Ivan Ljubicic Is Trolling Us

[CHillTennis]

Folks...I came across something today that, well...seems to be a little bit far-fetched. And that's putting it nicely.

In the last year or so, I've noticed some strange comments coming from former players about Djokovic's incredible dominance over the tour in recent years.

Despite the fact that he is now in his late 30s. It seems that many analysts in the tennis media are under the belief that Djokovic has only recently out of his prime.

This comment seemed to have been validated by Tim Henman, last year. Who claimed that Djokovic was playing the best tennis of his career. Even despite the fact that no other player in the history of the game has been at their best after the age of 32.

Yet this didn't stop Henman from making some eyebrow raising comments about Djokovic being at his best level, ever.

But I've now heard something that takes the cake.

I saw recently on X that Ivan Ljubicic claimed that "Becker recently told me that it seems to him that Djokovic practically accepted the superiority of Alcaraz, which he never did to Federer and Nadal."

This is the type of comment that I would expect to hear from an uneducated tennis fan. Someone that was looking to upset the Djokovic fan-base.

This comment, made by a person who clearly should know better, is perhaps the most ridiculous thing that I've ever heard from a former professional tennis player.

That's right. It's more screwed up than some of the comments that Nick Kyrgios has made.

And why is that, exactly? Because it fails to take into consideration, the obvious reason why Djokovic has started to lose more often. To players besides just Alcaraz.

Obviously the man is no longer in his physical prime.

But according to Ljubicic he should be just as capable against Alcaraz in 2024 as he was against Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal in 2011.

So here is my question for Ivan Ljubicic.

Has there ever been a player that has had a prime that's lasted for more than 10 years?

In the months before his final grand slam title at the 2002 US Open, Pete Sampras was struggling to find the form that for so many years had been there. He lost at that year's Wimbledon Championship to George Bastl. A player that he would have smoked in years gone by.

It was generally accepted at that time that Pete was no longer in his prime and that he needed to retire.

It was understood that Agassi was no longer in his prime when he lost to Rafael Nadal in Toronto back in 2005.

So why can't the media get it right when it comes to Djokovic?

Why do they have this desperate ploy to convince us that Carlos Alcaraz is somehow beating a prime Novak Djokovic?

 

[Rafa4LifeEver]

If he was actually that good, he'd have dominated from age 21 to 27, the prime years for all ATG tennis players. The fact that he only had one dominant season before turning 28, won just 1 slam in 4 other seasons while going slamless for 2 prime years entirely; proves the fact that he had to wait for the weakest of next crops to emerge & for the existing challangers to decline considerably to win 2/3rd of all his achievements. Not his fault obviously, but let's not fall for the glory hunting fandom of social media which claims that he is the best of all time & whatnot.

 

[Fed Kennedy]

Never question lube check

 

[CHillTennis]

If he was actually that good, he'd have dominated from age 21 to 27, the prime years for all ATG tennis players. The fact that he only had one dominant season before turning 28, won just 1 slam in 4 other seasons while going slamless for 2 prime years entirely; proves the fact that he had to wait for the weakest of next crops to emerge & for the existing challangers to decline considerably to win 2/3rd of all his achievements. Not his fault obviously, but let's not fall for the glory hunting fandom of social media which claims that he is the best of all time & whatnot.

I think that Djokovic was a bit of a late bloomer.

But the fact that he won half of his slams, after the age of 30, says something about the quality of the players that he's been facing over these last seven years.

 

[The_Order]

I think that Djokovic was a bit of a late bloomer.

But the fact that he won half of his slams, after the age of 30, says something about the quality of the players that he's been facing over these last seven years.

He wasn't. He asserted authority over the field at a young age in 2011 but then lost it because his competition had balls and came back at him and in turn, beat him at the majors. This dented his ego.

Even before 2011, he was a consistent and clear top 3 player. Had Fedal not been around, he would have started dominating a lot sooner and would have had a much more successful prime.

 

[TennisBro]

I saw recently on X that Ivan Ljubicic claimed that "Becker recently told me that it seems to him that Djokovic practically accepted the superiority of Alcaraz, which he never did to Federer and Nadal."

This is the type of comment that I would expect to hear from an uneducated tennis fan. Someone that was looking to upset the Djokovic fan-base.

This comment, made by a person who clearly should know better, is perhaps the most ridiculous thing that I've ever heard from a former professional tennis player.

That's right. It's more screwed up than some of the comments that Nick Kyrgios has made.

And why is that, exactly? Because it fails to take into consideration, the obvious reason why Djokovic has started to lose more often. To players besides just Alcaraz.

Obviously the man is no longer in his physical prime.

This morning, my wife and I went shopping to a market where all kinda people meet; couldn't help overhearing three old women gossiping about my wife's short dress and her Asian heritage. They clearly shared some facts that, to them, needed to be aired.

Djoker neither wears a short, tight dress nor he's Asian in the food market but an amazing middle aged man with a drive for success in pro tennis. She said, he said; or, X said, TTW said will not change the reality that people cannot stop confabulating about the remarkable Serb's performances and they cannot resist sharing their assumptions about the most accomplished pro tennis player. I wonder if people thought so loudly that Novak Djokovic was getting old, if he were losing a few matches at his age of 33.

Me think people want to be heard, noticed which not always is in the best interest of the sport or platforms where those "gossipers" come to. We are living in era of booming information and misinformation that was mostly shared in such food markets that my wife and I just went to.

 

[sportsfan1]

No one has really explained how novak aged within just a few months after winning 3 slams+wtf in 2023. Then he suddenly got old starting aus 2024?

Fact is he'd have won the 2/3 slams this year if not for sincaraz.

So either he aged normally way back years ago and was just cleaning up in a weak field, or he's still in his prime just getting beaten by good players

 

[NoleFam]

Becker replied on Twitter he didn't say what Ljubicic quoted, and I believe him because it doesn't sound like anything he would say, so this is basically dead on arrival.

 

[KingCarlitos]

he's just stirring the pot.

