic *not* have won 3 or 4 slams?


Now, I understand the nuance behind Nadal and Federer raising the bar and forcing Djokovic to push his game/longevity to chase down the big records, but I'm not talking about adjusting for complacency. I'm talking about based on the level of play displayed in each season.

Thanks in advance for any thoughtful answers. This is for the record not an agenda-based question, strictly academic.

If there wasn't Fedal some new players would grab their chance and push themselves to be his rivals. And media would push them.
Alcaraz came through, so would others, so I agree with Hitman - everything would stay the same.

 

[Hitman]

Del Potro is very likely the defending champion

No one should ever underestimate aura and confidence. Confidence and setting are far more important in a big three matchup than the more granular details, as we have seen time and time again. Not to mention Thiem could play freely vs Djokovic knowing no one would blame him even if he ended up losing to Nadal. Whereas with no Nadal, Thiem would choke given the heightened stakes.

I think we will need to disagree on who we see as defending champion.

To me, Thiem was the best player at RG from 2017-2019 after Nadal, if not for Nadal, he wins a couple of them. I think Thiem beats both Wawrinka in 2017 final and Del Potro in 2018 final.

 

[Hitman]

What 3 you think Djokovic wins in 2007. Assuming both the 2 last slams and one of AO/RG.

He likely picks up AO/RG/USO

But considering how well he was playing at Wimbledon that year, if there were no rain delays and he did not get injured, who knows, Roddick and Hewitt were not strong that edition. It basically only Gasquet and I think Djokovic was at least equal to him, but mentally stronger.

 

[weakera]

I think we will need to disagree on who we see as defending champion.

To me, Thiem was the best player at RG from 2017-2019 after Nadal, if not for Nadal, he wins a couple of them. I think Thiem beats both Wawrinka in 2017 final and Del Potro in 2018 final.

Del Potro 4-0 vs. Thiem and with more grand slam pedigree at that moment in time.

Regardless, Thiem chokes vs. Djokovic with the trophy in sight, just as he did at the Australian Open (whereas at RG 2019, both Djokovic and Thiem knew they were playing for second place anyway).

 

[RS]

He would have to beat Gonzo/Roddick AO 07
RG - Davydenko
USO - Roddick

Possible but sure a decent amount people would be tempted to give Djokovic 1/3 rather than 3/3 there.

 

[Hitman]

Del Potro 4-0 vs. Thiem and with more grand slam pedigree at that moment in time.

Regardless, Thiem chokes vs. Djokovic with the trophy in sight, just as he did at the Australian Open (whereas at RG 2019, both Djokovic and Thiem knew they were playing for second place anyway).

But Thiem v Djokovic would be a semi final, the AO match was the final and Thiem was a set away. Also, we cannot rule out those windy conditions, Djokovic is not the same player in the wind, and Thiem has the firepower to hit through anything. He was outmuscling Djokovic for most of the match.

 

[weakera]

But Thiem v Djokovic would be a semi final, the AO match was the final and Thiem was a set away. Also, we cannot rule out those windy conditions, Djokovic is not the same player in the wind, and Thiem has the firepower to hit through anything. He was outmuscling Djokovic for most of the match.

Of course it was the semi final, but those were clearly the best players in the draw outside of Federer and Nadal. There isn't even a close 3rd. So either we're re-drawing and it's the final in this hypothetical scenario, or it's the defacto final with a mug waiting in the other half, ala RG 2013. Don't think for one second that Djokovic and Thiem didn't both play that semi final thinking, "well, it's the end of the line here anyway, if I can barely top this guy, I have no chance against Nadal" which would be a positive for Thiem playing freely and a negative for Djokovic. It's an entirely different mentality.

