Novak's 4 in a row

itrium84

Semi-Pro
Sorry, this is impossible. RG doesn't exist anymore. Now there is an indoor slam which is called the Djokovic Open. The organizers are definitely Djokovic fanboys.
RG didn't exist before. Before there was an outdoor slam which was called the Nadal Open. The organizers were definitely Nadal fanboys.

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
 

itrium84

Semi-Pro
As Fed fans are considered, Laver's CYGS achievement is (at best) equal to Fed's 2004-07 run, probably a little bit smaller.

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
 
You tried to be oversmart and declared and compared Novak's NCYGS wid Federer's 3 slam seasons and that Fed had to face Nadal .
But fact is , Fed lost against DEL POTRO orelse he would have 4 Slam in a row .
Nothing to do with Nadal here . ;)
Djokovic also failed his first chance with Nadal out of the way (2015 RG), luckily he got a second one.
 

Nadal_Django

Hall of Fame
Laver didn't had to go through Hewitt, Roddick, Davydenko, Baghdatis and co for his 2 CYGS isn't it!? He had an easier time than Peak Fed had for his hypothetical 11 Slams in a row, that is for certain. ;) A much easier time.;)
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
it was Djokovic who got Nadal out of the way at RG 15. Although Nadal was in bad form but delete Djokovic and Rafa reaches finals ;)
Honestly I don't think Nadal was ever coming close to winning RG15. His game was so bad he even switched racquets for the first and only time in his career (during clay season no less)
 

RF-18

G.O.A.T.
Which prime ATG did Djokovic face in 2015-16? Or 17, 18, 19. Due to lack of any decent young players these guys have inflated their records massively.

Federer’s real problem was messing up 2004 RG before Nadal arrived on the scene. Kuerten is one of the greats on Clay but he was far from prime.
Watching Djokovic play there are no obvious restrictions or obvious decline that you can take advantage of. He is serving better than ever and his return game is still from the highest school. Baseline game is from the highest school aswell. He is fit, injury free, and no physical limitations like players in the past had when they entered their 30s.

We are talking about one of the greatest players to pick up a racket with a mentality that only few have. He is fearless and thinks he is the best at what he does.

With all this in consideration, it doesn't matter if you are younger than him when he can be at this level into his thirties with no limitations from a physical perspective, add to that his experience. Djokovic will find a way to keep winning cause he is that good. Competition doesn't matter to him.
 

RelentlessAttack

Professional
Watching Djokovic play there are no obvious restrictions or obvious decline that you can take advantage of. He is serving better than ever and his return game is still from the highest school. Baseline game is from the highest school aswell. He is fit, injury free, and no physical limitations like players in the past had when they entered their 30s.

We are talking about one of the greatest players to pick up a racket with a mentality that only few have. He is fearless and thinks he is the best at what he does.

With all this in consideration, it doesn't matter if you are younger than him when he can be at this level into his thirties with no limitations from a physical perspective, add to that his experience. Djokovic will find a way to keep winning cause he is that good. Competition doesn't matter to him.
Djokovic couldn’t break through in Federer’s prime. Even once he broke through in 2011, he couldn’t maintain dominance over the other big 4 in 2012-mid 14. Only once both Nadal and Federer were declined in 2014 and Murray had had back surgery did he really go off on his streaks. There are no young players from lost or next gen who’ve taken up the mantle since.

The biggest praise for Djokovic I can offer outside of his dominant 2011 form is that he is setting the new standard in tennis for taking care of your health and fitness over time. Everyone else has gotten hurt or declined, while he has been able to best take advantage of the talent vacuum that followed his generation.
 

Mivic

New User
Djokovic couldn’t break through in Federer’s prime. Even once he broke through in 2011, he couldn’t maintain dominance over the other big 4 in 2012-mid 14. Only once both Nadal and Federer were declined in 2014 and Murray had had back surgery did he really go off on his streaks. There are no young players from lost or next gen who’ve taken up the mantle since.

