Novak Djokovic's Chances at Surpassing Nadal?

BGod

G.O.A.T.
Novak Djokovic's Chances at Surpassing Nadal's Legacy?

Simple question in some regard.

Of Nadal's 14 Slam titles, 9 are from the French Open.

Djokovic has 7 titles with 4 of them from the Australian Open.


Djokovic however has 14 Finals to Nadal's 20. Including 5 at the U.S. Open and four consecutive (to Nadal's 3 overall). Djokovic has as many Wimbledon titles as Nadal with more opportunity to gain there yet. Meanwhile at the French Open, Djokovic continues to be pegged as the strongest competitor to unseat Nadal.

I think Djokovic, as always, has a fair shot in winning the U.S. Open. If he does that he's obviously the favourite in Australia. Winning those two titles before French Open 2015 would put him at 9 and behind Nadal by 5. Of course winning the 2015 French in that order would give him all four Slams at one time and a place with Rod Laver. It would give him 10 titles and what both Federer and Nadal never achieved.

The opportunity is there for him.

Getting to 15 titles is unlikely though.
 
Last edited:

90's Clay

Banned
Nadal is going to win more slams. Nole is not going to gobble up the next 2 years worth of slams.

Another thing worth pointing out, even though Nole won wimbledon, his level through most of it was questionable. Thats not going to fly at the USO. If Nadal has inkling of motivation at Flushing this year to redeem his title, hes going to eat Nole alive if he plays like that.

If Nole plays like he did at wimbledon, he is probably in danger of losing to some other guys at Flushing as well.

There are more better players on hards then there is grass these days
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
Not happening. At all. Djokovic was never going to stop at 6, but no way is he going to ever get to 14 (and Nadal obviously won't be stopping at 14).

Djokovic is too mentally fragile to dominate slams the way he'd need to to get to Nadal's level. 2011 was a one-off for him. He may get to 10. Possibly 11. But I can't see anymore than that. Wouldn't be surprised if he finished with 8 or 9 either.

And the younger guys are getting more dangerous with every slam. The likes of Dmitrov are not far away from beating Djokovic at slams. Djokovic had his chance to catch Nadal, but blew it by losing so many big slam matches in the last two years.
 

BGod

G.O.A.T.
Something to revisit if Djokovic wins in New York.

I agree he's probably not going to get over 11 Slams, but IF he wins in New York in September then he's sitting at 8 and 2015-2016 are still viable at his age.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
Depends. At WTF, he has good chances ;) He could get close in masters. In slams, Rafa has quite the head start. For weeks at #1, they could end up in the same ballpark but Novak has 2 consecutive year ends at #1 (Rafa 2 non consecutive) and 1 of the 2 could get his 3rd year end in 2014.
 

Mick

Legend
not too good since he's about to get married and have a child.
He has said that tennis would not be his top priority afterward.
That is, unless Nadal decides to get married and have a child too :)
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
not too good since he's about to get married and have a child.
He has said that tennis would not be his top priority afterward.
That is, unless Nadal decides to get married and have a child too :)


Ha ha not looking likely ;)
 
Something to revisit if Djokovic wins in New York.

I agree he's probably not going to get over 11 Slams, but IF he wins in New York in September then he's sitting at 8 and 2015-2016 are still viable at his age.


But there is a chance he will be changing diapers in Sep!
 
Depends. At WTF, he has good chances ;) He could get close in masters. In slams, Rafa has quite the head start. For weeks at #1, they could end up in the same ballpark but Novak has 2 consecutive year ends at #1 (Rafa 2 non consecutive) and 1 of the 2 could get his 3rd year end in 2014.


Nadal already has 3 year-end No.1 rankings: 2008, 2010, and 2013.
 
Chances? 0.1%. I'll never say it will never happen, but it is incredibly unlikely that Djokovic gets within 2-3 of Rafa, let alone catches him.
 

giggc

New User
joker is lucky this time. he played not so well in the final. i think either rafa or murray will have a 3-0 win against fed.

wimbledon is unique, so it is difficult to say how far joker can go
us open should be a better yardstick to see
 

BGod

G.O.A.T.
I changed the title.

I wasn't strictly talking about the Slam count.

Nadal is still known as a clay court specialist, the greatest on that surface but his all-time ranking is subjective.

Would Djokovic winning, for example 6 in Australia, 3 U.S, 3 Wimbledons and 1 French along with 4 Tour Finals (assume Nadal stays at 0) put him in the conversation?

That would be 13 Slams in case you're counting and let's at 2 to Nadal for 15.
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
I changed the title.

I wasn't strictly talking about the Slam count.