 

[Hitman]

Of course it was the semi final, but those were clearly the best players in the draw outside of Federer and Nadal. There isn't even a close 3rd. So either we're re-drawing and it's the final in this hypothetical scenario, or it's the defacto final with a mug waiting in the other half, ala RG 2013. Don't think for one second that Djokovic and Thiem didn't both play that semi final thinking, "well, it's the end of the line here anyway, if I can barely top this guy, I have no chance against Nadal" which would be a positive for Thiem playing freely and a negative for Djokovic. It's an entirely different mentality.

The thing that cannot be ruled out though is that Djokovic is very vulnerable in windy conditions and the wind kind of stayed around for the duration. We saw how Murray, who had lost multiple slam finals and never had beaten Djokovic in a slam, beat him at the USO final. The wind did play it's part, considering how good Djokovic's form was heading into the final stages. And at RG, the wind would have still been there with or without Fedal in their way, still don't think Djokovic can hit through such conditions in the same manner....it is also why Monte Carlo hasn't been a great hunting ground for him for nearly 8 years.

Thiem can play very well in windy conditions, only a few players like Nadal and Murray are better than him when he is on form. We will have to agree to disagree on this one, Thiem wins RG 2019 if there is no Nadal IMO, he was better than Djokovic in my eyes.

 

[weakera]

The thing that cannot be ruled out though is that Djokovic is very vulnerable in windy conditions and the wind kind of stayed around for the duration. We saw how Murray, who had lost multiple slam finals and never had beaten Djokovic in a slam, beat him at the USO final. The wind did play it's part, considering how good Djokovic's form was heading into the final stages. And at RG, the wind would have still been there with or without Fedal in their way, still don't think Djokovic can hit through such conditions in the same manner....it is also why Monte Carlo hasn't been a great hunting ground for him for nearly 8 years.

Thiem can play very well in windy conditions, only a few players like Nadal and Murray are better than him when he is on form. We will have to agree to disagree on this one, Thiem wins RG 2019 if there is no Nadal IMO, he was better than Djokovic in my eyes.

Djokovic only lost by the thinnest of margins in those windy conditions. There's almost no chance Thiem could have won with the heightened pressure added into the equation given that he only barely won 7-5 in the 5th without the added pressure of it being a final or defacto final. That being the case would have been a massive mental swing to Djokovic, which is more than enough.

 

[Hitman]

Djokovic only lost by the thinnest of margins in those windy conditions. There's almost no chance Thiem could have won with the heightened pressure added into the equation given that he only barely won 7-5 in the 5th without the added pressure of it being a final or defacto final. That being the case would have been a massive mental swing to Djokovic, which is more than enough.

The match however was stopped I believe midway and played over two days. The first day Thiem was clearly outplaying Djokovic, the break helped Djokovic extend the match out. Had they continued playing that match that day, Thiem would have won by a much more comfortable score line.

What RG should have done that day was play both semis at the same time, with Thiem v Djokovic on SL during the Fedal match, and I think Thiem gets it done without it turning into a longer tussle.

 

[Hitman]

You can see Thiem's firepower here, and Djokovic simply trying to blunt the shots during those conditions.

 

[weakera]

The match however was stopped I believe midway and played over two days. The first day Thiem was clearly outplaying Djokovic, the break helped Djokovic extend the match out. Had they continued playing that match that day, Thiem would have won by a much more comfortable score line.

What RG should have done that day was play both semis at the same time, with Thiem v Djokovic on SL during the Fedal match, and I think Thiem gets it done without it turning into a longer tussle.

The operative factor here is Nadal being present (or not). Ultimately, in a match which Thiem won 7-5 in the 5th which is almost as thin a margin as you can possibly have, reasonably I don't see any way he could have won with the added pressure of the title in all likelihood being on the line given Djokovic is the best opponent he would have to face.

Those of us who have watched Thiem closely know that when the pressure turns up at slams, he tends to wilt. And the beauty of this is we saw it play out in real time in the Australian Open Final. Given that in this scenario Djokovic would have racked up several titles at Roland Garros, his aura wouldn't be dissimilar to how it was at the Australian Open at the same point in time. In other words - Thiem is cooked.

