Algo
Hall of Fame
When all is said and done, you will have to say nobody "had"
Realistically, where do you see Novak ending up now in the history books?
- Thread starter papertank
- Start date
He will win 15 grand slams in total, 30-40 masters 1000 titles, 7/8 World Tour Finals, 6 YE1 OR 7 YE1, 250 weeks as number 1. Suffice to say, he will be one of the greatest to have ever played. Ten years from now documentaries will be made, history will judge the trio of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic as the greatest ever. The numbers back it up, the level of play backs it up and ultimately the dominance backs it up. This will be the most revered trio in tennis, will be considered similar to that of a dynasty in other sports so to speak, the fans will never forget!
zvelf
Hall of Fame
Nah. When Roger was in his prime in 2004-2008, let's see what Hewitt, Nalbandian, Roddick, Safin, Coria, and Agassi were doing in the majors during those 5 years.
Agassi: missed 4 majors, 1st round x2, 3rd round x2, 2 QF, 1 SF, 1 F, and retired in 2006.
Coria: missed 7 majors!, 1st round x3, 2 round x1, 3rd round x1, 4th round x3, 1 QF, 1 F
Hewitt: missed 2 majors, 2nd round x2, 3rd round x2, 4th round x6, 4 QF, 2 SF, 2 F
Nalbandian: missed 1 major, 1st round x1, 2nd round x3, 3rd round x5, 4th round x3, 4 QF, 3 SF, 0 F
Roddick: missed 1 major, 1st round x3, 2nd round x3, 3rd round x2, 4th round x1, 5 QF, 2 SF, 3 F
Safin: missed 2 majors, 1st round x3, 2nd round x3, 3rd round x3, 4th round x3, 1 F, 1 Australian Open win
Only Hewitt and Roddick impresses. Nalbandian is definitely a top 10 player, but all the others are wildly inconsistent. Despite winning the Australian Open and reaching one final, Safin was completely mediocre in majors during this time reaching no quarters or semis.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Why 2004-2008? By 2007 Federer had Nadal and Djokovic and by 2008 the big 4 was formed. So why this weird year selection?
uscwang
Hall of Fame
Can we define GOAT as,
G: GS leader
O: Off-the-charts seasons
A: Above all main rivals (H2H)
T: Top player for the longest time (YE and weeks at #1)
Last edited:
KingKyrgios
Professional
Djokovic will finish 2nd to Federer all time.
E
Emperor of Belgrade
Guest
In the top 3 would be my guess. It is quite amazing that he is even in discussion to get there.
All depends on if he wins FO. If he never manages to win it, he probably will be about par with Connors, i.e top of the Tier 2 Legends. If on the other hand he never wins FO but gets 5 W then he will probably be equal with Sampras and Agassi just behind Nadal and Federer.
Win the FO, and Olympic Gold and he is GOAT.
No, that is wrong. Nobody in the game, and i mean nobody, puts Djokovic close to Nadal and Federer due to not only having less Slams, but also no career slam. He is even behind Nadal in Masters 1000 so he has a lot of work to do still but the FO is critical for him.
zvelf
Hall of Fame
I'm responding to your post stating "people have the nerve to say that Federer had it easy with prime Hewitt, Nalbandian, Roddick, Safin, Coria, a young Nadal, a still very good Agassi. They would've all occupied the top 10 today with ease." You didn't mention Djokovic, which is why I didn't. And 2004-2008 is when Federer won the bulk of his majors before Djokovic hit his prime. No one is saying Federer had weak opposition later. My post simply points out that Nadal, Hewitt, and Roddick aside, Fed's competition was pretty weak. Especially weak is including Coria and Agassi in here during this time period. I mean Davydenko was far superior to those two in this time, not that he's all that either.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
When did I include Coria and Agassi after 2006?
What I said was that Federer faced a bunch of different great players in 2004-2007, I never said that they ALL played well at the SAME TIME.
Djokodal Fan
Hall of Fame
he realistically has 2-3 max. He will decline this year or next.