 

[NoleFam]

If he was actually that good, he'd have dominated from age 21 to 27, the prime years for all ATG tennis players. The fact that he only had one dominant season before turning 28, won just 1 slam in 4 other seasons while going slamless for 2 prime years entirely; proves the fact that he had to wait for the weakest of next crops to emerge & for the existing challangers to decline considerably to win 2/3rd of all his achievements. Not his fault obviously, but let's not fall for the glory hunting fandom of social media which claims that he is the best of all time & whatnot.

So much coping. You act like Federer and Nadal weren't playing tennis in 2011, 2015, 2016, 2018 and 2019, which were 5 of his multiple Slam years and where he won half of his Slams. Remind me again who won 6 straight Slams in 2017 until RG 2018 before Djokovic returned to the top and dominated again?

 

[longtimelurker]

More coping material for talk tennis, enjoy and cope better

 

[mahatma]

I saw recently on X that Ivan Ljubicic claimed that "Becker recently told me that it seems to him that Djokovic practically accepted the superiority of Alcaraz, which he never did to Federer and Nadal."

So a 4th person tells about a 3rd person’s opinion about how the 1st person feels about 2nd person. lol. That’s literally that.

 

[TripleATeam]

If he was actually that good, he'd have dominated from age 21 to 27, the prime years for all ATG tennis players. The fact that he only had one dominant season before turning 28, won just 1 slam in 4 other seasons while going slamless for 2 prime years entirely; proves the fact that he had to wait for the weakest of next crops to emerge & for the existing challangers to decline considerably to win 2/3rd of all his achievements. Not his fault obviously, but let's not fall for the glory hunting fandom of social media which claims that he is the best of all time & whatnot.

Hard disagree. The biggest thing I need to disagree about is your arbitrary cutoff of 27. People use that just to discount Djokovic had the greatest run of any player this century after he turned 28 in May 2015, winning 4 slams in a row and the YEC.

Djokovic's prime years even as you decide them (21-27) may have been the hardest to dominate in tennis history: May 2008 - May 2015, when Federer was 26 - 33, Nadal was 21-28, Murray was 21-28. Not to mention the rest of the field being quite strong, with many strong top 10s during that time as well (2011-2013 particularly so, with slam finalists comprising almost all of the top 10). No one would be expected to dominate in such a field - staying #1 for much of that time and racking up several slams with 2 other GOAT candidates in the field was a good result.

For contrast, Federer had many dominant seasons but didn't get a single 3-slam season after Nadal turned 22, and Djokovic/Murray were even younger. Nadal, by comparison, had 3 seasons he won multiple slams before 28 - but apart from 2010, those seasons weren't comprehensive beatdowns. 2013 had the #1 spot arguably split with Djokovic (and even if not, a very close race to it) and Rafa didn't win a single match at 2 separate slams that year, and 2008 was a single Federer point in the Wimbledon final from being a single-slam season.

But now let's consider that 21-27 is an arbitrary range. A more natural range is a player's 20s. Even if we just consider Nadal's 20s (meaning Djokovic gets an entire year less), Djokovic had more 3-slam years than Nadal did by the time Nadal turned 30 in June 2016. Djokovic had more time at #1 than Nadal did by the time Nadal turned 30. Djokovic had more YECs. They both won the same number of slams in their 20s (though Nadal won multiple before 20). At the least Djokovic was going blow for blow with Nadal in their primes, while Federer racked up the victories before they came on the scene (as he should've, as he was far and away the best player at the time).

The crux of it is that Djokovic, after going even with multiple GOAT level opponents throughout his prime, then put on the greatest run of any player this century while his opponents were still playing very high level tennis, then continued to succeed even after his prime. Saying Djokovic won 2/3 of his achievements after his opponents declined is disingenuous, as Nadal hadn't even turned 30 by the time he won half his slams.

If you're seriously claiming Djokovic wasn't able to handle Federer or Nadal in his own prime, you're kidding yourself. He proved it on the court (H2H between 2007 and 2015 is 23-22 Djokovic-Nadal, and 2007 and 2012 (last year Federer was #1 before 2017) is 13-14 Djokovic-Federer). He was at least even with these monsters of the game, then outlasted them as well.

 

[ChrisRF]

The thing is, knowing Becker very well from German TV, it is absolutely possible he really said that. At least one day he might have done so. Because he always makes strange and contradictory statements (admittedly besides also quite some decent statements).

Generally Becker says Djokovic still improved very much AFTER working with himself, so he isn't someone who praises himself too much by the way.

 

[Justshort]

x.com

x.com

 

[Dominic & Andrey]

Yawn

 

[Subway Tennis]

It does very much sound like something Becker would say. I don’t think we can read anything into Becker’s intent and saying something to publicly embarrass Djokovic because even if he did say it he may have thought he was making the comment in confidence to Ljubi.

All in all a very interesting situation.

Becker is one of the most psychologically complex ATGs ever, and he will just never be out of the tennis news cycle despite having been retired as a player for decades. The guy can’t help but be fascinating with the way he lives his life, his insights, and the fact that he still runs so tight in tennis circles and always has something interesting to say.

 

[TennisBro]

No one has really explained how novak aged within just a few months after winning 3 slams+wtf in 2023. Then he suddenly got old starting aus 2024?

Is that a fact or your assumption based on reading those posts on the internet? Players win and win at 25-30 and a year later they lose a few. Does that mean they "got old" and that's it? In Djoker's case, it's about 7 months hard period of time in combination with the fantastic rise of Jannick Sinner and magic Carlos Alcaraz in. If the magic Serb doesn't come back, so be it. I'll stand corrected. But projecting assumptions so quickly almost sounds as wishful thinking....or, old women talking

 

[thrust]

Of course, Ivan L is trolling us as by doing so he makes Federer's career look better than Novak's. It is true that Novak has played incredibly well until this year. In the open era, the only players who won slams at 36 were: Federer, Novak, Rafa and Rosewll, who won 2 slams and 2 WCT titles at 36-37 in time when no other player won a slam after turning 35. Today, due to better training, medical treatments on and off the courts, vitamin supplements, players are able to compete well into their mid thirties

 

[Rafa4LifeEver]

Hard disagree. The biggest thing I need to disagree about is your arbitrary cutoff of 27. People use that just to discount Djokovic had the greatest run of any player this century after he turned 28 in May 2015, winning 4 slams in a row and the YEC.