Nadal is still known as a clay court specialist, the greatest on that surface but his all-time ranking is subjective.

Would Djokovic winning, for example 6 in Australia, 3 U.S, 3 Wimbledons and 1 French along with 4 Tour Finals (assume Nadal stays at 0) put him in the conversation?

That would be 13 Slams in case you're counting and let's at 2 to Nadal for 15.

His all time ranking isn't really that subjective, and the only people still claiming he's a claycourt specialist are those with an agenda.

Remember, Nadal is one Australian Open away from being the only man to do the double career grand slam. His credentials off clay can't be questioned.

And Nadal is already at 14. I find it slightly deluded to believe that Djokovic is going to win 6 more slams, while Nadal only gets 1 more. It's just not realistic on any level.

So I can't really roll with this scenario either.

I
 

tipsa...don'tlikehim!

Talk Tennis Guru
That would mean doubling his current total. At his age, it's highly unlikely.

I reckon Djokovic's career can last very long given his fitness and good diet.
And when you see the young guys behind... but of course if he plays less to take care of his family then yes it becomes more unlikely.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Not happening. At all. Djokovic was never going to stop at 6, but no way is he going to ever get to 14 (and Nadal obviously won't be stopping at 14).

Djokovic is too mentally fragile to dominate slams the way he'd need to to get to Nadal's level. 2011 was a one-off for him. He may get to 10. Possibly 11. But I can't see anymore than that. Wouldn't be surprised if he finished with 8 or 9 either.

And the younger guys are getting more dangerous with every slam. The likes of Dmitrov are not far away from beating Djokovic at slams. Djokovic had his chance to catch Nadal, but blew it by losing so many big slam matches in the last two years.

Djokovic doesn't need to win 14 Slams or more to be considered greater than Nadal.
 

tipsa...don'tlikehim!

Talk Tennis Guru
Dimitrov is still far from beating Novak in grand slams, the Serb clearly had a bad day in the SF, was playing poorly, it was on Dimitrov's arguably best surface (although he's good on every surface). Yet Dimitrov couldn't even close out the 4th set when facing an average Djokovic.

Now imagine the same match up at the US or AO.
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
Dimitrov is still far from beating Novak in grand slams, the Serb clearly had a bad day in the SF, was playing poorly, it was on Dimitrov's arguably best surface (although he's good on every surface). Yet Dimitrov couldn't even close out the 4th set when facing an average Djokovic.

Now imagine the same match up at the US or AO.

How is grass arguably Dimtrov's best surface?
 

BGod

G.O.A.T.
His all time ranking isn't really that subjective, and the only people still claiming he's a claycourt specialist are those with an agenda.

Remember, Nadal is one Australian Open away from being the only man to do the double career grand slam. His credentials off clay can't be questioned.

And Nadal is already at 14. I find it slightly deluded to believe that Djokovic is going to win 6 more slams, while Nadal only gets 1 more. It's just not realistic on any level.

So I can't really roll with this scenario either.

Stefan Edberg won multiple titles at 3 of the Slams and made a Final at the French, the only one he didn't win.

Nadal has been inconsistent outside of clay and in an era of slower courts. Many DO question his all-court abilities.
 

Mick

Legend
Why would he?

because Federer and Nadal already have completed that task.
Sharapova and Serena too.

Djokovic hasn't. Right now, it is a blemish in his record.
Maybe one day, he can do it.

Didn't you see he shred a tear at the FO trophy presentation?
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
Why would he?

9-3 against Rafa in GS suggests he's not, so does 7-7 in GS finals and 7 total titles. If you don't think that he requires winning on all surfaces as well as a lot more, not sure what to tell you. Novak is better at losing GS finals than Rafa but he's certainly not in his league in terms of greatness. Novak also is lucky he didn't have to face Fed in 9 GS finals because he might be 3-11.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
because Federer and Nadal already have completed that task.
Sharapova and Serena too.

Djokovic hasn't. Right now, it is a blemish in his record.
Maybe one day, he can do it.

Didn't you see he shred a tear at the FO trophy presentation?

Interesting. Personally I don't consider Agassi to be greater than Sampras but you're entitled to your opinion.
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
Then that's what you should've said in the first place. Anything is possible in this life.

It was my prediction based on the likelihood. Is Novak really even worried about surpassing Nadal in terms of greatness? I don't think he is.

Interesting. Personally I don't consider Agassi to be greater than Sampras but you're entitled to your opinion.

But if he won more GS titles and did that, you should.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
9-3 against Rafa in GS suggests he's not, so does 7-7 in GS finals and 7 total titles. If you don't think that he requires winning on all surfaces as well as a lot more, not sure what to tell you. Novak is better at losing GS finals than Rafa but he's certainly not in his league in terms of greatness. Novak also is lucky he didn't have to face Fed in 9 GS finals because he might be 3-11.

