What's the one hole/stain in Djokovic's resume?

mike danny said:
True. But at 2014 USO in a way, he got one of the best draws. Exhausted Nishikori and his pigeon Cilic? That trophy really had Nole's name written all over it.
Click to expand...

no, it didn't. Cilic in that kind of form would've beat him. ( I know he hasn't won against Nole, but if there was any time he was going to beat Nole, that would be it )
 
swordtennis said:
For all those finals he needed to convert at least one more.
2013 needs to be in there. After re-watching that match recently if he just played with 2011 or 2015 level he could have won that in 4 or 5 sets. He totally gassed out in that 4th set.
Click to expand...

he wasn't gassed out in the 4th set in 2013. He faltered mentally after losing that 3rd set.
 
abmk said:
no, it didn't. Cilic in that kind of form would've beat him. ( I know he hasn't won against Nole, but if there was any time he was going to beat Nole, that would be it )
Click to expand...
Yea right. And I would have beaten Usain Bolt last year at the world championships
 
Cincinnati , calendar slam, lesser USO are not at all holes.

The only hole I would say is having only 1 major out of first 24 appearances and had to wait for Fedal to decline
 
Noleberic123 said:
Yea right. And I would have beaten Usain Bolt last year at the world championships
Click to expand...

yeah, because its the same. :rolleyes:

and you didn't have a certain stan wawrinka break not just a non-winning record, but a non-set winning record in a slam earlier that year ..

Cilic in GOATing form would be toast vs Novak in USO 14, got it !
 
tennisaddict said:
Cincinnati , calendar slam, lesser USO are not at all holes.

The only hole I would say is having only 1 major out of first 24 appearances and had to wait for Fedal to decline
Click to expand...

I would say all of Federer's wins over baby Djokovic and Murray should not be counted either.
Also lets get rid of Feds major final wins over opponents outside of Nadal Murray and Djokovic.
 
mike danny said:
Gonzalez was in the form of his life at the AO 2007. Still did not beat Fed.

No reason to believe Cilic would have beaten Novak.
Click to expand...

fed was close to his very best in AO 07 final ..

Djoko would need to be at USO 11 form to win vs that cilic and pretty slim chance that he'd do that in 14 ...
 
abmk said:
yeah, because its the same. :rolleyes:

and you didn't have a certain stan wawrinka break not just a non-winning record, but a non-set winning record in a slam earlier that year ..

Cilic in GOATing form would be toast vs Novak in USO 14, got it !
Click to expand...
Yes I have gotten a grip of reality unlike you. Theres no way Cilic would have beaten Novak in slam final. Maybe in a QF but not in a final.
 
There really isn't, it's similar to his tennis game :)

Anything you can think of is mitigated significantly.

The Weak Era thing isn't really worth addressing because the argument goes nowhere, and you can't blame Novak for his competition. You could argue that it has made him easier to win slams thus devaluing them, but that's really not the same thing as an on paper weakness. Of course, I don't subscribe to the Weak Era theory but that's a different argument for a different thread. Once people's careers are over, we tend to judge them by their acheivements (slams etc.) mainly anyway, especially if they are mutliple slam winners/all time greats.

Like you said Olympics is really only gaining steam now and well he certainly would love to win it (yes he cried in 2008 etc.), it's just not really what you could consider a stain, it would be more of in the category of "it would be great if he does it". Same with Cincinatti.

Some point out Nadal still leads the slam H2H 9-4, but that's significantly mitigated by the fact that ND leads the H2H overall, that the slam H2H is 3-3 off clay (advantage Nadal no doubt because clay IS a surface, but still) and that that ND does lead slam finals 3-2 off clay (again clay is a surface but the distribution of meetings matters). Some don't value H2H at all, but even if you do, I think it's clear the Djokodal one is a different dynamic from Fedal.

Others might say that Federer dominated both grass and hard equally and has arguably been the best ever at Wimbledon and US and respectively grass and fast hard. And maybe hard overall (although Novak can surpass him soon possibly there) And that Novak is only the best on slow hard, which is a less prestigious "new" surface, with the less prestigious Aussie Open as its Grand Slam. OTOH, these same people will often say overall acheivements (slam wins) is all that matters and that surface doesn't even matter anymore due to homogenization :D This is another criticism that I think even the haters don't really believe. And ND does have a good shot to be considered the best on hard overall with a couple more US Opens, even if he remains "only" the best at 1 slam (AO).