The biggest praise for Djokovic I can offer outside of his dominant 2011 form is that he is setting the new standard in tennis for taking care of your health and fitness over time. Everyone else has gotten hurt or declined, while he has been able to best take advantage of the talent vacuum that followed his generation.
Federer was prime in 2011. Please don’t try and diminish Djokovic’s 2011 by acting as if his competition was declined, it just makes you look bitter. Nadal had just come off of his most dominant season ever and would have had another similar season were it not for Djokovic (whether or not he was quite at his 2010 level is neither here nor there, he was still playing at a very high level). To beat a monster like prime Nadal in 7 straight finals on 3 different surfaces including 2 wins on clay is one of the better achievements in recent tennis history for my money, and something even peak Federer could only dream of doing.
 
Last edited:

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Djokovic couldn’t break through in Federer’s prime. Even once he broke through in 2011, he couldn’t maintain dominance over the other big 4 in 2012-mid 14. Only once both Nadal and Federer were declined in 2014 and Murray had had back surgery did he really go off on his streaks. There are no young players from lost or next gen who’ve taken up the mantle since.

The biggest praise for Djokovic I can offer outside of his dominant 2011 form is that he is setting the new standard in tennis for taking care of your health and fitness over time. Everyone else has gotten hurt or declined, while he has been able to best take advantage of the talent vacuum that followed his generation.
I really don't get this argument of Djokovic not being able to break through during Federer's prime given that he started winning majors regularly around the age of 23, pretty much the exact same age Federer was when he hit his stride so what's the problem? And why should Federer be the benchmark anyway?
 
Federer was prime in 2011. Please don’t try and diminish Djokovic’s 2011 by acting as if his competition was declined, it just makes you look bitter. Nadal had just come off of his most dominant season ever and would have had another similar season were it not for Djokovic (whether or not he was quite at his 2010 level is neither here nor there, he was still playing at a very high level). To beat a monster like prime Nadal in 7 straight finals on 3 different surfaces including 2 wins on clay is one of the better achievements in recent tennis history for my money, and something even peak Federer could only dream of doing.
lol
 

itrium84

Semi-Pro
Novak's 4 in a row is an underrated achievement for sure but pales in comparison to Fed's 2004-07 run.
Laver's 1969 4 in a row is an underrated achievement for sure but pales in comparison to Fed's 2004-07 run.

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
 

Mivic

New User
double lol

zero break points in 24 consecutive return games at his favourite slam is totally standard stuff

Too many bad return performances that year.
He certainly played at a pretty high level in those slam matches against Djokovic, which is kind of my point to begin with. To act as if Djokovic was up against a weak version of Federer in their head to head meetings that season seems a bit absurd to me.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
He certainly played at a pretty high level in those slam matches against Djokovic, which is kind of my point to begin with. To act as if Djokovic was up against a weak version of Federer in their head to head meetings that season seems a bit absurd to me.
You tell him Mivic! :p
 
He certainly played at a pretty high level in those slam matches against Djokovic, which is kind of my point to begin with. To act as if Djokovic was up against a weak version of Federer in their head to head meetings that season seems a bit absurd to me.
Anything past prime is always weak? Not the way I roll. Weaker, for sure, not greatly in its best matches but enough to tell if your opponent is himself a great player in his peak/prime. What's silly is asserting that those wins somehow prove that Djokovic peaked higher in all respective tournaments, as some would have it.

2011 was a strong season, 2015 not so much but I'm paying attention to level first as that's what the player can control, and 2015 Djokovic obviously passes the test. It's the recent wins that carry the all-too-lovely weak era label with the wobbliness of their tennis.
 

duaneeo

Hall of Fame
I am suggesting that Laver's calendar 4 in a row is not that much greater than Novak's 4 in a row.
But it is greater. How much more greater is a matter of opinion, but surely you can't deny the specialness of the CYGS. A player must win the Australian Open to have any possibility of achieving the CYGS. Any slam winner can possibly achieve the NCYGS.
 

Mivic

New User
Anything past prime is always weak? Not the way I roll. Weaker, for sure, not greatly in its best matches but enough to tell if your opponent is himself a great player in his peak/prime. What's silly is asserting that those wins somehow prove that Djokovic peaked higher in all respective tournaments, as some would have it.

2011 was a strong season, 2015 not so much but I'm paying attention to level first as that's what the player can control, and 2015 Djokovic obviously passes the test. It's the recent wins that carry the all-too-lovely weak era label with the wobbliness of their tennis.
I’m not arguing over who has the higher peak level between Djokovic and Federer. That’s up for debate and I have no issue with either point of view (I do have an issue with people who suggest it’s not close one way or another). I also don’t disagree that the current field is not particularly strong, and that Djokovic has benefitted somewhat (as Federer has himself at various times).