I see Raonic showing signs of winning slam due to his recent exploits at OZ open. Just have a feeling he will snatch wimbledon away from Novak this year. US open is always a toss up.
But I firmly believe Novak has RG in his pocket this time.
I see Raonic showing signs of winning slam due to his recent exploits at OZ open. Just have a feeling he will snatch wimbledon away from Novak this year. US open is always a toss up.
But I firmly believe Novak has RG in his pocket this time.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
With RG he is at 12 slams. If he gets the gold that's 12 slams and a gold medal. That would be very impressive, but he needs other slams.
If he somehow gets to 18 slams I'd give him the edge in slams even if he doesn't win RG - though I think 17-18 without RG is very unlikely...
The Career Slam is everything. Without that he has no prospect of being ahead of Nadal and Federer. He knows it as well
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Hmm. I don't think that is exactly a rule!
I don't put Nadal above Sampras just because he has it, and Pete does not. But this is a moot point, because I can't see him getting to a much higher slam count without RG.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
14 slams, maybe 15.
TennisHound
Legend
He'll be the most dominant ever. There, now we're done.
roger presley
Hall of Fame
Could be the GOAT,or just behind the GOAT.
TennisHound
Legend
He's the goat. Cmon we all know it. Duh
Algo
Hall of Fame
Holy moly is Novak close to meet all the criteria...
If he fails on G, your system will explain why there is no real GOAT.
BrooklynNY
Hall of Fame
so you are essentially saying no one in top 10 will win a slam this year? Nole is the 2nd youngest behind NIshikori, and basically tired with Murray.
There is no sense in comparing what Federer, Sampras, Laver did at 29. They are not Djokovic. Just sit back and watch what happens. If Ferrer can make slam finals after 30, and be top 5, what can Djokovic do?
Because Federer won 12 of his 17 before 2008. You are using the argument of the current weak era all the time but when real competition emerged he won only five more majors and he was 26 years old.
V
VexlanderPrime
Guest
He'll most likely finish with the second greatest career in Tennis history. Not bad.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Before 2008 is not 2008. Federer played poorly in 2008 - especially outside the Slams and it had nothing to do with Nadal or Djokovic.
What real competition are you talking about? The one who prevented Federer from reaching 8 consecutive Slam finals from 2008 FO until 2010 AO and it was Soderling of all people who snapped that streak? And the same competition which "allowed" Federer to nearly win 4 Slams in a row from 2009 FO to 2010 AO? And then the same competition which "allowed" Federer get back to no 1 in 2012 for a couple of months at the age of 31?
Stop bringing up these names. They are good players but admit it, they are not all time great material, except for Nadal and Agassi of course.
BrooklynNY
Hall of Fame
As a long fan of Pantera(I still consider them the best metal band of all time) since 1996, you are lame as hell for putting a picture of Phil Anselmo as your avatar after what transpired this week. Phil used to be a hero, but at the end of the day he's a loser. One can only believe you support his loser, simpleton beliefs, or you are unable to see your idols for what they are. Curious as to what kind of statement are you trying to make? I write this as I'm listening to 'Slaughtered' 
@tennis_pro
Aside from that, ZYW is right. None of those players are all time greats except Nadal and Agassi, and at the time - Nadal was not the clay GOAT - he was a 1 dimensional top spinner who just happened to get lucky and beat Federer often - if you remember the narrative back then. Nadal didn't start getting proper respect as a GOAT until 2008. Until then he was just a thorn in Federer's side
@tennis_proAside from that, ZYW is right. None of those players are all time greats except Nadal and Agassi, and at the time - Nadal was not the clay GOAT - he was a 1 dimensional top spinner who just happened to get lucky and beat Federer often - if you remember the narrative back then. Nadal didn't start getting proper respect as a GOAT until 2008. Until then he was just a thorn in Federer's side
I just wanted to point out that comparing eras in sports is imposible and meaningless as you can beat only the opponents which are in front of you on given day.
