What changed for Djokovic from July 2014 to change career trajectory ?

tennisaddict

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Djokovic was 27 years and 2 months at Wimb 2014. Pretty much peak for any tennis player is over in tennis history.

Why is his career graph UNIQUE in open era ?

Accomplishments when reaching age 27 :

Majors won : 6
weeks at no 1 : 95
H2h with Nadal : 19-23
H2h with Federer : 16-18
Majors Fed/Nadal won : 31

After Wimb 2014 (27 years 2 months)

Majors won : 11
weeks at no 1 : 183
H2h with Nadal : 10-3
H2h with Federer : 11-5
Majors Fed/Nadal won : 8
 
Came back in 2015 with an I'm guessing Becker inspired massively improved serve to back up his incredible return game, and enable him to hold so easily he could put even more effort into the part of his game he was already amazing at.

Definitely isn't a summer of 2014 change, the US Open result that year might be his worst effort of his entire career.
 
He matured... He got better in many things... Expirience... Started prioritizing slams (specially from 2018).... Hiring few trainers, experts, he doesnt afraid to try new things, experiment, he always want to learn new things, he is fitness and nutrition freak...

And worst for you, many good things are yet about to come... ;)




Ps. We all know what you wanted from this topic, sorry but I don't agree...:sneaky:
 
The curious case of

Benjamin-Button.jpg
 
Lew II said:
Top100 are high level tennis player just like Djokovic.
Click to expand...

Since you claim to be a statistician or someone who is interested in analysis, which group do you associate Djokovic with

- Federer, Sampras, McEnroe, Lendl, Becker
OR
- Sandgren, Fognini, Fritz, Bemelmans and Lorenzi
 
tennisaddict said:
Since you claim to be a statistician or someone who is interested in analysis, which group do you associate Djokovic with

- Federer, Sampras, McEnroe, Lendl, Becker
OR
- Sandgren, Fognini, Fritz, Bemelmans and Lorenzi
Click to expand...
Depends on what we are talking about. In this case, with the second group.

Bemelmans and Lorenzi are not top100 btw.
 
6 majors in a 3 and a half year period is a job well done. He kept on winning going into 2015 and being the best player onwards. Not much changed.
 
Well he already had the groundstrokes of a GOAT. What changes from 2014 on was 1) significant improvement in his serve and 2) increased mental toughness, especially focusing on peaking at slams.
 
Small differences can have huge impact. In general he became more focused and clutch at key moments.
 
Novak since his debut was always meant to do exceedingly well at Tour.He had a great start at AO 2008 like all AtGs do at beginning of their career.

Then he had a dry run till 2011 and Finally he realized his true potential at 2011 and wasn't that frightening?

So he was expected to dominate the Tour from that point on.If anything he slacked after 2011.Keep in mind that even by anybody's standards getting a slam a year is damn good..Even Sampras had lot of years where he just one Wimbledon a year.

So if anything he actually underperformed between 2012 and 2014 by his own high standards.He just gifted Slams to Murray,Nadal and Federer.

Till today I cant believe what happened to him in 2013 Wimbledon final, 2012 US Open final,he was the better player,Andy just made good of the conditions,Lost needlessly to Nadal in multiple FO finals.

But before he become a random Tier 1 er like Lendl,Emerso and so on,he steadied his ship and results show that.

So if anything he underperformed between 2012 and 2014..
 
Shaj said:
Novak since his debut was always meant to do exceedingly well at Tour.He had a great start at AO 2008 like all AtGs do at beginning of their career.

Then he had a dry run till 2011 and Finally he realized his true potential at 2011 and wasn't that frightening?

So he was expected to dominate the Tour from that point on.If anything he slacked after 2011.Keep in mind that even by anybody's standards getting a slam a year is damn good..Even Sampras had lot of years where he just one Wimbledon a year.

So if anything he actually underperformed between 2012 and 2014 by his own high standards.He just gifted Slams to Murray,Nadal and Federer.

Till today I cant believe what happened to him in 2013 Wimbledon final, 2012 US Open final,he was the better player,Andy just made good of the conditions,Lost needlessly to Nadal in multiple FO finals.

But before he become a random Tier 1 er like Lendl,Emerso and so on,he steadied his ship and results show that.

So if anything he underperformed between 2012 and 2014..
Click to expand...
I think he overperformed in 2011 and 2012-2014 was the result of stronger competition and less luck.
 
Jonesy said:
For Fed standards he should be old by that age and stop winning anything. Blasphemous!
Click to expand...

It is not Fed that is unique. Every single ATG declined after 26/27. Even Nadal had won 12 majors before 27 and won only 7 after, 4 of which were clay.

Only Djokovic career graph is different. Why ?
 