My issue was with a poster who claimed that Djokovic was only able to break through in the first place because Federer had declined, as if the guy has always been an opportunist, when Federer wasn’t even the benchmark or the dominant force at the time of the breakthrough.

Djokovic was still a teenager at the time of peak Federer. To expect a teenage Djokovic to dislodge an undeclined peak Federer, and to hold it against him for failing to do so as seemed to be suggested, is ridiculous.

Nadal was the dominant player and the benchmark coming into 2011. He came into 2011 off the back of his best season ever and Djokovic well and truly displaced him in a manner that I don’t think any version of Federer would have been capable of doing (not necessarily because Djokovic’s peak is higher than Federer’s, of course a lot of it comes down to the specific match-up against Nadal). For that reason, I find it laughable that there are fanatics of Federer himself that claim that Djokovic’s 2011 is a result of opportunism.

Maybe I shouldn’t bother responding to such claims as they are so obviously false, but I can’t help myself sometimes.
 
Last edited:
My issue was with a poster who claimed that Djokovic was only able to break through in the first place because Federer had declined, as if the guy has always been an opportunist, when Federer wasn’t even the benchmark or the dominant force at the time of the breakthrough.

Djokovic was still a teenager at the time of peak Federer. To expect a teenage Djokovic to dislodge an undeclined peak Federer, and to hold it against him for failing to do so as seemed to be suggested, is ridiculous.
I took that as a trollish reaction to the plentiful 2015-Federer-is-peak drivel propagated by certain posters and thought nothing of it. Arguing on something like that is completely pointless; either the poster said it in jest and doesn't actually believe that, or he is honest and it's impossible to dispel such delusion.

Nadal was the dominant player and the benchmark coming into 2011. He came into 2011 off the back of his best season ever and Djokovic well and truly displaced him in a manner that I don’t think any version of Federer would have been capable of doing (not necessarily because Djokovic’s peak is higher than Federer’s, of course a lot of it comes down to the specific match-up against Nadal). For that reason, I find it laughable that there are fanatics of Federer himself that claim that Djokovic’s 2011 is a result of opportunism.
I regard Djokovic's 42-match streak very highly, that was truly some of the peakest tennis in history (not only did he go 7-0 vs Fedal dropping just 3 sets, but dominated nearly all other matches too). His level certainly dropped afterwards, still high and mighty for Wimby-Canada-USO but not goating. Nadal's level dropped too, besides I think the clay losses stunned him mentally vs Djokovic for a while. I don't think peak Federer would go five vs that Nadal at Wim/USO either, but with the earlier streak not happening, perhaps Nadal plays better and makes it closer. That 4-0 streak covering four straight mandatory masters definitely doesn't happen for peak Fed, can't see him taking both Miami and Rome against 2011dal - might take one though quite probably takes neither. Djokovic put in two great performances against a fighting Nadal and Federer would need to do even better to counter the match-up, no can't see that. IW and Madrid I see him taking.

Maybe I shouldn’t bother responding to such claims as they are so obviously false, but I can’t help myself sometimes.
Ditto. Useless to aim your arguments at the dumbery around, I rather think of it as making my opinion heard generally so the reasonable(r) posters may learn something, while the unreasonable ones are only worth engaging for shyts and giggles.
 
The problem is that some act like Federer was never close to doing this. And that's huge disrespect. In 2005-2007 he had to face peak Nadal in RG, and he played just as good as Djokovic did against worse versions of Nadal in RG. Federer never had the luck of facing a collapsing Murray in RG final. Even in 2009 he actually had a decent RG draw.
Stronkrule respecting feder..
:eek:
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
People are still arguing tooth and nail over this and arguing peak this and peak that but Novak is pushing 33 and has won 5/7 Slams. Isn't that supposed to be the "grandpa" age? All I hear is that he has no competition when Fedal mopped up 2017 and half of 2018 when the competition was much weaker than it is now. Once Djokovic returned to form, these bs arguments are prevalent again. 4 in a row on 3 surfaces (the grandest achievement), 3 in a row 3 times, 3 finals in a row at every Slam and 5/7 Slams in his 30s-all Djokovic records that only he can say he owns. Sorry but Djokovic has just proven he's cut from a different cloth and doing things many said would be impossible. You can't argue about weak competition after what Djokovic did in 2011 over that quality of opposition and nobody of his era can say they reached that benchmark when the field was that tough.
 