Djokovic's prime years even as you decide them (21-27) may have been the hardest to dominate in tennis history: May 2008 - May 2015, when Federer was 26 - 33, Nadal was 21-28, Murray was 21-28. Not to mention the rest of the field being quite strong, with many strong top 10s during that time as well (2011-2013 particularly so, with slam finalists comprising almost all of the top 10). No one would be expected to dominate in such a field - staying #1 for much of that time and racking up several slams with 2 other GOAT candidates in the field was a good result.

For contrast, Federer had many dominant seasons but didn't get a single 3-slam season after Nadal turned 22, and Djokovic/Murray were even younger. Nadal, by comparison, had 3 seasons he won multiple slams before 28 - but apart from 2010, those seasons weren't comprehensive beatdowns. 2013 had the #1 spot arguably split with Djokovic (and even if not, a very close race to it) and Rafa didn't win a single match at 2 separate slams that year, and 2008 was a single Federer point in the Wimbledon final from being a single-slam season.

But now let's consider that 21-27 is an arbitrary range. A more natural range is a player's 20s. Even if we just consider Nadal's 20s (meaning Djokovic gets an entire year less), Djokovic had more 3-slam years than Nadal did by the time Nadal turned 30 in June 2016. Djokovic had more time at #1 than Nadal did by the time Nadal turned 30. Djokovic had more YECs. They both won the same number of slams in their 20s (though Nadal won multiple before 20). At the least Djokovic was going blow for blow with Nadal in their primes, while Federer racked up the victories before they came on the scene (as he should've, as he was far and away the best player at the time).

The crux of it is that Djokovic, after going even with multiple GOAT level opponents throughout his prime, then put on the greatest run of any player this century while his opponents were still playing very high level tennis, then continued to succeed even after his prime. Saying Djokovic won 2/3 of his achievements after his opponents declined is disingenuous, as Nadal hadn't even turned 30 by the time he won half his slams.

If you're seriously claiming Djokovic wasn't able to handle Federer or Nadal in his own prime, you're kidding yourself. He proved it on the court (H2H between 2007 and 2015 is 23-22 Djokovic-Nadal, and 2007 and 2012 (last year Federer was #1 before 2017) is 13-14 Djokovic-Federer). He was at least even with these monsters of the game, then outlasted them as well.

Well, we can agree to disagree then. Even if we discount 2015 & 2018-19, we still have 2021-23 where he vultured 7 slams.
Zverevs, Tsitsipases, Berretinis, Kyrgioses and no-fight Medvedevs of the world aren't my textbook definition of strong opposition.

 

[Federev]

If he was actually that good, he'd have dominated from age 21 to 27, the prime years for all ATG tennis players. The fact that he only had one dominant season before turning 28, won just 1 slam in 4 other seasons while going slamless for 2 prime years entirely; proves the fact that he had to wait for the weakest of next crops to emerge & for the existing challangers to decline considerably to win 2/3rd of all his achievements. Not his fault obviously, but let's not fall for the glory hunting fandom of social media which claims that he is the best of all time & whatnot.

This is a legit question and one of the reasons I don’t subscribe to Novak as GOAT.

 

[Federev]

So much coping. You act like Federer and Nadal weren't playing tennis in 2011, 2015, 2016, 2018 and 2019, which were 5 of his multiple Slam years and where he won half of his Slams. Remind me again who won 6 straight Slams in 2017 until RG 2018 before Djokovic returned to the top and dominated again?

You don’t have to call it coping.

It’s a perfectly reasonable question.

And Fedal’s success against the field in 2017-2018 doesn’t help the case at all. It’s actually perfectly in line with his post.

 

[jackson vile]

Desperate coping mechanism intensifies

 

[Federev]

Folks...I came across something today that, well...seems to be a little bit far-fetched. And that's putting it nicely.

In the last year or so, I've noticed some strange comments coming from former players about Djokovic's incredible dominance over the tour in recent years.

Despite the fact that he is now in his late 30s. It seems that many analysts in the tennis media are under the belief that Djokovic has only recently out of his prime.

This comment seemed to have been validated by Tim Henman, last year. Who claimed that Djokovic was playing the best tennis of his career. Even despite the fact that no other player in the history of the game has been at their best after the age of 32.

Yet this didn't stop Henman from making some eyebrow raising comments about Djokovic being at his best level, ever.

But I've now heard something that takes the cake.

I saw recently on X that Ivan Ljubicic claimed that "Becker recently told me that it seems to him that Djokovic practically accepted the superiority of Alcaraz, which he never did to Federer and Nadal."

This is the type of comment that I would expect to hear from an uneducated tennis fan. Someone that was looking to upset the Djokovic fan-base.

This comment, made by a person who clearly should know better, is perhaps the most ridiculous thing that I've ever heard from a former professional tennis player.

That's right. It's more screwed up than some of the comments that Nick Kyrgios has made.

And why is that, exactly? Because it fails to take into consideration, the obvious reason why Djokovic has started to lose more often. To players besides just Alcaraz.

Obviously the man is no longer in his physical prime.

But according to Ljubicic he should be just as capable against Alcaraz in 2024 as he was against Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal in 2011.

So here is my question for Ivan Ljubicic.

Has there ever been a player that has had a prime that's lasted for more than 10 years?

In the months before his final grand slam title at the 2002 US Open, Pete Sampras was struggling to find the form that for so many years had been there. He lost at that year's Wimbledon Championship to George Bastl. A player that he would have smoked in years gone by.

It was generally accepted at that time that Pete was no longer in his prime and that he needed to retire.

It was understood that Agassi was no longer in his prime when he lost to Rafael Nadal in Toronto back in 2005.

So why can't the media get it right when it comes to Djokovic?

Why do they have this desperate ploy to convince us that Carlos Alcaraz is somehow beating a prime Novak Djokovic?