A final criticism I've heard is the AO heavy weighting of his slams (6 of 12); that's clearly superior to Nadal's FO heavy resume, but it is a bit less even than Fed (7 of 17 at W). Sometimes this criticism is combined with the "slam prestige" one; i.e. Novak would be better off having 1 of the other 3 slams as his "pet" one. Thing is, he has multiple slams at both Wimby and US and a chance to go for the "Double Career Slam" if he can win RG again. Some say this is a totally made up achievement, and I agree somewhat, however there is no achievement for slam distribution, so it's worth considering if you're going to also consider slam distribution imo. Ultimately, I think again that overall acheivements matter most, and that he's already done enough at multiple slams to render this criticism rather meaningless.

In the final analysis, he simply is in the process of developing an exceptionally well-rounded resume complete with plenty of time at number 1 both absolutely and consecutively, Masters on both hard and clay, YE 1, YEC, and of course slam wins. The only criticisms against him that could possibly hold weight when examined are general criticisms about the state of tennis (the aformentioned "Weak Era") and another one I've just remembered, the surface homogenization one. Both are the subject of countless debates here, but neither are reflective of a player's curriculum vitae, and I think are besides the point for the question you asked, although I'm sure many will mention it here nonetheless. :D

Yes, Novak has put together a glistening resume!
 
Noleberic123 said:
Yes I have gotten a grip of reality unlike you. Theres no way Cilic would have beaten Novak in slam final. Maybe in a QF but not in a final.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what someone like you would've said about del potro before USO 09 final ..
or about safin before USO 00 final ..
or wawrinka before AO 14 final ..
 
I like Cilic and he could have beaten Djokovic in the US Open 2014 forms they were in. Djokovic was struggling after that Wimbledon win marriage and child.
2015 Djokovic would have beaten Cilic 2014 in 4 sets.
 
abmk said:
yeah, because its the same. :rolleyes:

and you didn't have a certain stan wawrinka break not just a non-winning record, but a non-set winning record in a slam earlier that year ..

Cilic in GOATing form would be toast vs Novak in USO 14, got it !
Click to expand...
Is there any slam since 2011 that you think Djokovic would've gone on to win had he won just one more match abmk?
 
SLD76 said:
Its not Djokers.fault, but its still a fact


Djoker is in a position we have probably not ever.seen on the men's side.


The previous generation have been long gone, the final rep in Fed is now well past it.

He out lasted his main rival's , who either declined, or never quite measured up (nadal,.murray, and the also rans like Berdych, monfils, Tsonga, Gasquet, Ferrer etc)

The immediate generation after him is a complete non factor

And the generation after that is still a few years away.
Click to expand...

Those are just your opinion. They are not facts. Laver beat the player on the side of the net during 1969 season.

Other Facts: Fed has 17 slams, Nadal 14 and Novak 12 (including 4 in a row).

everything thing that you vomit is your own opinion. They are not facts.
 
125downthemiddle said:
There really isn't, it's similar to his tennis game :)

Anything you can think of is mitigated significantly.

The Weak Era thing isn't really worth addressing because the argument goes nowhere, and you can't blame Novak for his competition. You could argue that it has made him easier to win slams thus devaluing them, but that's really not the same thing as an on paper weakness. Of course, I don't subscribe to the Weak Era theory but that's a different argument for a different thread. Once people's careers are over, we tend to judge them by their acheivements (slams etc.) mainly anyway, especially if they are mutliple slam winners/all time greats.

Like you said Olympics is really only gaining steam now and well he certainly would love to win it (yes he cried in 2008 etc.), it's just not really what you could consider a stain, it would be more of in the category of "it would be great if he does it". Same with Cincinatti.

Some point out Nadal still leads the slam H2H 9-4, but that's significantly mitigated by the fact that ND leads the H2H overall, that the slam H2H is 3-3 off clay (advantage Nadal no doubt because clay IS a surface, but still) and that that ND does lead slam finals 3-2 off clay (again clay is a surface but the distribution of meetings matters). Some don't value H2H at all, but even if you do, I think it's clear the Djokodal one is a different dynamic from Fedal.

