Is this the year Djokovic gains advantage over big four in H2H?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 77403
  • Start date

AnotherTennisProdigy

Professional
Djokovic won't even the h2h for the same reason Fed can never do it, Nadal won't do well enough to reach him. It's honestly up to Nadal on whether or not the h2h changes at all this year.
 
You could get away with the "too young" excuse for 2006.In no way was he way too young in 2007, lol. Djokovic reached a slam final and won 2 MS1000 in 2007. He was definitely in his prime.
Exactly if you're the #3 player in the world from 07-10, you make back to back slam finals, and win one of them at the age of 20 then you're in your prime. He was at the peak of his prime in 2011, but he has been playing prime tennis since 07. I'd say Fed's prime lasted from 2003-2010 I could see extending this up until 2012 at the latest. Nadal's prime was 2005-early2014. Djokovic 2007-present.
 
D

Deleted member 512391

Guest
Even more impressive to me is the fact that Fed still doesn't have a negative H2H with Djokovic, even though he is 34 and six years older than Novak. That's crazy.
 

The_18th_Slam

Hall of Fame
Not really. They'll just say(and rightly so I guess) that 23-24 and 9-4 in slams is nowhere near as bad as 10-23 and 2-9.
It's a matter of principle. Just because the difference between '2' and '3' is smaller than the difference between '1' and '10' doesn't mean 2>3.
 
The only real neutral period in this H2H was 2006-2012 Cincy. That includes two years from each player's peak and around two years outside of each player's prime. The H2H within that period is 16-12, and that IMO is the real difference between the greatness of the two. In this sense, it'd be fitting to have Djokovic end his career with 75% of everything that Federer achieved, i.e 12 slams and 226 weeks at #1.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
The only real neutral period in this H2H was 2006-2012 Cincy. That includes two years from each player's peak and around two years outside of each player's prime. The H2H within that period is 16-12, and that IMO is the real difference between the greatness of the two. In this sense, it'd be fitting to have Djokovic end his career with 75% of everything that Federer achieved, i.e 12 slams and 226 weeks at #1.
75% works for me! :)
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
The real question: Is 12 slams and 226 weeks better than 14 slams and 141 weeks? I say they'd be roughly equal. WTFs could decide this!
I think so. The extra 85 weeks at #1 is equal to 2 slams IMO and the 4 WTFs(possibly even more than that) are icing on the cake! In fact with that resume it could be argued that Nole is slightly above Nadal but we'll see what happens. Three more slams don't grow on trees!
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
If you thought that was aggressive, you need to stop being so delicate and sensitive. It was a simple and measured statement.
There was nothing "measured" about it in the slightest boo boo. You need to realise not everyone's gonna agree with you on an internet forum and there's no need to be aggressive with people when they don't.
 

The_18th_Slam

Hall of Fame
There was nothing "measured" about it in the slightest boo boo. You need to realise not everyone's gonna agree with you on an internet forum and there's no need to be aggressive with people when they don't.
I didn't ask you to agree with me. I said I didn't care if someone as biased as you are agreed with me. Skipping English classes again?
 

The_18th_Slam

Hall of Fame
Lol, biased is the last thing I was being. It was actually the complete opposite considering how much I dislike Nadal!
I wasn't talking about this particular point of contention. Let me illustrate my point:

You in 2014:
Slams aren't the only tournaments!
You in 2015:
Yeah, even if he wins the USO and nothing else this year I'll still be happy
Why the difference? Because Djokovic won multiple Slams this year :D:D:D
 
Exactly if you're the #3 player in the world from 07-10, you make back to back slam finals, and win one of them at the age of 20 then you're in your prime. He was at the peak of his prime in 2011, but he has been playing prime tennis since 07. I'd say Fed's prime lasted from 2003-2010 I could see extending this up until 2012 at the latest. Nadal's prime was 2005-early2014. Djokovic 2007-present.
If being #3 proves you are in your prime than Federer must be in his prime now since he is ranked #2. After all that is the logic you are using.