What LUBE said that BECKER said that NOVAK said doesn’t sound too different from this:

"I haven't played a player like him ever, to be honest. I think people have been talking in the past 12 months or so about his game consisting of certain elements from Roger, Rafa, and myself. I would agree with that.
"He's got basically the best of all three worlds.

https://www.reuters.com/sports/tennis/ive-never-faced-player-like-alcaraz-says-beaten-djokovic-2023-07-16/#:~:text=%22I%20didn't%20expect%20him,him%20ever%2C%20to%20be%20honest.

 

[NoleFam]

You don’t have to call it coping.

It’s a perfectly reasonable question.

And Fedal’s success against the field in 2017-2018 doesn’t help the case at all. It’s actually perfectly in line with his post.

When someone keeps repeating nonsense and reinventing what really happened to make their favorite player's rival look worse, to me that's coping. Yea let's pretend 28 isn't a prime age, the age when Djokovic crushed so many records and won 4 Slams in a row, because other players weren't good enough to do it. Also, I missed the part where he asked a question. He basically declared Djokovic won 2/3 of his Slams against weak competition and declined rivals.

Federer, Nadal, Murray and Wawrinka all played more matches against Djokovic than they did against any other player. You can't pretend they were so declined in all these Slam matches when most were in the SF and Finals. The reality is, Djokovic won nearly 60% of his Slams by beating Federer and Nadal and 70+% by beating Federer, Nadal, Murray and Wawrinka.

 

[beltsman]

All this talk...

Just use your eyes. Obviously Djokovic isn't that amazing. Just a guy who feasts on chokes.

 

[Federev]

When someone keeps repeating nonsense and reinventing what really happened to make their favorite player's rival look worse, to me that's coping. Yea let's pretend 28 isn't a prime age, the age when Djokovic crushed so many records and won 4 Slams in a row, because other players weren't good enough to do it. Also, I missed the part where he asked a question. He basically declared Djokovic won 2/3 of his Slams against weak competition and declined rivals.

Federer, Nadal, Murray and Wawrinka all played more matches against Djokovic than they did against any other player. You can't pretend they were so declined in all these Slam matches when most were in the SF and Finals. The reality is, Djokovic won nearly 60% of his Slams by beating Federer and Nadal and 70+% by beating Federer, Nadal, Murray and Wawrinka.

I don’t agree.

I think peak years, age / decline of competition, and the strength of the field are all part of the context/ causal variables in which players succeed and fail.

I think that’s obvious in an endeavor in which physical ability is critical.

Whatever else can be said of Novak and all his amazing accomplishments - it’s also true that he won the majority of his slams after turning 28 - which is normally turning towards the physiological decline for a tennis player, and he never consistently dominated the field in multi-year seasons like he has since 2018.

None of that means he’s not also an incredible tennis player. But the fact that he’s an incredible tennis player also doesn’t change those realities.

 

[NoleFam]

I don’t agree.

I think peak years, age / decline of competition, and the strength of the field are all part of the context/ causal variables in which players succeed and fail.

I think that’s obvious in an endeavor in which physical ability is critical.

Whatever else can be said of Novak and all his amazing accomplishments - it’s also true that he won the majority of his slams after turning 28 - which is normally turning towards the physiological decline for a tennis player, and he never consistently dominated the field in multi-year seasons like he has since 2018.

None of that means he’s not also an incredible tennis player. But the fact that he’s an incredible tennis player also doesn’t change those realities.

I guess we will just disagree on this then and the bolded has been gone over before, and isn't correct. Djokovic was much more dominant in 2011-2016 than he was in 2018-2023 despite winning 1 less Slam. He won something like 120 more matches while having the same amount of losses, had far more Masters, more ATP Finals, etc. Of course the competition in 2011-2016 was tougher than 2018-2023, but every ATG has years where the competition was easier. That doesn't make their achievements any less.

 

[inflation_era]

Djokovic fans have always claimed Federer was in his prime when Djokovic beat him so I don't see why it would be any different here.

 

[TripleATeam]

Well, we can agree to disagree then. Even if we discount 2015 & 2018-19, we still have 2021-23 where he vultured 7 slams.
Zverevs, Tsitsipases, Berretinis, Kyrgioses and no-fight Medvedevs of the world aren't my textbook definition of strong opposition.

That's 7 out of 24, and even there you have Djokovic beating Nadal at RG to lift a title. No idea how you can call that vulturing. It's ridiculous to even suggest. Then you also discount Djokovic beating Alcaraz and Ruud en route to the 2023 RG title - an Alcaraz that would be a 4-time slam champ within 13 months of that match.

Strangely, I hear no badmouthing of Nadal's 2019 RG run where he beat a Federer that hadn't played RG in 3 years and went out in the QFs of the warmups, then beat his pigeon and 0-slam champ Thiem in the finals. No badmouthing of Nadal's 2017 US Open run, nor his 2019 where he played all of the same opponents Djokovic did in following years.

If we go slam for slam, Djokovic has faced more members of the Big 3 to win slams than either Nadal or Federer have. That alone should dispel the idea that Djokovic was winning easy slams. And even if you refuse to accept that and decide all slams between 2021-2023 are invalid (which is awfully convenient for Nadal and Federer that the era suddenly started being strong in 2003 and stopped being strong in 2021), that leaves Djokovic at 17 slams to Federer's 20 and Nadal's 20. It's not a large gap at all, especially if you remember that you deleted 30% of Novak's slams arbitrarily.

If Djokovic can have 17 non-vulture slams (as you suggest), it by definition means that he's not a weak era vulture or needed to wait for Nadal and Federer to decline (and remember, he faced them more often to win his slams than the reverse). You can feel any way you want about what he's been achieving, but the numbers don't lie - he had tougher paths to his victories than Federer or Nadal did. Let alone that Djokovic faced Nadal 59 (about to be 60) times total and Federer 50 times, whereas Federer and Nadal faced each other only 40 times.

You still discount Djokovic after I've shown that in their 20s Djokovic at least matched Nadal's achievements, and ends up surpassing them by just lasting a little longer. Yes, he won in his 30s. That shouldn't count against him, especially as he went blow for blow with the strongest opponents this sport has ever seen in his 20s. His health and mental strength ended up pushing him further than the other 2.