Others might say that Federer dominated both grass and hard equally and has arguably been the best ever at Wimbledon and US and respectively grass and fast hard. And maybe hard overall (although Novak can surpass him soon possibly there) And that Novak is only the best on slow hard, which is a less prestigious "new" surface, with the less prestigious Aussie Open as its Grand Slam. OTOH, these same people will often say overall acheivements (slam wins) is all that matters and that surface doesn't even matter anymore due to homogenization :D This is another criticism that I think even the haters don't really believe. And ND does have a good shot to be considered the best on hard overall with a couple more US Opens, even if he remains "only" the best at 1 slam (AO).

A final criticism I've heard is the AO heavy weighting of his slams (6 of 12); that's clearly superior to Nadal's FO heavy resume, but it is a bit less even than Fed (7 of 17 at W). Sometimes this criticism is combined with the "slam prestige" one; i.e. Novak would be better off having 1 of the other 3 slams as his "pet" one. Thing is, he has multiple slams at both Wimby and US and a chance to go for the "Double Career Slam" if he can win RG again. Some say this is a totally made up achievement, and I agree somewhat, however there is no achievement for slam distribution, so it's worth considering if you're going to also consider slam distribution imo. Ultimately, I think again that overall acheivements matter most, and that he's already done enough at multiple slams to render this criticism rather meaningless.

In the final analysis, he simply is in the process of developing an exceptionally well-rounded resume complete with plenty of time at number 1 both absolutely and consecutively, Masters on both hard and clay, YE 1, YEC, and of course slam wins. The only criticisms against him that could possibly hold weight when examined are general criticisms about the state of tennis (the aformentioned "Weak Era") and another one I've just remembered, the surface homogenization one. Both are the subject of countless debates here, but neither are reflective of a player's curriculum vitae, and I think are besides the point for the question you asked, although I'm sure many will mention it here nonetheless. :D

Yes, Novak has put together a glistening resume!
Click to expand...
Great post as usual 125! :)
 
Well at least djokovic has an 18-7 record against Nadal on hard courts compared to Fed's 7-9 against Nadal on hard courts.
 
125downthemiddle said:
There really isn't, it's similar to his tennis game :)

Anything you can think of is mitigated significantly.

The Weak Era thing isn't really worth addressing because the argument goes nowhere, and you can't blame Novak for his competition. You could argue that it has made him easier to win slams thus devaluing them, but that's really not the same thing as an on paper weakness. Of course, I don't subscribe to the Weak Era theory but that's a different argument for a different thread. Once people's careers are over, we tend to judge them by their acheivements (slams etc.) mainly anyway, especially if they are mutliple slam winners/all time greats.

Like you said Olympics is really only gaining steam now and well he certainly would love to win it (yes he cried in 2008 etc.), it's just not really what you could consider a stain, it would be more of in the category of "it would be great if he does it". Same with Cincinatti.

Some point out Nadal still leads the slam H2H 9-4, but that's significantly mitigated by the fact that ND leads the H2H overall, that the slam H2H is 3-3 off clay (advantage Nadal no doubt because clay IS a surface, but still) and that that ND does lead slam finals 3-2 off clay (again clay is a surface but the distribution of meetings matters). Some don't value H2H at all, but even if you do, I think it's clear the Djokodal one is a different dynamic from Fedal.

Others might say that Federer dominated both grass and hard equally and has arguably been the best ever at Wimbledon and US and respectively grass and fast hard. And maybe hard overall (although Novak can surpass him soon possibly there) And that Novak is only the best on slow hard, which is a less prestigious "new" surface, with the less prestigious Aussie Open as its Grand Slam. OTOH, these same people will often say overall acheivements (slam wins) is all that matters and that surface doesn't even matter anymore due to homogenization :D This is another criticism that I think even the haters don't really believe. And ND does have a good shot to be considered the best on hard overall with a couple more US Opens, even if he remains "only" the best at 1 slam (AO).

A final criticism I've heard is the AO heavy weighting of his slams (6 of 12); that's clearly superior to Nadal's FO heavy resume, but it is a bit less even than Fed (7 of 17 at W). Sometimes this criticism is combined with the "slam prestige" one; i.e. Novak would be better off having 1 of the other 3 slams as his "pet" one. Thing is, he has multiple slams at both Wimby and US and a chance to go for the "Double Career Slam" if he can win RG again. Some say this is a totally made up achievement, and I agree somewhat, however there is no achievement for slam distribution, so it's worth considering if you're going to also consider slam distribution imo. Ultimately, I think again that overall acheivements matter most, and that he's already done enough at multiple slams to render this criticism rather meaningless.