 

[Hitman]

The operative factor here is Nadal being present (or not). Ultimately, in a match which Thiem won 7-5 in the 5th which is almost as thin a margin as you can possibly have, reasonably I don't see any way he could have won with the added pressure of the title in all likelihood being on the line given Djokovic is the best opponent he would have to face.

Those of us who have watched Thiem closely know that when the pressure turns up at slams, he tends to wilt. And the beauty of this is we saw it play out in real time in the Australian Open Final. Given that in this scenario Djokovic would have racked up several titles at Roland Garros, his aura wouldn't be dissimilar to how it was at the Australian Open at the same point in time. In other words - Thiem is cooked.

The difference I see here is that I already see Thiem as potentially a multi time RG champion heading into 2019, since I personally give him the 2017 and 2018 wins, while you see it the opposite way, which is fine. So for me, Thiem wouldn't the same Thiem mentally, he would have been in the midst of his reign there, would have the confidence of winning RG in the past, a case of been there and done that. Add to this the wind factor, and I personally still think Thiem edges it out.

To me, 2017-2019 would have been the Thiem era at RG if it was not for Nadal. I think Djokovic gets RG in 2007, 2008, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 without Fedal in his way though.

 

[StrongRule]

The match however was stopped I believe midway and played over two days. The first day Thiem was clearly outplaying Djokovic, the break helped Djokovic extend the match out. Had they continued playing that match that day, Thiem would have won by a much more comfortable score line.

What RG should have done that day was play both semis at the same time, with Thiem v Djokovic on SL during the Fedal match, and I think Thiem gets it done without it turning into a longer tussle.

Thiem was choking like crazy.

 

[pirhaksar]

I think we will need to disagree on who we see as defending champion.

To me, Thiem was the best player at RG from 2017-2019 after Nadal, if not for Nadal, he wins a couple of them. I think Thiem beats both Wawrinka in 2017 final and Del Potro in 2018 final.

Agree Thiem was really unlucky to run into Rafa. No doubt he would have won atleast once. He hit through Djoker just like Stan the man did in 2015..

 

[Hitman]

Thiem was choking like crazy.

Thiem would have won the match comfortably if they played it all out on Friday, Djokovic was struggling to contain his firepower on day one.

 

[Hitman]

Agree Thiem was really unlucky to run into Rafa. No doubt he would have won atleast once. He hit through Djoker just like Stan the man did in 2015..

Thiem had his issues no doubt, but if you remove Nadal, Thiem picks up RG for sure, especially in 2017.

 

[Kralingen]

Possibly 07, and 2019 (very possible)
08, 12, 13 for sure and I wouldn’t count out 2014 either

Hot take though this may mean he would not be winning 3/4 Slams in the 2020s if he had that much dominance and success in his 20s though. Because the Sampras record was only 14 and weeks at #1 less than 300, Novak would’ve blown away all records much sooner.

 

[BGod]

Too much effort to do the wikipedia tournament blocks I typically do so going off hand and I get the OP's question in terms of perceived same level of play.

First off, obviously he gets Calendar Slam in 2011 however given the draws would be shaped differently there's certainly an argument to be made for 2012, 2013 & 2015. I mean you really only have Wawrinka and Murray standing in his way and again if we ignore the very real dynamic of those players being uplifted by constant defeat to Big 3 then we still have to consider the draws shape out differently and I like Novak's chances more.

As far as 3 Slam seasons in addition to 12/13 well that's pretty easy:

2007
2008
2014
2019

 

[Rafa4LifeEver]

If you removed Nadal and Federer, in how many seasons would Djokovic have won 3 or 4 slams?

Put it more simply - if you removed Nadal and Federer, in which seasons would Djokovic *not* have won 3 or 4 slams?


Now, I understand the nuance behind Nadal and Federer raising the bar and forcing Djokovic to push his game/longevity to chase down the big records, but I'm not talking about adjusting for complacency. I'm talking about based on the level of play displayed in each season.