 

[Rafa4LifeEver]

That's 7 out of 24, and even there you have Djokovic beating Nadal at RG to lift a title. No idea how you can call that vulturing. It's ridiculous to even suggest. Then you also discount Djokovic beating Alcaraz and Ruud en route to the 2023 RG title - an Alcaraz that would be a 4-time slam champ within 13 months of that match.

Strangely, I hear no badmouthing of Nadal's 2019 RG run where he beat a Federer that hadn't played RG in 3 years and went out in the QFs of the warmups, then beat his pigeon and 0-slam champ Thiem in the finals. No badmouthing of Nadal's 2017 US Open run, nor his 2019 where he played all of the same opponents Djokovic did in following years.

If we go slam for slam, Djokovic has faced more members of the Big 3 to win slams than either Nadal or Federer have. That alone should dispel the idea that Djokovic was winning easy slams. And even if you refuse to accept that and decide all slams between 2021-2023 are invalid (which is awfully convenient for Nadal and Federer that the era suddenly started being strong in 2003 and stopped being strong in 2021), that leaves Djokovic at 17 slams to Federer's 20 and Nadal's 20. It's not a large gap at all, especially if you remember that you deleted 30% of Novak's slams arbitrarily.

If Djokovic can have 17 non-vulture slams (as you suggest), it by definition means that he's not a weak era vulture or needed to wait for Nadal and Federer to decline (and remember, he faced them more often to win his slams than the reverse). You can feel any way you want about what he's been achieving, but the numbers don't lie - he had tougher paths to his victories than Federer or Nadal did. Let alone that Djokovic faced Nadal 59 (about to be 60) times total and Federer 50 times, whereas Federer and Nadal faced each other only 40 times.

You still discount Djokovic after I've shown that in their 20s Djokovic at least matched Nadal's achievements, and ends up surpassing them by just lasting a little longer. Yes, he won in his 30s. That shouldn't count against him, especially as he went blow for blow with the strongest opponents this sport has ever seen in his 20s. His health and mental strength ended up pushing him further than the other 2.

Well, I said "if we hypothetically discount" 2015-16 & 2018-19, which meant I was giving a pass on the original weak era, but definitely not the vacuum era post covid.

I can't discount the fact once entering a slump, Rafa faced Djokovic 11 times in a row, from Beijing 2013 till Rome 2016, out of which he ended up winning just one match. If we take the 13 month period from April 2015 till May 2016, he faced Djokovic 7 times in a row; while Djokovic during his own slump faced Rafa only twice even though it was a longer period of 18 months from January 2017 till June 2018. Same goes for his H2H with Fed.

Additionally; Unlike most, I'd not go bollocks just by looking at the names and rankings of the players; but rather look at their actual performance and build-up till date to evaluate their performance. RG 2021 Rafa, who had the worst clay season since 2005 till date; committed gazzillions of unforced errors & was playing one winged & one legged, isn't a formidable force even though he is Rafa. 2023 Alcaraz whose legs gave away after 2 sets, isn't a formidable force to reckon with even though he is Alcaraz.

The point is, Djokovic won many slams by playing mediocre level, ping pong tennis; the last high level slam win for him was Australia 2019; after that he won only through the means of his opponents struggling or choking. Heck, if not for Alcaraz and Sinner to have matured a bit, he'd be sitting on a pile of 27 slam trophies by now, and analysts would've been bombarding us with stats and whatnot.

Again, its not his fault that 2 successive generations of players failed to step up, & I give massive credits to him for lasting as long as he has, especially in the movement department; but he has taken advantage of a near vacuum era (2021-23) and before that a weak era (2015-16 & 2018-19) to pad up his stats massively.

Rafa at RG is no comparison at all, he is a God there; and somehow ended up playing at an extremely high level even in most of his Twilight years except for 2015 & 2021, later due to an injury.


Weak slams won by Rafa - AO 2022, USO 2019, USO 2017.

Weak slams won by Djokovic - AO 2015, USO 2015, RG 2016, USO 2018, AO 2021,
RG 2021, Wimbledon 2021, Wimbledon 2022, AO 2023, RG 2023, USO 2023

Slams unfairly won by Djokovic - Wimbledon 2018 (roofgate)
Slams won by Djokovic due to sheer luck - USO 2011, Wimbledon 2019 (chokederer)

 

[MeatTornado]

Slams unfairly won by Djokovic - Wimbledon 2018 (roofgate)

y'all can't seriously still be this petty 6 years later

 

[TripleATeam]

Well, I said "if we hypothetically discount" 2015-16 & 2018-19, which meant I was giving a pass on the original weak era, but definitely not the vacuum era post covid.

I can't discount the fact once entering a slump, Rafa faced Djokovic 11 times in a row, from Beijing 2013 till Rome 2016, out of which he ended up winning just one match. If we take the 13 month period from April 2015 till May 2016, he faced Djokovic 7 times in a row; while Djokovic during his own slump faced Rafa only twice even though it was a longer period of 18 months from January 2017 till June 2018. Same goes for his H2H with Fed.

Additionally; Unlike most, I'd not go bollocks just by looking at the names and rankings of the players; but rather look at their actual performance and build-up till date to evaluate their performance. RG 2021 Rafa, who had the worst clay season since 2005 till date; committed gazzillions of unforced errors & was playing one winged & one legged, isn't a formidable force even though he is Rafa. 2023 Alcaraz whose legs gave away after 2 sets, isn't a formidable force to reckon with even though he is Alcaraz.

The point is, Djokovic won many slams by playing mediocre level, ping pong tennis; the last high level slam win for him was Australia 2019; after that he won only through the means of his opponents struggling or choking. Heck, if not for Alcaraz and Sinner to have matured a bit, he'd be sitting on a pile of 27 slam trophies by now, and analysts would've been bombarding us with stats and whatnot.

Again, its not his fault that 2 successive generations of players failed to step up, & I give massive credits to him for lasting as long as he has, especially in the movement department; but he has taken advantage of a near vacuum era (2021-23) and before that a weak era (2015-16 & 2018-19) to pad up his stats massively.