In the final analysis, he simply is in the process of developing an exceptionally well-rounded resume complete with plenty of time at number 1 both absolutely and consecutively, Masters on both hard and clay, YE 1, YEC, and of course slam wins. The only criticisms against him that could possibly hold weight when examined are general criticisms about the state of tennis (the aformentioned "Weak Era") and another one I've just remembered, the surface homogenization one. Both are the subject of countless debates here, but neither are reflective of a player's curriculum vitae, and I think are besides the point for the question you asked, although I'm sure many will mention it here nonetheless. :D

Yes, Novak has put together a glistening resume!
Click to expand...
You have too much time on your hands.
 
mattosgrant said:
I would say the biggest one would be his 2-4 U.S Open finals record. And if you are to point out reaching the finals is still better than not, I mainly agree, but such a great hard court player should have more than 2 U.S Open titles. He still has time to rectify that though.

He arguably should also have more than 1 French title already given the caliber of clay court player he is, but that too he has time to rectify.
Click to expand...
Agreed. It is really the only flaw in his resume, in my opinion. He should be right there with Federer, when it comes to hard court majors. He will probably catch up to (and even surpass) Roger's number of slams on hard courts, but the fact that he has "only" two USO titles is a hole in his resume. It will prevent him from becoming the best hard court player ever. He will have to "settle" for the title of the greatest slow hard court player.

I've often wondered about the reason why he hasn't been that successful in New York. I don't buy the speed of the surface argument totally. I just think that Novak centers his season around AO, Wimbledon, and from 2012 especially, RG. By the time the summer hard court season rolls around, his level of play drops somewhat, and that small drop off is enough for his rivals to pounce on the opportunity. Even in 2011, when he was at his absolute best, at least from the baseline, his level during the summer hard court swing wasn't as impressive.
Also, with the exception of last season, Djokovic looked to compensate for the USO failure by dominating the fall season.

So yeah, not winning more USO by now is a stain for Djokovic. You know you're a heck of a player when winning two USOs is considered to be an underachievement by many fans and tennis aficionados.
 
Elessar said:
Agreed. It is really the only flaw in his resume, in my opinion. He should be right there with Federer, when it comes to hard court majors. He will probably catch up to (and even surpass) Roger's number of slams on hard courts, but the fact that he has "only" two USO titles is a hole in his resume. It will prevent him from becoming the best hard court player ever. He will have to "settle" for the title of the greatest slow hard court player.

I've often wondered about the reason why he hasn't been that successful in New York. I don't buy the speed of the surface argument totally. I just think that Novak centers his season around AO, Wimbledon, and from 2012 especially, RG. By the time the summer hard court season rolls around, his level of play drops somewhat, and that small drop off is enough for his rivals to pounce on the opportunity. Even in 2011, when he was at his absolute best, at least from the baseline, his level during the summer hard court swing wasn't as impressive.
Also, with the exception of last season, Djokovic looked to compensate for the USO failure by dominating the fall season.

So yeah, not winning more USO by now is a stain for Djokovic. You know you're a heck of a player when winning two USOs is considered to be an underachievement by many fans and tennis aficionados.
Click to expand...
Out of interest, how many more USO titles do you think he'd need to win to be considered the greatest ever HC player?
 
Djokodal Fan said:
Those are just your opinion. They are not facts. Laver beat the player on the side of the net during 1969 season.

Other Facts: Fed has 17 slams, Nadal 14 and Novak 12 (including 4 in a row).

everything thing that you vomit is your own opinion. They are not facts.
Click to expand...

Its funny how facts bear out my opinion

How many people.not named fed, Djoker, nadal or murray have won slams since 2009?

3.

What does that tell us? Big 4 were super strong.

Well,.Fed's.last.stand was 2012
Rafa is all but done.

Murray peaked in 2012/13

Where are the young players to challenge the old guard like Djoker's and Fed's generation did???


Dont say Wawa, hes the same.generation along with Murray,.Djoker,.Rafa, Berdych, Tsonga, Gasquet etc.
 