2007 is Djokovic's 7th best year of tennis behind 2008, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and will likely fall to 10th or lower by the time his career is over.

2015 is something like Federer's 10th best year of tennis too so really no different.
 
Will be funny, because in terms of greatness, Federer > Nadal > Djokovic. But in terms of H2H, it could soon be Djokovic > Nadal > Federer :D
Nadal has little chance to end above Djokovic in "greatness" anyway. There is more chance of Djokovic catching/passing Federer than of Nadal staying ahead of Djokovic. Keep in mind Djokovic doesnt even need 14 slams or more to be greater than Nadal.
 

The_18th_Slam

Hall of Fame
Nadal has little chance to end above Djokovic in "greatness" anyway. There is more chance of Djokovic catching/passing Federer than of Nadal staying ahead of Djokovic. Keep in mind Djokovic doesnt even need 14 slams or more to be greater than Nadal.
Djokovic needs at least 11 Slams to even be compared to Nadal. Probably 13 to compare favorably, and I don't see that happening.
 
Djokovic needs at least 11 Slams to even be compared to Nadal. Probably 13 to compare favorably, and I don't see that happening.
I think with 12 he is roughly equal to Nadal. At 13 clearly superior. I see him getting to 13 minimum no problem. Assuming that includes a French of course. You really think he wont win 3-4 more slams atleast?! Who is this superman up and comer we dont know about, LOL! Most assume Murray and Wawrinka will each win another 1 or 2 slams, and obviously Djokovic is far more likely to win future slams than they are.
 

The_18th_Slam

Hall of Fame
I think with 12 he is roughly equal to Nadal. At 13 clearly superior. I see him getting to 13 minimum no problem. Assuming that includes a French of course. You really think he wont win 3-4 more slams atleast?! Who is this superman up and comer we dont know about, LOL! Most assume Murray and Wawrinka will each win another 1 or 2 slams, and obviously Djokovic is far more likely to win future slams than they are.
28.5 is the point where Federer and Nadal declined noticeably. Out of 2015, Djokovic has been winning, what, 1 Slam a year? I think he'll get to 12. 13, perhaps. But I also see Nadal winning 1 more. At 15 and 13, I'd probably put Nadal ahead (but it'd depend on their other achievements, too). At 14 and 12, I'd probably put Nadal ahead (but, again, it'd depend on their other achievements).
 
28.5 is the point where Federer and Nadal declined noticeably. Out of 2015, Djokovic has been winning, what, 1 Slam a year? I think he'll get to 12. 13, perhaps. But I also see Nadal winning 1 more. At 15 and 13, I'd probably put Nadal ahead (but it'd depend on their other achievements, too). At 14 and 12, I'd probably put Nadal ahead (but, again, it'd depend on their other achievements).
Federer only won 1 slam the last 4.5 years because he was facing prime Djokovic and prime-ish Nadal (until this year). Djokovic will be facing Murray who is the same age as him, and considerably inferior, and who is owning more than ever of late. Wawrinka who is 2 years older. Nadal who is done, and a year older. And nobody else of note other than far from being proven "up and comers".

Again I will be shocked if Djokovic doesnt reach atleast 13, and if he reaches 13 with a Roland Garros he will be clearly above Nadal (unless Nadal wins a 15th, and even then arguably he would be).
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Federer only won 1 slam the last 4.5 years because he was facing prime Djokovic and prime-ish Nadal (until this year). Djokovic will be facing Murray who is the same age as him, and considerably inferior, and who is owning more than ever of late. Wawrinka who is 2 years older. Nadal who is done, and a year older. And nobody else of note other than far from being proven "up and comers".

Again I will be shocked if Djokovic doesnt reach atleast 13, and if he reaches 13 with a Roland Garros he will be clearly above Nadal (unless Nadal wins a 15th, and even then arguably he would be).
Yeah but the thing is, Djokovic ain't ever gonna win RG so if he does finish on 12(and Nadal on 14) then most people will still put the Spaniard ahead of him, even though Novak's non slam stats will likely be far superior by the end of his career.
 