Rafa at RG is no comparison at all, he is a God there; and somehow ended up playing at an extremely high level even in most of his Twilight years except for 2015 & 2021, later due to an injury.


Weak slams won by Rafa - AO 2022, USO 2019, USO 2017.

Weak slams won by Djokovic - AO 2015, USO 2015, RG 2016, USO 2018, AO 2021,
RG 2021, Wimbledon 2021, Wimbledon 2022, AO 2023, RG 2023, USO 2023

Slams unfairly won by Djokovic - Wimbledon 2018 (roofgate)
Slams won by Djokovic due to sheer luck - USO 2011, Wimbledon 2019 (chokederer)

#1: Ridiculous to call 2015 a weak era. 2014 had Murray at #6, Nadal out half the year, and a strange USO that had a Cilic-Nishikori final. 2015 by comparison had a bad Nadal, but a Federer that was just as good, a Murray significantly better, a Wawrinka that was playing just as well, and no strange slams. Why not just cut the bull and say any year Nadal wasn't playing well is a weak year in your book? That's what it's looking like. Notice you don't call 2017 a weak era... but Federer pulled out of half the calendar, and Nadal lost in the QF or earlier at half the events as well, plus Djokovic was injured, Wawrinka/Murray killed each other by RG, and the biggest contender was Zverev. Your bias is clearly showing.

#2: Regarding H2H in slumps. During the 2015-2016 tennis seasons, Djokovic made practically every single final of every tournament he entered. This made meetings between him and anyone in his way sure to happen. Meaning, Djokovic was always there to meet Nadal. Out of a possible 24 M1000+ level events in 2015-2016 that Nadal and Djokovic entered, Nadal made it to Djokovic's round 9 times (37.5%). Djokovic failed to make it twice, and beat him the remaining 7 times. Djokovic, on the other hand, made it to Nadal's round 22 times (91.7%).

For comparison, in 2017-2018 RG, Djokovic and Nadal entered the same tournament 12 times (half as many potential meetings). Djokovic made it to Nadal's round 3 times (25%), Nadal made it 8 times (67%). Right off the bat, that's half as many potential meetings. You can't fault Djokovic for being injured and pulling out of tournaments. Or else we could bring up the 20+ times Nadal has withdrawn from tournaments where Djokovic was much likelier to win (see over 50% of all the Paris Masters over Nadal's career). So already a fair number of matches for them to play is between 3 and 4 (3.5/12 = 7/24). Then combine that with Nadal's only 67% rate of making the meetings. If Nadal's rate was Djokovic's (91.7%), then chances are that Nadal would've made that 2017 Rome meeting. Then they would've had 3 matches, which is roughly in line with the projected number of meetings.

It isn't fair to call half of Djokovic's 2017 a slump any more than it is to complain about Nadal being missing from the second half of 2012. When professionals withdraw from tournaments due to injury, we need to consider that. Meaning Djokovic's "slump" was half as long as Nadal's 2015-2016, and as such we should expect roughly half the matches. Hell, in a "fair" world they play 1 more match in 2017-2018.

Similar points go with Fed. Novak faced him plenty when he was disadvantaged. Not his fault that half the time before 2011 he was on Nadal's half and couldn't face Federer. In Djokovic's own slump of 2009-2010 he faced Federer 10 times and went 4-6. If you're claiming he ducked Federer in 2017-2018, Federer entered exactly 11 M1000+ level events in that time. Only 6 of which Djokovic was also in the draw for. If we're using the same 7/24 estimate for meetings, we would estimate <2 meetings during that time between the 2 of them. Clearly there was 0, so in a fair world they play 1-2 more. If Federer wins them both, he's still behind in overall H2H.

This isn't a big point. Nadal fans bring it up too often. If it were exactly the same number of expected meetings, Nadal might be 30-30 in the H2H and Federer is 25-27 in the H2H at best.

(Consider also that Djokovic beat Nadal 7 times in a row between 2011 and 2012, when Nadal made 5 straight slam finals, losing the 3 in the middle to Djokovic along with 4 other matches. That suggests it doesn't take a Nadal playing his worst tennis to beat Nadal 7 times in a row. It just takes a Djokovic playing at his peak - which he was at in 2011 and 2015-2016.)

#3: To claim Djokovic hasn't won a slam except by opponents choking since 2019 is preposterous. Even if you subscribe to 2019 Wimbledon being choked by Federer, or 2020 AO being choked by Thiem, or 2021 RG being choked by Tsitsipas, or 2023 RG being thrown away by a cramping Alcaraz - then what about 2021 AO, 2021 Wim, 2023 AO, 2023 USO? I'm guessing you'll just say weak opponents - but still, Djokovic played a high level at most of those. No one challenged him enough to bring out his best tennis.

Also notice how again you show incredible bias. You bring up Djokovic winning from MP down against Fed as luck, but don't acknowledge Djokovic hitting the net in 2013 as lucky for Nadal? Djokovic's 2015 AO (where he played 2 of the top 5 players of the CENTURY to win) and USO (where he beats a 5-time champion in the final) is weak, but Nadal's 2022 RG (SF opponent sprains his ankle after bringing him to 2 TBs, and a very lucky 1st TB to boot then a final against someone who never made a slam QF before), 2013 USO (only notable opponent is a Djokovic that just played a tight 5-setter against Wawrinka) are strong? You're arbitrarily calling things strong and weak.

Here's the point. You don't like that Djokovic won so long. You don't like that he beat Nadal. That's ok. Just call a spade a spade and say you don't like that he won as long as he did. Djokovic kept pace with Nadal and Federer throughout. Federer took advantage before Nadal and Djokovic showed up. Nadal took advantage of before Djokovic showed and a Federer that had an exploitable backhand. Then Djokovic took advantage of an older Federer. It's how sport works.

Djokovic is "that good".

 

[GoatNo1]

If he was actually that good, he'd have dominated from age 21 to 27, the prime years for all ATG tennis players. The fact that he only had one dominant season before turning 28, won just 1 slam in 4 other seasons while going slamless for 2 prime years entirely; proves the fact that he had to wait for the weakest of next crops to emerge & for the existing challangers to decline considerably to win 2/3rd of all his achievements. Not his fault obviously, but let's not fall for the glory hunting fandom of social media which claims that he is the best of all time & whatnot.