KINGROGER said:
I think he overperformed in 2011 and 2012-2014 was the result of stronger competition and less luck.
Click to expand...
Competition in 2014 was tougher than in 2015? LMAO. Federer was better in 2015 than in 2014, so was Murray. And Nadal was was only relevant for the first half of 2014.
 
tennisaddict said:
It is not Fed that is unique. Every single ATG declined after 26/27. Even Nadal had won 12 majors before 27 and won only 7 after, 4 of which were clay.

Only Djokovic career graph is different. Why ?
Click to expand...

Isn’t that like asking why Federer won 20 slams when no one else did before?
 
GabeT said:
Isn’t that like asking why Federer won 20 slams when no one else did before?
Click to expand...

It is not the same. It is one thing to improve more than others during your prime and peak age but it is completely different to achieve better results at older age.

How do you explain someone winning twice as many majors after age 27 than before ?
 
Novak made 9/12 Slam finals in 2011, 2012 and 2013; he made 9/12 Slam finals in 2014, 2015 and 2016; he made 4/12 Slam finals in 2017, 2018 and 2019.

So this idea that everything all of a sudden he took a complete 180 is untrue. What is true is that he was dominant over the tour before 2014, as well as a dominant #1, but was losing way too many Slam finals that he should have been winning. He is nowhere as dominant now as he was in 2011-2013 physically but he is by far a lot more mentally strong and a much better big match player. That's the difference.
 
tennisaddict said:
It is not the same. It is one thing to improve more than others during your prime and peak age but it is completely different to achieve better results at older age.

How do you explain someone winning twice as many majors after age 27 than before ?
Click to expand...
There’s nothing magical about 27. Tennis, like almost all other sports, has changed and the very top players have both the incentives and the means (absent injury) to extend their careers.

Before Fed it would have ridiculous to argue that 20 slams was a real goal. Yet he did it.
 
GabeT said:
There’s nothing magical about 27. Tennis, like almost all other sports, has changed and the very top players have both the incentives and the means (absent injury) to extend their careers.

Before Fed it would have ridiculous to argue that 20 slams was a real goal. Yet he did it.
Click to expand...

Athletes can extend their shelf life due to fitness, science, coaches and technological advances. But one does not defy age.

How do we explain having twice the success after age 27 ?

The only parallel we have seen in Serena Williams and there everyone acknowledges that her competition is completely different between what she had in the first half of her career and the next.
 
tennisaddict said:
Athletes can extend their shelf life due to fitness, science, coaches and technological advances. But one does not defy age.

How do we explain having twice the success after age 27 ?

The only parallel we have seen in Serena Williams and there everyone acknowledges that her competition is completely different between what she had in the first half of her career and the next.
Click to expand...

You pretend as if every player's career is supposed to take the same trajectory. Both Novak and Rafa have won 5 Slams after the age of 31 so they are both in the same boat. The difference is Rafa was peaking at 22, 24 and 27 and Djokovic was peaking at 24, 27 and 28. Rafa also started winning Slams earlier so it makes sense. So at the end of the day, they both have extended the clock.
 
Last edited:
NoleFam said:
You pretend as if every player's career is supposed to take the same trajectory. Both Novak and Rafa have won 5 Slams after the age of 31 so they are both in the same boat. The difference is Rafa was peaking at 22, 24 and 26 and Djokovic was peaking at 24, 27 and 28. Rafa also started winning Slams earlier so it makes sense. So at the end of the day, they both have extended the clock.
Click to expand...

Nadal's performance before and after 27 is 12 majors : 7 majors.

Djokovic's is almost the exact opposite : 6 majors : 11 majors

Why ??
 
Noleberic123 said:
Competition in 2014 was tougher than in 2015? LMAO. Federer was better in 2015 than in 2014, so was Murray. And Nadal was was only relevant for the first half of 2014.
Click to expand...
A better Wawrinka and also Nadal at RG.

Fed was the same both years, average at best and Murray was at pigeon level following surgery.
 
Rafa went MIA, Roger was officially out of his prime, and Andy was never quite the same after his back surgery in 2013. Combined with an improved Becker serve, who was going to stop him? It all fell on Stan's shoulders.

If Rafa and Andy never got hurt, history could've been very different. Maybe he'd still win 3 in 15 and get 4-in-a-row, but we'll never know.
 
tennisaddict said:
Nadal's performance before and after 27 is 12 majors : 7 majors.

Djokovic's is almost the exact opposite : 6 majors : 11 majors

Why ??
Click to expand...

Rafa won 8 Slams after 27, 11 before then.

Because Rafa had his career crash at the ages of 28, 29 and 30. Djokovic had his crash at the ages of 29 and 30. So while Djokovic won 6 Slams at 27, 28 and barely 29, Rafa won 3 at those ages. Also, Rafa took off faster so he fell earlier than Djokovic did when they came out of their peaks. He also hit his peak at 22 instead of 24 like Djokovic so that's how he racked up more Slams before 27.
 
NoleFam said:
Rafa won 8 Slams after 27, 11 before then.