Tony48

Legend
This. It's not like nobody was ever close to doing that. Federer in 2005-2007 was close to winning 11 slams in a row, the only thing that stopped him is that he had to face peak Nadal in RG all the time. He never had the luck of facing Andy Murray in RG final. This is what Djokovic fans don't understand. So his 4 in a row was not more impressive than Federer's runs.
Uh, 2004. Federer won 3 slams that year, did not face “peak Nadal” yet still couldn’t win 4 in a row. So Federer doesn’t have any excuses.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
People are still arguing tooth and nail over this and arguing peak this and peak that but Novak is pushing 33 and has won 5/7 Slams. Isn't that supposed to be the "grandpa" age? All I hear is that he has no competition when Fedal mopped up 2017 and half of 2018 when the competition was much weaker than it is now. Once Djokovic returned to form, these bs arguments are prevalent again. 4 in a row on 3 surfaces (the grandest achievement), 3 in a row 3 times, 3 finals in a row at every Slam and 5/7 Slams in his 30s-all Djokovic records that only he can say he owns. Sorry but Djokovic has just proven he's cut from a different cloth and doing things many said would be impossible. You can't argue about weak competition after what Djokovic did in 2011 over that quality of opposition and nobody of his era can say they reached that benchmark when the field was that tough.
So because he had one mighty impressive year in 2011, that excuses every other time he benfitted from weaker competition?
 

Benben245

Professional
I think it is an incredible achievement but it is diluted by the calendar year starting anew. It is getting into the most slams over a 3 year period type of record. I think Djokovic will win the calendar slam this year and age difference or not, Federer will then be number 2 in my book.
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
I think it is an incredible achievement but it is diluted by the calendar year starting anew. It is getting into the most slams over a 3 year period type of record. I think Djokovic will win the calendar slam this year and age difference or not, Federer will then be number 2 in my book.
What level of troll are you lol? He was extremely lucky to get out of the AO final alive and that's after Thiem went through Nadal and a GOATing Zverev.
 

maratha_warrior

Hall of Fame
Honestly I don't think Nadal was ever coming close to winning RG15. His game was so bad he even switched racquets for the first and only time in his career (during clay season no less)
that's why I said Rafa would reach finals .
Murray is too weak against him at RG .
whenever they met at RG , Rafa has destroyed him badly .
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
Thiem was 3 times just single win away to become slam champion...

Fed was 4 times just single win away to become RG champion over Nadal in final...

That "single win" is enormously hard to achieve... Ask Federer why he hasn't done that..
Ask all those generations why no-one did it in 50 years... Novak did!!!
Because he didn't have to beat prime Nadal at RG
 

ReeceSachs

Hall of Fame
People are still arguing tooth and nail over this and arguing peak this and peak that but Novak is pushing 33 and has won 5/7 Slams. Isn't that supposed to be the "grandpa" age? All I hear is that he has no competition when Fedal mopped up 2017 and half of 2018 when the competition was much weaker than it is now. Once Djokovic returned to form, these bs arguments are prevalent again. 4 in a row on 3 surfaces (the grandest achievement), 3 in a row 3 times, 3 finals in a row at every Slam and 5/7 Slams in his 30s-all Djokovic records that only he can say he owns. Sorry but Djokovic has just proven he's cut from a different cloth and doing things many said would be impossible. You can't argue about weak competition after what Djokovic did in 2011 over that quality of opposition and nobody of his era can say they reached that benchmark when the field was that tough.
But you said 2004 and 2006 for Federer and 2010 for Nadal were weaker years in a past comments?
Seems you never want anybody to say it about Novak though.....
 
Last edited:

Subway Tennis

Hall of Fame
No. Because RG doesn't exist anymore. There is an indoor slam which is called the "Djokovic Open", and of course Djokovic is going to win it like 4-5 more times now. The organizers are his fanboys, so they decided to do everything to help him. In 2005-2019 there was a slam called RG and Djokovic never beat a decent Nadal there.
:oops:
 
Top