And what all this, if true, says about the best no2 in history? Player who had only 1 dominant year in his entire career. One year sandwiched between two GOAT eras. And he is less than one year older than nole who supossedly vulture him on his way to GOAT.

 

[RF-18]

I don’t agree.

I think peak years, age / decline of competition, and the strength of the field are all part of the context/ causal variables in which players succeed and fail.

I think that’s obvious in an endeavor in which physical ability is critical.

Whatever else can be said of Novak and all his amazing accomplishments - it’s also true that he won the majority of his slams after turning 28 - which is normally turning towards the physiological decline for a tennis player, and he never consistently dominated the field in multi-year seasons like he has since 2018.

None of that means he’s not also an incredible tennis player. But the fact that he’s an incredible tennis player also doesn’t change those realities.

Again with this question wich you always seem to bring up. A professional career is judged by its entirety, not divided into cherry picked periods. Djokovic has 24 slams across his career, not 12 when he was x years and another 12 post XYZ. I've never heard this way of reasoning before regarding any athlete ever that they are discredited for being able to win alot accross their whole career. Only here on TTW has this topic surfaced.

Djokovic beat Nadal 7 times in a row back in 2011-2012, all were finals (and 3 were slam finals). He beat Federer from 08-12 at all 4 slams with a winning h2h. He won 11 slams, 25 masters, 4 ATP finals, 4 YE#1s (still a joke he didn't get the 2016 YE#1 losing it at the very last day of the season, but thats the 2nd half of the year he started his slump and elbow injury). He was ranked 227 weeks at #1 out of totally 283 weeks that was available between 2011-2016. Djokovic mustered more weeks at #1 in 6 years than Nadal managed his whole career, and that goes for the other 22 players that was ranked #1 in tennis. Djokovic won 48 titles in total, in wich 41 of those were big titles. In comparison, Federer won 51 titles between 04-09 in wich 33 of those were big titles (slams, masters and ATP finals). Djokovic put up one of the most dominant periods ever if not the most dominant, some of his numbers are better than what Fed did from 04-09, both periods very close either way. But you are saying Djokovic never dominated the field in multi seasons consistently? That's some absurd statement and you need to take back that statement immediately.

 

[Rafa4LifeEver]

@TripleATeam

 

[Rafa4LifeEver]

y'all can't seriously still be this petty 6 years later

Man his best ever grass level in a decade, him being fresh & motivated even after a gruelling QF compared to an easy one for Djokovic; and what does the establishment do? They rob him off, with Nole having a big chunk of his own gamesmanship involved in there. Despite there being no rain after a while and definitely no rain the next day; organizers went away with their stupid, useless, idiotic, senseless, bloody bollocks rule and kept the roof closed, heavily favouring one player while putting the other one at a risk. Djokovic, for all his 'sportsmanship' & 'applauding great shots by opponents', became an absolute selfish gamesman & denied it when the authorities asked both players whether they'd agree to a roof re-opening as there was no rain by then. It was a robbery, a cheat and an extremely unfair turn of events.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

So he accepts superiority when he no longer holds a distinct physical advantage.

 

[MeatTornado]

Man his best ever grass level in a decade, him being fresh & motivated even after a gruelling QF compared to an easy one for Djokovic; and what does the establishment do? They rob him off, with Nole having a big chunk of his own gamesmanship involved in there. Despite there being no rain after a while and definitely no rain the next day; organizers went away with their stupid, useless, idiotic, senseless, bloody bollocks rule and kept the roof closed, heavily favouring one player while putting the other one at a risk. Djokovic, for all his 'sportsmanship' & 'applauding great shots by opponents', became an absolute selfish gamesman & denied it when the authorities asked both players whether they'd agree to a roof re-opening as there was no rain by then. It was a robbery, a cheat and an extremely unfair turn of events.

I like how you frame this as if "the establishment" would ever be biased against Nadal in favor of Djokovic.

 

[TheFifthSet]

I can't discount the fact once entering a slump, Rafa faced Djokovic 11 times in a row, from Beijing 2013 till Rome 2016, out of which he ended up winning just one match. If we take the 13 month period from April 2015 till May 2016, he faced Djokovic 7 times in a row; while Djokovic during his own slump faced Rafa only twice even though it was a longer period of 18 months from January 2017 till June 2018. Same goes for his H2H with Fed.

Nadal was the pre-match favourite in roughly 35 of their 59 matches. He definitely did not face a “circumstance” handicap in this H2H.

 

[duaneeo]

Federer took advantage before Nadal and Djokovic showed up. Nadal took advantage of before Djokovic showed and a Federer that had an exploitable backhand. Then Djokovic took advantage of an older Federer. It's how sport works.

No one took advantage of older 31-36 year old Djokovic from 2018-2023, so you agree that the sport wasn't working then, no?

 

[TripleATeam]

No one took advantage of older 31-36 year old Djokovic from 2018-2023, so you agree that the sport wasn't working then, no?

Nadal and Federer took advantage before Djokovic showed up, so he took advantage after. It's not rocket science.

McEnroe won 2 out of his 3 Wimbledons after Borg retired. That doesn't mean the sport wasn't working. It just means he hit his stride after the older guy did (as happens in the sport). And no one forced McEnroe out, he just started losing earlier to worse players. Often players get a period where the competition is less.

Federer had 2000-2006 (if he were playing at 20 like Djokovic was, he could have been dominating from 2001 instead of 2003 - and if he were winning like Nadal was at 18-19, even earlier), but didn't capitalize as much as he could've on account of being a late bloomer.

Nadal and Djokovic got 2017-2023 (when all of the Big 3 were 30+). Nadal just didn't do as well in his old age, and Djokovic did. Nadal is just a year older than Djokovic. There's no reason to believe he couldn't have been competing with him and splitting the slams. He was just unable to.

Alcaraz and/or Sinner and/or whoever comes next will have the same. If Sinner isn't actually Alcaraz's great rival, people will remember Alcaraz having an era of old geezers and also-rans that he's dominating before his ATG competition shows up.

