Why is Djokovic the one getting ''punished'' for the one slam a year thing?

RF-18

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
Just a question. When you read on here, the argument people uses against him is this one slam a year thing since 2011. Basically he has won 5 straight seasons atleast one slam or more. Nadals 10 straight years are very impressive for some, but the streak djoko is going for is not, it's instead majoring in minors.

Nadal who has had 7 one slam seasons (6 of them came in RG), out of his 10 seasons since winning his first major (in 2005), seems to get a free pass to Hawaii.

I've asked this many times, but never got an answer. I'm not trying to start anything, wich I expect someone will say. But I just wanna know why Djokovic gets slaughtered for it.

Why is Nadals one slam years so ignored and has even got praised for it, while Djokovic's 5 straight slam years are not so impressive, or as some say, majoring in minors.

Thanks in advance.
 
Last edited:
Because watching Federer and Nadal has warped people's perception of what success is. More importantly, Nadal was always viewed as a clay-player first and a hardcourt and grass player second. That's why many afford him more leniency for years he won the French - it was the only clay slam available. Djokovic is a hard-court expert with 2 HC slams to collect. Clearly that he hasn't done so for more than 1 season is a big mark against his career.






jk. Djokovic being a slam champion for 5 seasons straight is an unbelievable accomplishment and regardless of what people here think, it is the result of world class tennis.
 
RF-18 said:
Just a question. When you read on here, the argument people uses against him is this one slam a year thing since 2011. Basically he has won 5 straight seasons atleast one slam or more. Nadals 10 straight years are very impressive for some, but the streak djoko is going for is not, it's instead majoring in minors.

Nadal who has had 7 one slam seasons (6 of them came in RG), out of his 10 seasons since winning his first major (in 2005), seems to get a free pass to Hawaii.

I've asked this many times, but never got an answer. I'm not trying to start anything, wich I expect someone will say. But I just wanna know why Djokovic gets slaughtered for it.

Why is Nadals one slam years so ignored, if Djokovic's 5 straight slam years are not so impressive, or as some say, majoring in minors.

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

Maybe because he already has 3 multislam seasons to his name?

On topic:
Because it's much more impressive and telling when you finish the season as #1 having won 2 or more GS.
 
1 slam year is not a bad year by all means. It is just Nadal has 3 multi slam years and Djokovic only has one so far. If he wins another (or more) this year all the criticism in this aspect will be shut up. I actually don't hear it that often.
 
It's because people always compare him to Federer and Nadal. And they both have more seasons than him winning more than 1 slam. I don't really here it that often either though....
 
It only comes up when people compare his seasons to those of Federer and Nadal.
 
vanioMan said:
Maybe because he already has 3 multislam seasons to his name?

On topic:
Because it's much more impressive and telling when you finish the season as #1 having won 2 or more GS.
Click to expand...

But Djokovic already has a multi slam year, and he won 3 that year. Why should that be ignored?

Still, that is not the point. Nadal has still over 50% one slam seasons.

While for Djokovic it's a problem.
 
Last edited:
Inanimate_object said:
Because watching Federer and Nadal has warped people's perception of what success is. More importantly, Nadal was always viewed as a clay-player first and a hardcourt and grass player second. That's why many afford him more leniency for years he won the French - it was the only clay slam available. Djokovic is a hard-court expert with 2 HC slams to collect. Clearly that he hasn't done so for more than 1 season is a big mark against his career.






jk. Djokovic being a slam champion for 5 seasons straight is an unbelievable accomplishment and regardless of what people here think, it is the result of world class tennis.
Click to expand...

This is true.

Djokovic is an amazing player, it is only next to Fedal's achievements that he looks lesser.
Thus comparing the two with Djokovic is silly.
 
The Green Mile said:
It's because people always compare him to Federer and Nadal. And they both have more seasons than him winning more than 1 slam. I don't really here it that often either though....
Click to expand...

Sirius Black said:
It only comes up when people compare his seasons to those of Federer and Nadal.
Click to expand...

This. There's nothing bad about it at all. It's mainly in response to hardcore Novak fans trying to say he's on Fedal level. For every action, there's an equal but opposite reaction. Delusion? Great..... but don't be mad when reality follows.
 
vanioMan said:
On topic:
Because it's much more impressive and telling when you finish the season as #1 having won 2 or more GS.
Click to expand...

That goes without saying but reaching at least one other slam final, winning the WTF as well as multiple Masters 1000s is also pretty impressive which I'm not sure Djokovic gets enough credit for.
 
MichaelNadal said:
This. There's nothing bad about it at all. It's mainly in response to hardcore Novak fans trying to say he's on Fedal level. For every action, there's an equal but opposite reaction. Delusion? Great..... but don't be mad when reality follows.
Click to expand...

What would Djokovic need to achieve for you to rate him on the same level as Fedal MN?
 
RF-18 said:
But Djokovic already has a multi slam year, and he won 3 that year. Why should that be ignored?

Still, that is not the point. Nadal has still over 50% one slam seasons.