The_18th_Slam

Hall of Fame
Federer only won 1 slam the last 4.5 years because he was facing prime Djokovic and prime-ish Nadal (until this year). Djokovic will be facing Murray who is the same age as him, and considerably inferior, and who is owning more than ever of late. Wawrinka who is 2 years older. Nadal who is done, and a year older. And nobody else of note other than far from being proven "up and comers".

Again I will be shocked if Djokovic doesnt reach atleast 13, and if he reaches 13 with a Roland Garros he will be clearly above Nadal (unless Nadal wins a 15th, and even then arguably he would be).
I don't like making comparisons based on hypotheticals, because there is no way we would be able to account for (or predict) all the variables, so I'll defer judgement.
 
Yeah but the thing is, Djokovic ain't ever gonna win RG so if he does finish on 12(and Nadal on 14) then most people will still put the Spaniard ahead of him, even though Novak's non slam stats will likely be far superior by the end of his career.
Well if he didnt win RG I might be inclined to keep Nadal in front at that point. It would depend on exactly how many YE and weeks at #1 he accumulates, how many multi slam seasons, etc...

However, unlike you, I am extremely confident he is winning atleast 1 RG title. In fact I could see that becoming his most dominant slam if he just gets that first one out of the way. At the Australian I see his competition becoming stiffer.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Well if he didnt win RG I might be inclined to keep Nadal in front at that point. It would depend on exactly how many YE and weeks at #1 he accumulates, how many multi slam seasons, etc...

However, unlike you, I am extremely confident he is winning atleast 1 RG title. In fact I could see that becoming his most dominant slam if he just gets that first one out of the way. At the Australian I see his competition becoming stiffer.
Not sure why you think he can go on to dominate RG given that he turns 29 next year - if he hasn't won it by now he never will. I do agree with you about the AO although I'm hoping he can win at least one more there to tie the all time record. If he wins one more USO and another AO he'll be on 8 HC slams, even more than Sampras achieved which would be very impressive.
 
Not sure why you think he can go on to dominate RG given that he turns 29 next year - if he hasn't won it by now he never will. I do agree with you about the AO although I'm hoping he can win at least one more there to tie the all time record. If he wins one more USO and another AO he'll be on 8 HC slams, even more than Sampras achieved which would be very impressive.
Wawrinka won it for the first time at 30, and has a good shot to win another (particularly if you think Djokovic will never win it).

I dont think much of age. He has a good shot at the next 3 atleast, and should win minimum 1 and has a good shot at 2. He will be barely 31 at RG 2018. Not old given the climate of the current game. I give the so called up and comers another 3 years minimum before they start something remotedly resembling dominance of the game (and that would be a dream scenario given the sad state of up and comers in tennis, both mens and womens, for awhile now). I could see people like Raonic or Nishikori win a slam by then I guess, but it will clearly be on faster courts if it somehow happens.

When you look at the current field who is more likely to win RG next year than Novak? Wawrinka is never the type of player likely to defend a slam title, something even Sharapova never did. He could, but not likely. Djokovic is obviously more likely than Murray, and right now Nadal.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Wawrinka won it for the first time at 30, and has a good shot to win another (particularly if you think Djokovic will never win it).

I dont think much of age. He has a good shot at the next 3 atleast, and should win minimum 1 and has a good shot at 2. He will be barely 31 at RG 2018. Not old given the climate of the current game. I give the so called up and comers another 3 years minimum before they start something remotedly resembling dominance of the game (and that would be a dream scenario given the sad state of up and comers in tennis, both mens and womens, for awhile now). I could see people like Raonic or Nishikori win a slam by then I guess, but it will clearly be on faster courts if it somehow happens.

When you look at the current field who is more likely to win RG next year than Novak? Wawrinka is never the type of player likely to defend a slam title, something even Sharapova never did. He could, but not likely. Djokovic is obviously more likely than Murray, and right now Nadal.
What you say is true but I just don't see it happening. I know that it's unlikely that Wawrinka will defend the title(and even less likely to put on such another great performance), Murray will always be the underdog on clay and surely Nadal going down in straight sets this year makes it had to believe he could beat Djokovic again next year when he himself will be another year older. I tell myself these things to give myself hope that it could still happen but sadly I see it as one of those trophies he'll never end up holding. Certain things in life just aren't meant to be.
 