Last edited:
Djokovic2011 said:
If you think about it, compared to every other tier 1 great of the Open Era, he doesn't really have one. Borg never won the USO, Sampras never won the French and was lacklustre on clay in general, Nadal never won the WTF and has a mediocre record indoors(not to mention one or two other things truth be told) and Federer's is obviously his poor H2H against Nadal. With Djokovic however, and especially now he's completed the Career Grand Slam, it's difficult to really pick one since he also has a winning H2H over all his main rivals and his resume as a whole looks so incredibly well balanced. I suppose some of you might say the Olympic gold medal but I'm not sure that's such a big deal given that it's only played once every four years and tennis as a sport has only been part of the event since the late 80s. I guess if I were really pushed to choose something it would be only winning one slam per season between 2012-14 since they were smack bang in the middle of his prime years but even that might be scraping the barrel considering it's a player's overall achievements that matter the most, not one specific time frame.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Djokovic Prime is 2015-16!
 
abmk said:
so ? its a different kind of HC. Yeah, I'm sure Nole thinks Miami is the same kind of HC as cincy, oh wait .. :oops:



are you reading what you are writing ?
Click to expand...
Orange flavoured Lollypops, strawberry flavoured Lollypops. They are both Lollypops to me.

And yes I am reading what I am writing
 
Oh for christ sakes this weak era nonsense again.
We could make all sorts of arguments as well.
Nadal: He was lucky as a 4 leaf clover his major h2h wins against fedovic were heavily clay skewed.
Fed: Lucky he did not face grown up nadal and Djokovic from day one.
yadda yadda yadda blah blah blah
The list goes on the circular arguments forever.
 
125downthemiddle said:
I spend less than 30 minutes here most days and all of it when I'm at work. You've made over 700 posts in a month; most of it very unintelligible. I think it was the well written words that bothered you :D
Click to expand...
A lot of posts get taken up writing the obvious "weak era" that the majority of Novak fans are oblivious to.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
Out of interest, how many more USO titles do you think he'd need to win to be considered the greatest ever HC player?
Click to expand...
At least two more. He can't have only 2 USOs and 6+ AOs. There has to be some balance to his resume. So yeah, 2 more US Open titles (and maybe 1 more AO) would do it for me.
 
metsman said:
LOL...cmon man you have to separate fast hard from slow hard. And Novak on fast hard is not GOAT tier.
Click to expand...
No he is better on slow HC. And if you have not realised Im not even taking anything seriously today. Everything I have said has been a DJOKE. Brate.
 
SLD76 said:
Its funny how facts bear out my opinion

How many people.not named fed, Djoker, nadal or murray have won slams since 2009?

3.

What does that tell us? Big 4 was were super strong.

Well,.Fed's.last.stand was 2012
Rafa is all but done.

Murray peaked in 2012/13

Where are the young players to challenge the old guard like Djoker's and Fed's did???


Dont say Wawa, hes the same.generation along with Murray,.Djoker,.Rafa, Berdych, Tsonga, Gasquet etc.
Click to expand...
The record books only care about your numbers though, not your competition.
 
I think if Novak wins 2 more US, he could be considered the best HC player ever. AT 4, he'd still be 1 short (and obviously lack the NA Masters wins to be considered solely the best fast HC player), but I think it would be close enough that you could combine the AO-IW-Miami and the Fall Swing and the much more balanced resume at that point and consider him the best ever on hard court overall. 3 would be borderline.
 
90's Clay said:
He doesn't have one.. The one hole he had he patched up (Up and down emotional bipolar swings).

Hes the most dominant player since Laver and Gonzales. I think that says it all
Click to expand...
End of 2010 Fed has 30 Quarters finals Novak has 36 and there are 2 majors left... Novak is aslo ahead in Semis age wise, You can make a case he is more consistent than Federer..
 
Elessar said:
At least two more. He can't have only 2 USOs and 6+ AOs. There has to be some balance to his resume. So yeah, 2 more US Open titles (and maybe 1 more AO) would do it for me.
Click to expand...
Hmm, not sure about 2 more myself but I respect your opinion. I do think he needs to win at least one more though and if he doesn't he'll only have himself to blame for the missed opportunities between 2012-14.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

beltsman
Hole in Federer Resume
2
Replies
83
Views
6K
mikeeeee
mikeeeee
ADuck
Is the Nadal a glaring hole in WTF's resume?
Replies
12
Views
659
ADuck
ADuck
C
Biggest hole in a players resume?
3 4 5
Replies
223
Views
12K
Deleted member 716271
D
T
  • Poll Poll
Biggest 'gaping' hole in their career
2
Replies
72
Views
7K
blarvitread
B
BrokenGears
Djokovic's legacy truly feels fully secured after that AO win over Sinner
2
Replies
80
Views
1K
SonnyT
S
Back
Top