While for Djokovic it's a problem.
Click to expand...

Do you have trouble with basic math?

Since Nadal won his first slam in 2005, he has won a slam for 10 straight years and in three of those years he has won more than one slam. So that is 30%.

Since Djokovic won his first slam in 2008, he had two slamless years and only one year where he won multiple slams. That is 1 out of 8 years where he won multiple slams in a year. That is 12%.

You are trying to tell me you don't see the difference?
 
moonballs said:
1 slam year is not a bad year by all means. It is just Nadal has 3 multi slam years and Djokovic only has one so far. If he wins another (or more) this year all the criticism in this aspect will be shut up. I actually don't hear it that often.
Click to expand...

It's amazing the difference one or two points can make in tennis. Had Djokovic taken one of those three break points in the 3rd set of their 2013 USO final, it's possible that both he and Nadal would be sitting on 2 multi-slam seasons now instead of Novak having just the one. Very tight margins indeed.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
It's amazing the difference one or two points can make in tennis. Had Djokovic taken one of those three break points in the 3rd set of their 2013 USO final, it's possible that both he and Nadal would be sitting on 2 multi-slam seasons now instead of Novak having just the one. Very tight margins indeed.
Click to expand...

If Rafa had finished off Novak in AO12, Rafa could be sitting on 4, very tight margins indeed.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
It's amazing the difference one or two points can make in tennis. Had Djokovic taken one of those three break points in the 3rd set of their 2013 USO final, it's possible that both he and Nadal would be sitting on 2 multi-slam seasons now instead of Novak having just the one. Very tight margins indeed.
Click to expand...

For the difference of one point at USO 2011, Djoko wouldn't have a USO title at all.

For the difference of one point at Rome 2006, tennis history could have been very different indeed.

Margins are fine.
 
Firstservingman said:
For the difference of one point at USO 2011, Djoko wouldn't have a USO title at all.

For the difference of one point at Rome 2006, tennis history could have been very different indeed.

Margins are fine.
Click to expand...

Djokovic would have still had a multi-slam season even if he'd not won the USO in 2011.
 
cc0509 said:
Do you have trouble with basic math?

Since Nadal won his first slam in 2005, he has won a slam for 10 straight years and in three of those years he has won more than one slam. So that is 30%.

Since Djokovic won his first slam in 2008, he had two slamless years and only one year where he won multiple slams. That is 1 out of 8 years where he won multiple slams in a year. That is 12%.

You are trying to tell me you don't see the difference?
Click to expand...

You are pulling my plonker now aren't you?

30% multi slam years yes, but the rest is one slam seasons, wich is 70% one slam seasons.

And I said he has had over 50% one slam season (more than half basically). Either your math is failing, or you have misunderstood me or Im just very tired.
 
RF-18 said:
You are pulling my plonker now aren't you?

30% multi slam years yes, but the rest is one slam seasons, wich is 70% one slam seasons.
And I said he has had over 50% one slam season (more than half basically). Either your math is failing, or you have misunderstood me or Im just very tired.
Click to expand...

But for Novak, if you count his two NO SLAM seasons since he won his first slam, that is 7 out of 8 seasons since he won his first slam where he went slamless or won ONE slam. That is 87.5%.

You can't win this one. Nadal has done better at the slams since he won his first slam than Novak has. That may change in the future. We'll see.
 
I don't think the one-slam trend should be used as a knock against Novak. I only take it into account when trying to project his total major haul.
 
One slam per season is one more than anyone else here won, combined.
I dont know how novak can live with himself. Dreadful life.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
It's amazing the difference one or two points can make in tennis. Had Djokovic taken one of those three break points in the 3rd set of their 2013 USO final, it's possible that both he and Nadal would be sitting on 2 multi-slam seasons now instead of Novak having just the one. Very tight margins indeed.
Click to expand...

"If doesn't exist in tennis."

A very good troll recently mentioned that to me.
 
cc0509 said:
Do you have trouble with basic math?

Since Nadal won his first slam in 2005, he has won a slam for 10 straight years and in three of those years he has won more than one slam. So that is 30%.

Since Djokovic won his first slam in 2008, he had two slamless years and only one year where he won multiple slams. That is 1 out of 8 years where he won multiple slams in a year. That is 12%.

You are trying to tell me you don't see the difference?
Click to expand...

Very trivial math does not contradict the OP that Djokovic is wrongfully attacked for having too many 1 slam season while Nadal has made most of his career off of successive 1 slam seasons. The principle is still the same, and still equally wrong. 1 slam a season for successive seasons is a world class achievement. And if we are to denigrate Djokovic for this, we must also take Nadal down a peg.
 
Inanimate_object said:
Very trivial math does not contradict the OP that Djokovic is wrongfully attacked for having too many 1 slam season while Nadal has made most of his career off of successive 1 slam seasons. The principle is still the same, and still equally wrong. 1 slam a season for successive seasons is a world class achievement. And if we are to denigrate Djokovic for this, we must also take Nadal down a peg.
Click to expand...

