What's the one hole/stain in Djokovic's resume?
- Thread starter Djokovic2011
- Start date
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
That doesn't really make sense, unless you believe losing in the final is more of a stain than going out in the early rounds? A 12-8 record in GS finals is way more impressive than a 12-2 one.
If he had won 3 more, he would be 15-5 instead of 12-8 and would already undisputedly being ranked above Nadal (14-6) and Sampras (14-4).
So having lost so many finals instead of winning them is holding him back and lower his reputation.
Same problem (even more) has Lendl. The guy reached even more Slam finals than Sampras, also more than 250 weeks at #1, had he won most of his Slam finals Lendl would be legitimate goat candidate. But he didn't, and so of course thats the stain in Lendls resume.
In case of Djokovic, he can still make up for all the lost finals if he keeps winning the majority of his future finals like he did in the last 2 years (he even was 6-7 at one point).
So even if he doesn't win the majority of his future finals and has a 6-6 record from hereon in, and 18-14 record in major finals at the end of his career, he won't be GOAT?
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
Yeah, he's confusing slam finals lost impact on achievements vs. slam final record itself. 12-8 is good enough, anyway.
The Green Mile
Bionic Poster
Never winning a set against Safin, let alone a match. Even when he was World #3.
He would be goat, but if you have a 18-14 record there would always be the thing that he could have even done much better, and that he threw away opportunities.
If Djokovic has 18-14 and then some guy comes along with 20-0 in the future, the 20-0 guy would be considered as the new goat, although a 18-14 career is much better than a 20-0 career in my view.
So losing many finals is always a problem for a player.
It's better to reach the final and lose than not having reached there at all. Reaching the final itself shows consistency of a higher caliber and is more of an achievement than the stain of losing said final.
Even if someone does a 16-0 in slam finals in the future, he'd be behind Fed's 17-10 (and counting). At the end of the day he only reached 16 finals, whereas Fed reached 27!
What about a 20-0 guy and a 20-10 guy. Since losing so many finals is a stain, would the former with his 100% record be greater?
*all other things being equal
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
I agree in general, but not always.
Yeah, there are external factors, like CYGS, CGS or maybe he won 4 of each or something. And you know, absolutely blowing out the other parts of the 17-6-302 triumvirate.
Though he'd have to do something magical elsewhere to eclipse the 11 less slam finals he reached.
I'm not doubting that, but what I'm saying is that it is better to win the finals than to lose the finals.
Djokovics Slam career was more impressive for me than Nadals Slam career (much more consistency, more finals, much more semis, much more quarters, much more match wins), but still 99% of tennis fans would argue that Nadals Slam career is better because he won 2 more. So you surely can't deny it's a problem for a player to lose Slam finals when you had the realistic chance to win them?
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
Lol, I almost never post seriously over here any more, and I'd forgotten about these constant petty arguments.
"Prime X would beat any version of prime Y"
"2007 X would straight-set 1976 Y"
Laaaaaaame.
What gets me though is how seriously this stuff is said.
"Prime X would beat any version of prime Y"
"2007 X would straight-set 1976 Y"
Laaaaaaame.
What gets me though is how seriously this stuff is said.
Aussie Darcy
Bionic Poster
Brisbane @Djokovic2011 Screw Doha 
I am the Greatest!
Professional
I don't think he does have one. It's just that Nadal and Federer's career were better. I can say Olympic Gold? But that would change if he wins this year. So far, there's none.
Cortana
Legend
I guess Wawrinka is a better player than Murray? Because 2/2 slams is better than 2/10?
Tenisfan3
Professional
4-10 vs Nadal slam HTH.
Illegal amount of time between points
Poor sportsmanship and fake MTOs
Ball boy abuse
Crowd abuse
The fact that even Bautista gets more love
0 sets when vs Federer in slams during Fed's 2004-2007 peak
uliks
Banned
You forgot that he doesn't have a cow like Roger has with fresh milk every morning, and Mirka being more beautiful than Jelena.
His poor record at the majors with Nadal. Nadal has him 2-1 at uso which is against the head they are level at wimbledon again against the head really and at the French open nadal just owns him.
He is the second best player of his generation behind nadal . With his talent it should really have been other way round.
His other hole is an inability to compete with an ageing way past his best Federer on a fast surface.
Oh and also his disastrous wimbledon this year. Failure to get a channel slam which the other three open era ATGs got.
No ATH at his peak has suffered a defeat like djokovic did and now all the old questions about his mental strength are being boiced again. It was very poor and definitely tarnishes his legacy a bit
No ATH at his peak has suffered a defeat like djokovic did and now all the old questions about his mental strength are being boiced again. It was very poor and definitely tarnishes his legacy a bit
uliks
Banned
In 2014 and 2015 he beat Federer 3 times out of 3 in the finals of the two traditionally faster slam tournaments. I wouldn't call that an inability gary20.
uliks
Banned
Yeah but he won 4 in a row, the NCYGS. And no other ATG at his peak except for Laver done that in the open era before Djokovic. NCYGS>>>>Channel slam!!!
ArcspacE
G.O.A.T.
Only deluded Fedal fanbois would propagate this hoax ad nauseam
Thankfully - anyone with more than half a brain cell and any credibility for understanding the game thinks otherwise
Poor attempt troll-boy - 2/10
Lord Anomander
Professional
People will always find stains in the resumes if they want to. Federer H2H with Nadal, Nadal is only dominant on clay, Novak lost too many gs finals, didn't win the cygs, etc.
To me, he doesn't have a real stain. If he manages to win OG and Cincinnati he is the only player without any (real) stains.