Because Rafa had his career crash at the ages of 28, 29 and 30. Djokovic had his crash at the ages of 29 and 30. So while Djokovic won 6 Slams at 27, 28 and barely 29, Rafa won 3 at those ages. Also, Rafa took off faster so he fell earlier than Djokovic did when they came out of their peaks. He also hit his peak at 22 instead of 24 like Djokovic so that's how he racked up more Slams before 27.
Click to expand...

Rafa's 12th major was during the week he turned 27.

So, Rafa's career trajectory is more closer to all other ATG and not like DJokovic, despite the fact that he can continue to win FO till he dies.
 
tennisaddict said:
Rafa's 12th major was during the week he turned 27.

So, Rafa's career trajectory is more closer to all other ATG and not like DJokovic, despite the fact that he can continue to win FO till he dies.
Click to expand...

So he was 27 when he won RG 2013. Rafa's b day is June 3rd. He won it on June 9th. Don't try to change his age to fit this point. Lol. He has won 8 Slams after 27.

What other ATG won 5 Slams after 31? Not even Rosewall did it so no it's not. Also, Djokovic, like Nadal, is not every other player that ever played and his career is not supposed to be the same. He has defied TTW logic that you can't win more than 5 Slams after 27 and so has Nadal. Even Federer has since he also won 8 after 27.
 
NoleFam said:
So he was 27 when he won RG 2013. Rafa's b day is June 3rd. He won it on June 9th. Don't try to change his age to fit this point. Lol. He has won 8 Slams after 27.

What other ATG won 5 Slams after 31? Not even Rosewall did it so no it's not. Also, Djokovic, like Nadal, is not every other player that ever played and his career is not supposed to be the same. He has defied TTW logic that you can't win more than 5 Slams after 27 and so has Nadal. Even Federer has since he also won 8 after 27.
Click to expand...

I think that is precisely what we are discussing here. Djokovic's career trajectory is nothing like what we have seen in the past and i don't think we will see that in future as well.

Federer and Nadal have won more only because of weak era. Otherwise it is asinine to expect a 37 year to win 3 majors.

Players may win more after age 27 in future but i don't think anyone is going to have twice the success from age 27 than what they had previously. I am discounting the less than 5 major winners for obvious reasons.
 
tennisaddict said:
I think that is precisely what we are discussing here. Djokovic's career trajectory is nothing like what we have seen in the past and i don't think we will see that in future as well.

Federer and Nadal have won more only because of weak era. Otherwise it is asinine to expect a 37 year to win 3 majors.

Players may win more after age 27 in future but i don't think anyone is going to have twice the success from age 27 than what they had previously. I am discounting the less than 5 major winners for obvious reasons.
Click to expand...

Well that's why you cannot use some type of blueprint to gauge how someone's career will turn out. Lendl was dominant at 27 and had a two Slam year, Connors did at 30, Laver won the CYGS at 31. All different.

Also, this has already been done on the women's side before way before Serena. Navratilova won 11 after 27 and 7 before that.
 
NoleFam said:
Well that's why you cannot use some type of blueprint to gauge how someone's career will turn out. Lendl was dominant at 27 and had a two Slam year, Connors did at 30, Laver won the CYGS at 31. All different.

Also, this has already been done on the women's side before way before Serena. Navratilova won 11 after 27 and 7 before that.
Click to expand...

Navratilova actually improved in her later years.

I don't think any sane person will say Djokovic after 2018, when winning 5 majors is a better player than what he was before.
 
Murray and Wawrinka also had most of their success after 25. And Djokovic had had a three-Slam year when he was 23/24, so he had some outlandish success at younger age, too. It will likely be more common for players to have more of their success after 25 than before in future. Perhaps not more after 27.

Discounting evidence that you dislike is common practice on TTW, no doubt, but we should be suspicious of such avoidance strategies.
 
tennisaddict said:
Navratilova actually improved in her later years.

I don't think any sane person will say Djokovic after 2018, when winning 5 majors is a better player than what he was before.
Click to expand...

But plenty of sane people will say that Djokovic was better in 2015 and early 2016 than ever before, and he was at the very least better than he had been before in all but one purple passage in early to mid 2011. Navratilova also was at her best in 1983 and 1984, when she was 26 and 27. I don't think she kept improving after that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

clout
Big 3 all have very similar career trajectory
Replies
1
Views
331
clout
clout
tennisaddict
Is Federer distancing himself further from Nadal since FO 2014 ?
Replies
10
Views
721
Dolgopolov85
D
clout
Top 3 Career Achievements by each of the Big Three
Replies
13
Views
944
D.Nalby12
D
xFedal
  • Poll Poll
Who do you rank higher between Pancho Gonzalez? Ken Rosewall? Novak Djokovic
2 3 4
Replies
177
Views
9K
thrust
T
M
Do you think Nadal/Djokovic would have won less majors/retired by now if Fed had already retired? Whereas, Fed has had to manufacture motivation?
Replies
1
Views
275
Jonesy
J
Back
Top