Thanks in advance for any thoughtful answers. This is for the record not an agenda-based question, strictly academic.

2007
2008
2012
2013
2014
2019

 

[Rafa4LifeEver]

You can see Thiem's firepower here, and Djokovic simply trying to blunt the shots during those conditions.

You're not quite getting the point of @weakera

If Fedal don't exist, Djokovic would be playing Thiem in the Final instead of the SF, and that wasn't a windy day.

 

[nolefam_2024]

If Federer and Nadal didn't exist and everything else remains the same

Djokovic gets three slam seasons in 2007, 2008, 2012, 2013

Not at all likely.

2007 his only final was at USOpen where he didn't face Roddick. He probably could have won it but Nole has lost in finals 6 times. Other than that he would win nothing.

2008 Roland Garros is likely but Nole had to play Murray in finals and Murray would have easier time with Nole than with Roger. But so it's no guarantee.

2012 Murray again in Wimbledon who has beaten Nole in Olympics just weeks later. I would go with Murray as well.

2013 is the only year I would say he would have won 3/4. Other years wouldn't change much.

What's up with all these hypo threads.

 

[Hitman]

You're not quite getting the point of @weakera

If Fedal don't exist, Djokovic would be playing Thiem in the Final instead of the SF, and that wasn't a windy day.

I understand his point.

But my point is, without Nadal, Thiem is already a RG champion, he doesn't have first slam nerves by that time.

There was wind every day, it just wasn't as much on Sunday as it was for the semis. Djokovic doesn't need a lot of a wind for it to negatively impact his game. You can see it at MC yearly.

 

[Hitman]

Not at all likely.

2007 his only final was at USOpen where he didn't face Roddick. He probably could have won it but Nole has lost in finals 6 times. Other than that he would win nothing.

2008 Roland Garros is likely but Nole had to play Murray in finals and Murray would have easier time with Nole than with Roger. But so it's no guarantee.

2012 Murray again in Wimbledon who has beaten Nole in Olympics just weeks later. I would go with Murray as well.

2013 is the only year I would say he would have won 3/4. Other years wouldn't change much.

What's up with all these hypo threads.

We can agree to disagree. These are all hypotheticals.

 

[Rafa4LifeEver]

I understand his point.

But my point is, without Nadal, Thiem is already a RG champion, he doesn't have first slam nerves by that time.

There was wind every day, it just wasn't as much on Sunday as it was for the semis. Djokovic doesn't need a lot of a wind for it to negatively impact his game. You can see it at MC yearly.

Without Nadal, Theim would still not have won any RG. Didn't you see how nervous he was in that USO F v/s Alexander Zverev of all people? The German literally had to outchoke Thiem to gift him with a slam. Now, imagine being that nervous against players who are much more stronger mentally & have a better game, such as Delpo & Stan. Both would crush Thiem's soul, mate. Thiem has a pretty bad record in big finals, and had to rely on an incredibly unclutch Federer & choking giraffe Zverev to gift him with a master's 1000 & a slam.

 

[Hitman]

Without Nadal, Theim would still not have won any RG. Didn't you see how nervous he was in that USO F v/s Alexander Zverev of all people? The German literally had to outchoke Thiem to gift him with a slam. Now, imagine being that nervous against players who are much more stronger mentally, Delpo & Stan. Both would crush Thiem's soul, mate. Thiem has a pretty bad record in big finals, and had to rely on an incredibly unclutch Federer & choking giraffe Zverev to gift him with a master's 1000 & a slam.

Thiem is winning RG 2017 IMO without Nadal. Wawrinka on his last legs wasn't beating him, Murray had already killed him and he was to go for knee surgery.

So, agree to disagree.

 

[RS]

The only one which worth debating if is Djokovic getting the benefit of the doubt vs Murray in Wimb 12.