To me, he doesn't have a real stain. If he manages to win OG and Cincinnati he is the only player without any (real) stains.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
There is nothing unique about his resume , Whatever he has done has been already accomplished by someone
Eg Rafa 9FO better than his 6 AO
His 4 in a row bettered by 2 CYGS by Later
His 12 majors is insignificant compared to others
His weeks at 1, years at 1, YE 1 are again lesser ,
I am more interested in comparing resumes of players who have unique achievements
Eg Rafa 9FO better than his 6 AO
His 4 in a row bettered by 2 CYGS by Later
His 12 majors is insignificant compared to others
His weeks at 1, years at 1, YE 1 are again lesser ,
I am more interested in comparing resumes of players who have unique achievements
uliks
Banned
He is still far from done yet. Show some patience.
5555
Hall of Fame
Holding all 4 major titles on 3 different surfaces at once
Highest number of ranking points as No. 1 (16,950)
Last edited:
What's a gary20? There are no fast surface majors these days! Uso at best is medium and grass is fast medium in first week but then medium in second week.In 2014 and 2015 he beat Federer 3 times out of 3 in the finals of the two traditionally faster slam tournaments. I wouldn't call that an inability gary20.
Dubai and Cincinnati are fast and djokovic struggles to get sets off federEr
It's a fine achievement but the Grand Slam is doing all four in a year. That is what they all want.
Nadal is still only player to win majors on all the surfaces in one calendar year in open era.
Djokovic has same issue as federEr. Both only got French open due to Nadal being injured . Nadal won all his majors beating one of the other ATGS .
This is all subjective but to me Nadal has the most complete resume.only hole is wtf and really who cares about the wtf?
Nadal had three on three different surfaces in one year. Arguably that is a bigger achievement. Courier thinks so. As does pat cash.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
You cannot hold it against Laver because it was not his fault that they changed surface.
Laver won all 4 majors in a row twice and that is all that matters
The point system is a more recent phenomenon and older players were not part of the same system
Yes. The reason laver is so highly regarded is due to the CALENDAR slam. The career slam is huge but the big daddy is the calendar slam.
As much as djokovic now tries to say motivation was an issue at wimbledon the fact is he was utterly desperate to get the calendar slam as with no Nadal or federer anywhere near their best this was the golden chance. He completely blew it in the most insipid manner and I cannot believe it.
He let his fans down and himself down. It was a desperate defeat.
E
Emperor of Belgrade
Guest
4 Slams on 3 different surfaces and all in a row is better than any one year streak that Federer and Nadal had.
Well it shows greater consistency over a two year period but Id rather have nadals 2010. The big three majors in one season will never be repeated
E
Emperor of Belgrade
Guest
We are talking about the period where he won 4 Majors in a row, that's not a period of two years, it's one year. 4 in a row is better than 3 in a row regardless of the calendar. And there are many seasons I would rather take over Nadal's 2010 anyway.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
No matter how we twist and turn it , it cannot be denied that this is over 2 seasons.
For the same reason a CYGS is more revered than a regular 4 in a row
E
Emperor of Belgrade
Guest
2nd half of 2015 and the 1st half of 2016 makes it a one year period. That was my point. The other guy said it's a period of two years, which is incorrect.
Wasn't talking about the CYGS. I was saying it is ridiculous to prefer 3 in a row just because they are in the same calendar year. 4 in a row is also something special, it's holding all Slams. You would again have to go back to Laver's time to find a male player achieving any kind of a Grand Slam Poker.
uliks
Banned
Who cares about Cincy or Dubai really?! I know Djokovic it doesn't atleast not in the same way he cares for USO and W.
You're right. You've been very subjective here. 4 in a row or NCYGS + WTF >clearly whatever achievement Nadal or Federer have in a span of 365 days. That's the hard reality Gary.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
I would say 3 different surface wins in a single season is on par with 4 in a row non calendar slam. Not more
E
Emperor of Belgrade
Guest
Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil
Talk Tennis Guru
Yeah, remarkable how things change. Calendar year achievements became more significant once Djokovic completed the NCYGS, AO turns less significant with each year Djokovic wins one, Borg's Channel Slams became more significant once Djokovic equaled and surpassed his Slams count and so on...A Calendar 3 in a row on par with a NCYGS...
uliks
Banned
Yes he is arguing now just for the sake of it.A Calendar 3 in a row on par with a NCYGS...
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
A Calendar 3 in a row on par with a NCYGS...
Once the tennis season is over, things change. Players have the whole off season to rest and recover.
uliks
Banned
Yeah i agree. That's make Djokovic's NCYGS achievement even more remarkable. Tougher even than CGYS itself most probably.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Too many titles in the weak era.
TupeloDanger
Professional
Winning the French, Wimbledon, and the US Open in one year is easily the most impressive achievement in men's tennis in decades. I grudgingly admit this as a Nadal hater. It's a more impressive thing than any item on Federer's resume, much as I wish it weren't.A Calendar 3 in a row on par with a NCYGS...
There's no such thing as a "Non-Calendar Year Grand Slam," since the grand slam is, by definition, in a single calendar year. No bonus points awarded for non-achievement. It's pathetic to have to make up labels to support your claim to greatness. It's a "Non-Calendar year assortment of four tournament wins."
E
Emperor of Belgrade
Guest
All just a coincidence.Yeah, remarkable how things change. Calendar year achievements became more significant once Djokovic completed the NCYGS, AO turns less significant with each year Djokovic wins one, Borg's Channel Slams became more significant once Djokovic equaled and surpassed his Slams count and so on...
So? Players will start getting tired at the end of the season regardless of what they have won during it. And it's not like Novak is the only one who gets to recharge his batteries, it's the same case for everyone else. He didn't benefit from the off season any more than the rest of the Tour.