 

[duaneeo]

Nadal and Djokovic got 2017-2023 (when all of the Big 3 were 30+). Nadal just didn't do as well in his old age, and Djokovic did. Nadal is just a year older than Djokovic. There's no reason to believe he couldn't have been competing with him and splitting the slams. He was just unable to.

Nadal had won 9 slams (including the career Grand Slam) before Nole won his 2nd. Considering he matured much earlier than Nole, it should be expected he would decline much earlier.

But let's talk about the rest of the field. From 2010-2016, they allowed the Big-3 to win 21 of 28 slams (75%). But from 2017-2023, they allowed the Big-3 (who were all in their 30s) to win 23 of 27 slams (85%). Surely you agree that is not "how sport works", no?

 

[TripleATeam]

Nadal had won 9 slams (including the career Grand Slam) before Nole won his 2nd. Considering he matured much earlier than Nole, it should be expected he would decline much earlier.

But let's talk about the rest of the field. From 2010-2016, they allowed the Big-3 to win 21 of 28 slams (75%). But from 2017-2023, they allowed the Big-3 (who were all in their 30s) to win 23 of 27 slams (85%). Surely you agree that is not "how sport works", no?

I disagree on the "early to rise means early to fall" idea. There's no reason to believe an early success would mean earlier decline. It clearly happened in Rafa's case, but that doesn't mean it was destined to. Not to mention Nadal still won multiple slams in a year as late as 2022. If he had that ability still in his body, what stopped him from doing the same in 2018, 2020, 2021? It was a field that Novak and Rafa should've been sharing (as all greats get a weaker era to work with), but Rafa's body failed him.

With your second point - altering your parameters slightly, in 2010-2015 they allowed the Big 3 to win 19 of 24 slams (79%), but from 2018-2023, they allowed the Big 3 to win 19 of 23 slams (83%).

If your point can be broken by adjusting the end date slightly, it's not a strong point. In 2004-2010, the Big 2(!) won 24/28 slams (86%), 25/28 if you include Djokovic for the Big 3 (89%). Does that mean 2004-2010 was the weakest 7 year period we've ever seen? And if that's the case, does it hurt Nadal that he won 9 slams in that time frame?

 

[duaneeo]

I disagree on the "early to rise means early to fall" idea. There's no reason to believe an early success would mean earlier decline. It clearly happened in Rafa's case, but that doesn't mean it was destined to. Not to mention Nadal still won multiple slams in a year as late as 2022. If he had that ability still in his body, what stopped him from doing the same in 2018, 2020, 2021? It was a field that Novak and Rafa should've been sharing (as all greats get a weaker era to work with), but Rafa's body failed him.

With your second point - altering your parameters slightly, in 2010-2015 they allowed the Big 3 to win 19 of 24 slams (79%), but from 2018-2023, they allowed the Big 3 to win 19 of 23 slams (83%).

If your point can be broken by adjusting the end date slightly, it's not a strong point. In 2004-2010, the Big 2(!) won 24/28 slams (86%), 25/28 if you include Djokovic for the Big 3 (89%). Does that mean 2004-2010 was the weakest 7 year period we've ever seen? And if that's the case, does it hurt Nadal that he won 9 slams in that time frame?

If you think the sport was working when declined players in their 30s won 85% of the slams over a 7 year period, so be it.

 

[FlyingSaucer]

I was under the impression that pre-2011 Djo was competing in a gluten poisoning-riddled body, with a woeful serve thrown in for good measure.

 

[canta_Brian]

All this talk...

Just use your eyes. Obviously Djokovic isn't that amazing. Just a guy who feasts on chokes.

Why use your eyes when you can read a spreadsheet? And then write an essay that basically boils down to “I love Novak and cry when other people don’t.“

 

[TripleATeam]

Why use your eyes when you can read a spreadsheet? And then write an essay that basically boils down to “I love Novak and cry when other people don’t.“

Personally, I love letting people say anything they want about Djokovic. They might hate his looks, his personality, his style, his family, his game, his personal beliefs. All valid.

But people saying he isn't as good as Federer and Nadal when all evidence points to the contrary (including the eye test)? No. Just look at their best years, how can you say he was any worse?

 

[abmk]

I disagree on the "early to rise means early to fall" idea. There's no reason to believe an early success would mean earlier decline. It clearly happened in Rafa's case, but that doesn't mean it was destined to. Not to mention Nadal still won multiple slams in a year as late as 2022. If he had that ability still in his body, what stopped him from doing the same in 2018, 2020, 2021? It was a field that Novak and Rafa should've been sharing (as all greats get a weaker era to work with), but Rafa's body failed him.

With your second point - altering your parameters slightly, in 2010-2015 they allowed the Big 3 to win 19 of 24 slams (79%), but from 2018-2023, they allowed the Big 3 to win 19 of 23 slams (83%).

If your point can be broken by adjusting the end date slightly, it's not a strong point. In 2004-2010, the Big 2(!) won 24/28 slams (86%), 25/28 if you include Djokovic for the Big 3 (89%). Does that mean 2004-2010 was the weakest 7 year period we've ever seen? And if that's the case, does it hurt Nadal that he won 9 slams in that time frame?

please stop. its called common sense.
Just admit 2016-later has been weak, 2020-current even more so.

At last point. They were in their bloody primes back then in 04-10. Not from 2017 or so.

 

[abmk]

The crux of it is that Djokovic, after going even with multiple GOAT level opponents throughout his prime, then put on the greatest run of any player this century while his opponents were still playing very high level tennis,

when did this happen?

because nadal was basically AWOL/sad in fall 14-mid 16.
murray was coming back from surgery in 14 and in 15-mid 16 lesser than 12-13, especially peak level
federer was very good in Bo3, but couldn't keep up with Bo5 vs a prime ATG

wawa was the only one capable of doing so and he spanked djokovic in RG 15. Djokovic didn't play him in his 4 in a row, but had beaten him just before that in RG 15 and slams after that in USO 16

the greatest run of this century which would include level is from federer in mid-2005 to Dubai 07 btw. better competition by some distance.