We shall compare only accomplishments between the players and yes Federer is the most accomplished player of all time at the moment regardless who he beat in his GS finals.
But if Djokovic wins at least 6 more Majors and has more weeks at No.1 and YE No.1 he will become most accomplished player in tennis history.
Simple as that.
xFedal
Legend
What am saying is that would be crazy longevity, Novak needs 1 slam to tie Feds slam winning longevity, Since 2010 Fed has won 2 slams, Novak has replicated what Fed did at 2010 AO, he needs 1 more slam to tie, and did I say Novak already won 3 slams after turning 28, only few people have better record after turning 28.
xFedal
Legend
I agree Djokovic has a lot of ways to becoming most accomplished players.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
As a long fan of Pantera(I still consider them the best metal band of all time) since 1996, you are lame as hell for putting a picture of Phil Anselmo as your avatar after what transpired this week. Phil used to be a hero, but at the end of the day he's a loser. One can only believe you support his loser, simpleton beliefs, or you are unable to see your idols for what they are. Curious as to what kind of statement are you trying to make? I write this as I'm listening to 'Slaughtered'
I'm not up to date with what's currently going on with the living members of Pantera since the group doesn't exist for mor than a decade now and to be honest I don't really care, no offense.
So all the previous wins that Nadal (or any ATG) had before (and it's not like it became "official" after Wimbledon 2008) they were recognized as ATG's don't matter?
Nadal is the clay GOAT and just because he was recognized as such only after 2010/2011 or so doesn't mean that he didn't matter before. 2005 Nadal would beat the crap out of current Nadal on pretty much every surface (especially clay), that's for sure.
CremoCream
Rookie
In djokovics second GS ever, the 2005 French Open, He took the first set off of Coria before losing the next two than retiring from injury. This is literally the least developed form of djokovic. The following year djokovic beat Coria the two times they met on Clay. Though its few meetings, the weakest forms of djokovic on has a favorable h2h against Coria on his best surface, 2-1. Also its fair to note that Coria only made it passed the 4th round TWICE at the French, or any Grandslam for that matter, one time losing to an UNKNOWN named Martin Verkerk...... in the 2003 French Open final, than followed that up by losing to another unranked, fairly unknown in Gaudio in the finals in 2004... feds main "rival" on clay during his prime is fairly unimpressive if you ask me...I think it's fair to say a prime djokovic would handle Coria.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
I never said that Coria was great after 2005. He played his best in 2003-2005 so 2/4 seasons in 2004-2007.
CremoCream
Rookie
Notice, even during Coria's best years, 2003 and 2004, he lost to UNKNOWNS on the greatest clay stage, the French Open. 2005 He got PUSHED by a BABY djokovic, and 2006, at the tender age of 24 Coria's downfall started. Lol that's the Great Rival on Clay that Djokovic never had? Lol. Seriously come on.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Dude Verkerk also beat Horna (who beat Federer), 29th seeded Spadea, 11th seeded Schuttler and Moya in the QF before beating Coria in the SF. It was one of those magic runs.
He wasn't pushed by Djokovic in 2005, he lost a set but since then it was all Coria.
How many people today can produce such high level of tennis on clay?
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
And if he wins another slam he'd become the first player ever to win six after the age of 27.
xFedal
Legend
Novak soon will have better domination, consistency, longevity and prime over Federer! I think he can overtake Fed in Finals, Semis, Quarters, tier 1 titles, and much more. History will be made at RG in few months time.And if he wins another slam he'd become the first player ever to win six after the age of 27.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
Realistically, where do you see Novak ending up now in the history books?
I'm going to assume that the history books in question are sports encyclopedias. Given that, the answer is obvious. I see Novak ending up in the "tennis results" section. There will be at least 11 entries for him in the list of "Winners of Major titles" or "Winners of Grand Slam titles," depending on what the encyclopedia in question calls them. If it is a good encyclopedia, it will probably list the results of the finals, and so Djokovic will end up having at least eight other entries in the history book. If it is a very good encyclopedia, it might list year-end rankings and so he'll end up with a slew of other entries there. If it is an outstanding encyclopedia, it might even list Masters 1000 titles, in which case he will have many more entries there.