 

[Rafa4LifeEver]

Thiem is winning RG 2017 IMO without Nadal. Wawrinka on his last legs wasn't beating him, Murray had already killed him and he was to go for knee surgery.

So, agree to disagree.

We are removing Nadal, right?
So in this scenario, Thiem would be #5 seed, hence in the opposite side of the draw, plays Murray in the SF while Stan cruises through the final, beating Djokovic in the SF.

 

[Hitman]

We are removing Nadal, right?
So in this scenario, Thiem would be #5 seed, hence in the opposite side of the draw, plays Murray in the SF while Stan cruises through the final, beating Djokovic in the SF.

Disagree, Thiem still wins. Wawrinka wasn't winning with that knee.

 

[weakera]

The difference I see here is that I already see Thiem as potentially a multi time RG champion heading into 2019, since I personally give him the 2017 and 2018 wins, while you see it the opposite way, which is fine. So for me, Thiem wouldn't the same Thiem mentally, he would have been in the midst of his reign there, would have the confidence of winning RG in the past, a case of been there and done that. Add to this the wind factor, and I personally still think Thiem edges it out.

To me, 2017-2019 would have been the Thiem era at RG if it was not for Nadal. I think Djokovic gets RG in 2007, 2008, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 without Fedal in his way though.

That gives Djokovic an even bigger edge, in that scenario. As history has shown, that's Djokovic when he's at his most dangerous - when he feels like someone else is walking around with his trophy and he wants it back, as would certainly be the case in that scenario, where Djokovic was formerly unbeatable at RG by almost anyone, and Thiem is holding the trophy. In either case (Del Potro or Thiem as defending champion), Djokovic has a big advantage compared to what really happened, when the semi was essentially a formality or dead rubber and Djokovic lost by only the thinnest of margins.

 

[weakera]

We are removing Nadal, right?
So in this scenario, Thiem would be #5 seed, hence in the opposite side of the draw, plays Murray in the SF while Stan cruises through the final, beating Djokovic in the SF.

It doesn't really matter what the seeding is, does it? With no Nadal, any Thiem-Djokovic matchup in that scenario is the de facto final. In which case, Thiem is cooked.

 

[SonnyT]

If Federer had converted his matchpoints, then in '11 Djokovic would've had 2 slams. And in '19, he would've had 1 slam.

 

[fedfan24]

Feel like he wasn’t quite mentally strong enough to take 3/4 in 2007. Roddick or Gonzalez might get him in Australia, Davydenko at RG, Roddick at USO. Not a guarantee.

2008 Murray would be hard to put away at the USO too.

 

[DSH]

Feel like he wasn’t quite mentally strong enough to take 3/4 in 2007. Roddick or Gonzalez might get him in Australia, Davydenko at RG, Roddick at USO. Not a guarantee.

2008 Murray would be hard to put away at the USO too.

Good 'Djoke', pal!

 

[StrongRule]

Good 'Djoke', pal!

I mean, if they met before the final, I would probably favor Murray. In the final though...

 

[DSH]

I mean, if they met before the final, I would probably favor Murray. In the final though...

Murray in a GS final is like the passive subject in a BDSM relationship.

 

[fedfan24]

Good 'Djoke', pal!

the guy took out a tired but ok nadal. djokovic in 2008 was no peak federer

 

[Djokovic_is_the_best#1]

Certainly possible for a few more. As Djokovic was so consistent in slams for virtually most of his career.

 

[RelentlessAttack]

He likely picks up AO/RG/USO

But considering how well he was playing at Wimbledon that year, if there were no rain delays and he did not get injured, who knows, Roddick and Hewitt were not strong that edition. It basically only Gasquet and I think Djokovic was at least equal to him, but mentally stronger.

I think he would have lost AO due to inexperience but could have definitely won the last 3

 

[DSH]

the guy took out a tired but ok nadal. djokovic in 2008 was no peak federer

Murray is trash in GS finals, mate.