You've fallen into the trap[as have many others sadly] of believing that the Slams are the be all and end all in tennis. They're not.
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
Stefan Edberg won multiple titles at 3 of the Slams and made a Final at the French, the only one he didn't win.

Nadal has been inconsistent outside of clay and in an era of slower courts. Many DO question his all-court abilities.

5 wimbledon finals, 2 wimbledon titles. 3 US Open finals, 2 US Open titles. 2 Australian Open finals, 1 Australian Open title. Olympic Singles Gold, won on hardcourt (against Djokovic).

The "Nadal is a claycourt specialist" thing simply doesn't hold water, especially considering he's had to beat all-time greats on their favorite surfaces to win majors off clay. His greatness on clay overshadows his greatness off-clay, but he's a great on grass (though declined) and on hardcourt. I think it's mostly just a meme used by hardcore Fed fans in the GOAT debate now, but by very few other than that. Most serious observers and experts ackowledge Nadal's all-court abilities and his stunning achievements off clay.

Nadal will win more slams on hardcourts the way he's played on them in the last year. He was unlucky with injury not to get the Australian this year.
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
You've fallen into the trap[as have many others sadly] of believing that the Slams are the be all and end all in tennis. They're not.

They are not everything but they are by far the most relevant in modern tennis because players believe they are. There is a lot more pressure to win them and thus it's the best time see what they really have, plus they are the only best of 5 now.
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
I don't think so. Stan was always gonna win that one- it was his destiny.

Nadal won the third set, while barley being able to move. Stan was rattled. If Nadal wasn't impeded by the injury, I think it was almost certain to go to a 5 sets. he would have fought like mad to win if his body was able. Might Stan still have won....maybe. But in a 5th set, I'd have put most of my money on Nadal.
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
I don't think so. Stan was always gonna win that one- it was his destiny.

This much I have to agree with. It was surprising given their history but Stan was the guy playing much more loose and he was making Rafa look lost out there. The injury was for me pretty irrelevant unless we are going to assume that Stan would have felt his nerves more in the 3rd set and beyond.
 

10isPlaya

Banned
Nadal won the third set, while barley being able to move. Stan was rattled. If Nadal wasn't impeded by the injury, I think it was almost certain to go to a 5 sets. he would have fought like mad to win if his body was able. Might Stan still have won....maybe. But in a 5th set, I'd have put most of my money on Nadal.

Stan was rattled because of Nadal's injury. If Nadal didn't get injured, Stan wouldn't have been rattled and would have taken it in straights. You can't have it both ways.
 

Mick

Legend
had Nadal injured his back one match earlier, i think Federer could have beaten Wawrinka in the final and claimed his 18th GS title.

but one cannot fight destiny.
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
Nadal won the third set, while barley being able to move. Stan was rattled. If Nadal wasn't impeded by the injury, I think it was almost certain to go to a 5 sets. he would have fought like mad to win if his body was able. Might Stan still have won....maybe. But in a 5th set, I'd have put most of my money on Nadal.

I will admit that Stan looked very unusual in the 3rd set but Rafa completely threw that match out of whack. Stan probably lost some focus seeing Rafa hobble around and then also was dealing with nerves. Stan might have choked away the match if Rafa were healthy but I doubt it.
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
This much I have to agree with. It was surprising given their history but Stan was the guy playing much more loose and he was making Rafa look lost out there. The injury was for me pretty irrelevant unless we are going to assume that Stan would have felt his nerves more in the 3rd set and beyond.

The injury did make a difference. Somehow, Nadal won the 3rd set. Normally that would have energised him to really go for it in the 4th, but he couldn't move, couldn't serve...it was sad to watch.
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
Stan was rattled because of Nadal's injury. If Nadal didn't get injured, Stan wouldn't have been rattled and would have taken it in straights. You can't have it both ways.

Even though Stan was playing out of his mind, I still don't think he would have won the third set. That's asking for a lot. 4 sounds right though, which it was.
 

eldanger25

Hall of Fame
Very unlikely, though not impossible - 2/3rds of the tour is played on his favorite surface, so he's got a shot at new levels of greatness the next few years. Frankly, he needed to do more in the 2007-10 range (though he had some wonderful results during that era) to have a shot at Nadal.

Finally, we're talking about an admitted perfectionist soon to cope with parenthood and post-age 28 diminished reflexes - may be tough sledding.

I think he hits 9-10 slams, including a long-awaited RG title. Part of the Connors-Lendl mini-tier above Agassi/Mac but below Borg.
 
Top