Anyway, if you want to find him in the history books, the place to start is probably the index. If you can't find him under "Djokovic, Novak," search for something like "tennis records" or "list of major tennis champions." He's bound to show up eventually. If it is a general encyclopedia, rather than a sports one, then I imagine that there might be a brief biographical entry for him. For example, he might well end up with an entry in "Who's Who?" or the "Encyclopedia Brittanica."
I'm going to assume that the history books in question are sports encyclopedias. Given that, the answer is obvious. I see Novak ending up in the "tennis results" section. There will be at least 11 entries for him in the list of "Winners of Major titles" or "Winners of Grand Slam titles," depending on what the encyclopedia in question calls them. If it is a good encyclopedia, it will probably list the results of the finals, and so Djokovic will end up having at least eight other entries in the history book. If it is a very good encyclopedia, it might list year-end rankings and so he'll end up with a slew of other entries there. If it is an outstanding encyclopedia, it might even list Masters 1000 titles, in which case he will have many more entries there.
Anyway, if you want to find him in the history books, the place to start is probably the index. If you can't find him under "Djokovic, Novak," search for something like "tennis records" or "list of major tennis champions." He's bound to show up eventually. If it is a general encyclopedia, rather than a sports one, then I imagine that there might be a brief biographical entry for him. For example, he might well end up with an entry in "Who's Who?" or the "Encyclopedia Brittanica."
CremoCream
Rookie
Yeah he beat Horna, the Same Horna who beat Fed and also reached a career high ranking of 33....another unknown in Spadea, an overrated schuttler and, probably according to your logic, a washed up Moya, who won his only french in 1998? Right?
Clearly you have an extreme disliking for djokovic. Djokovic proved in 2011 that he could dominate regardless of competition across all courts. An inspired GOATING federer beat him in the SF's, that year. This was a testament to FEDS talent, not a discrediting of djokovics....IF djokovic indeed made it to the finals that year we could have potentially witnessed Rafa beaten on his favorite tournament IN HIS PRIME in the Final. Fast forward to 2015 and we see wawrinka win the French, beating an in form djokovic by having a GOATING performance himself. So don't give me this BS that somehow Federer had an incredibly hard time on Clay compared to djokovic because he faced the LIKES OF CORIA and "others". The Same CORIA that you acknowledged peaked before Federer's domination in 2004...meaning Federer BARELY FACED HIM? What was it only 3 times during that stretch?
Stop being disingenuous and give credit were credit is due. Djokovic, Nadal, Federer, Lendl, Sampras, Laver, Borg and so on all proved their dominance and greatness. Why have an obsession with tearing djokovic accomplishments down to prop up one of your favorites?
metsman
G.O.A.T.
you have Sampras below Federer and Rosewall up that high? Better practice what you preach bud....******** list lol
N
Navdeep Srivastava
Guest
One of the main reason I never rank players, not sure how to compare eras, but one thing I am sure is that Fed should be number one after 1970.
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
Too funny. Maybe he will be the first human being to fly too? Don't you think you are going a little overboard?
Relax and see how it all plays out. 8 more slams when he is almost 29? If that happens, I would check him to see if he has alien blood.kidbourbon
New User
Best ever.
Big_Dangerous
Talk Tennis Guru
Nobody is going to be able to tick all those boxes though.
Very possible that Djokovic doesn't win 17 or reach 302 weeks @ #1 before it's all said and done. Though he may maintain a positive h2h record against his rivals, and he has had the off the charts seasons. (2011, 2015)
Big_Dangerous
Talk Tennis Guru
Too funny. Maybe he will be the first human being to fly too? Don't you think you are going a little overboard?
His blood is a deadly corrosive acid!
RF20Lennon
Legend
I think he'll end up on page 11.
Similar threads
- Poll