Gazelle

G.O.A.T.
What you say is true but I just don't see it happening. I know that it's unlikely that Wawrinka will defend the title(and even less likely to put on such another great performance), Murray will always be the underdog on clay and surely Nadal going down in straight sets this year makes it had to believe he could beat Djokovic again next year when he himself will be another year older. I tell myself these things to give myself hope that it could still happen but sadly I see it as one of those trophies he'll never end up holding. Certain things in life just aren't meant to be.
Nice to see I'm not the only one doing night shift.
 
What you say is true but I just don't see it happening. I know that it's unlikely that Wawrinka will defend the title(and even less likely to put on such another great performance), Murray will always be the underdog on clay and surely Nadal going down in straight sets this year makes it had to believe he could beat Djokovic again next year when he himself will be another year older. I tell myself these things to give myself hope that it could still happen but sadly I see it as one of those trophies he'll never end up holding. Certain things in life just aren't meant to be.
I think you are being far too much the pesstimist in this case IMHO.
 

billboard

Rookie
I think so. The extra 85 weeks at #1 is equal to 2 slams IMO and the 4 WTFs(possibly even more than that) are icing on the cake! In fact with that resume it could be argued that Nole is slightly above Nadal but we'll see what happens. Three more slams don't grow on trees!
He served better than fedal, dominates the masters, wtf and carves Rafa like a surgeon on clay many times, better than Rafa butchered fed on the dominant slam clay. No way it's equal or worse than Rafa.
He certainly improved against guys like Hewitt, Blake and Roddick.
Fed got beaten by the 3.
Fed didn't lose more to Novak because he lost in 3rd rounds.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Federer only won 1 slam the last 4.5 years because he was facing prime Djokovic and prime-ish Nadal (until this year).
Partly because of that but don't forget he also started getting more and more vulnerable to Tsonga, Berdych, Cilic and even Monfils type players (more susceptible to getting overpowered) and this year he had that shocker against Seppi. It's hard to predict how any player will react to a physical decline.

Remember Anderson this year at Wimbledon gave Novak one heck of a match. Those type of matches occur with greater and greater frequency as a tennis great gets older and it gets harder to get through them.

Djokovic will be facing Murray who is the same age as him, and considerably inferior, and who is owning more than ever of late. Wawrinka who is 2 years older. Nadal who is done, and a year older. And nobody else of note other than far from being proven "up and comers".
Yes, that is as it seems right now but tennis scene can change (drastically at times). As much as it might be hard to imagine that given the current situation I can't deny that it's a possibility as I (and I presume many other tennis fans as well) have been often surprised over the years.

I mean, who in their right mind could have predicted Wawrinka (event though he was always considered to be a very talented ballstriker) would have a late career surge and bag 2 slams?

Again I will be shocked if Djokovic doesnt reach atleast 13, and if he reaches 13 with a Roland Garros he will be clearly above Nadal (unless Nadal wins a 15th, and even then arguably he would be).
Yeah, I think Novak will reach 14 and unless Nadal adds up considerably to his resumee (I still think he'll win one more slam), I'll personally consider Novak to be greater. Nadal fans can yap about injuries and H2H all they want but he didn't have a prolonged period of dominance over the game (but rather a great few sporadic years with the only constant being his clay chokehold), Novak has been the best player since 2011 barring one year and is a dominant force on all surfaces week-in week-out.
 
Probably. Meaningless stat though. The same situation happened with Lendl and McEnroe/Connors. As one gets older, they will lose more often to younger players.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I think you are being far too much the pesstimist in this case IMHO.
Novak will probably win the FO, but let's not get ahead of ourseleves. He won't dominate a slam from 29 onwards. Name me one guy in history who dominated a slam from the age of 29.
 
Top