I look at it as him being criticized for having too few multi slam seasons. I don't personally care, Im ok with Novak's one slam seasons, perhaps I even prefer it.
 
BringBackSV said:
I look at it as him being criticized for having too few multi slam seasons. I don't personally care, Im ok with Novak's one slam seasons, perhaps I even prefer it.
Click to expand...

If you're a Nadal fan you should hate Novak only having one multi-slam season on his resume. It's actually a bit embarrassing that Nadal's been overtaken in weeks at #1 by a player who has two less multi-slam seasons than him.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
If you're a Nadal fan you should hate Novak only having one multi-slam season on his resume. It's actually a bit embarrassing that Nadal's been overtaken in weeks at #1 by a player who has two less multi-slam seasons than him.
Click to expand...

Weak era.

:)
 
Djokovic has more weeks #1 than Nadal, but still Nadal has almost double the number of slams! Why's that?

On the other hand, Nadal has THREE multiple slam seasons, but Nole only one. A clear connection, which can be shortened into one sentence: Majoring in minors!
 
Djokovic2011 said:
If you're a Nadal fan you should hate Novak only having one multi-slam season on his resume. It's actually a bit embarrassing that Nadal's been overtaken in weeks at #1 by a player who has two less multi-slam seasons than him.
Click to expand...

You seem very keen on trying to antagonize Nadal's fanbase. Don't see why that's necessary.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
If you're a Nadal fan you should hate Novak only having one multi-slam season on his resume. It's actually a bit embarrassing that Nadal's been overtaken in weeks at #1 by a player who has two less multi-slam seasons than him.
Click to expand...

Im hoping Rafa gets the majority of the slams over the next few years, Novak can have the WTF, majority of the masters 1000s and weeks at number.
 
At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is total # of slam titles. 8 is actually quite good. Most after Fedal, Sampras and Borg. Nothing to be ashamed of.
 
BringBackSV said:
Im hoping Rafa gets the majority of the slams over the next few years, Novak can have the WTF, majority of the masters 1000s and weeks at number.
Click to expand...

If he gets the majority of slams with no more weeks at #1 it will look very strange on his resume. And Novak having all the WTFs, Masters 1000s and weeks/YE#1 on his resume would look super impressive for a lower tier player. You'd better believe it.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
If he gets the majority of slams with no more weeks at #1 it will look very strange on his resume. And Novak having all the WTFs, Masters 1000s and weeks/YE#1 on his resume would look super impressive for a lower tier player. You'd better believe it.
Click to expand...

It won't look strange at all, the schedule is HC loaded and his best surface is clay. Rafa should just focus on Slams, while Novak can major in minors.
 
BringBackSV said:
It won't look strange at all, the schedule is HC loaded and his best surface is clay. Rafa should just focus on Slams, while Novak can major in minors.
Click to expand...

If you think anything less than a slam is a minor tournament I really don't know what to tell you. The amount of stupidity I read on this forum is truly astounding at times. And I'd bet my house on it that if Nole did end up winning all those "minor" tournaments you'd be seething inside. Don't deny it either.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
If he gets the majority of slams with no more weeks at #1 it will look very strange on his resume. And Novak having all the WTFs, Masters 1000s and weeks/YE#1 on his resume would look super impressive for a lower tier player. You'd better believe it.
Click to expand...

Not really.
It's dem slams which matter. :)

It would look bad for Novak if he was dominant #1 and he still couldn't stop declined Rafa over the next couple of years.

But it isn't going to happen.

But as I said the other day, Federer has put down his hand and it's 17.
Rafa may still be working on his, but right now, 14 is down on the table.

Novak might have lots of minor cards, but he's going to have to match these guys now before it goes to a bonus round where we look at those.

To be Tier 1, you major in #majors.
 
Lol, I find it kinda strange how much emphasis people on here put on just 4 tournaments every year. I've been watching tennis for over twenty years and I've always enjoyed watching lots of different tournaments on all surfaces throughout the year. Different strokes for different folks I guess.
 
Firstservingman said:
Not really.
It's dem slams which matter. :)

It would look bad for Novak if he was dominant #1 and he still couldn't stop declined Rafa over the next couple of years.

But it isn't going to happen.

But as I said the other day, Federer has put down his hand and it's 17.
Rafa may still be working on his, but right now, 14 is down on the table.

Novak might have lots of minor cards, but he's going to have to match these guys now before it goes to a bonus round where we look at those.

To be Tier 1, you major in #majors.
Click to expand...

If Djokovic can't stop Nadal in the next couple of years, it will obviously show that he hasn't declined as much as people first thought.
 
It's all about the 5 majors.

Nadal has 14 of them and Djokovic 12.

It's close.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
If you think anything less than a slam is a minor tournament I really don't know what to tell you. The amount of stupidity I read on this forum is truly astounding at times. And I'd bet my house on it that if Nole did end up winning all those "minor" tournaments you'd be seething inside. Don't deny it either.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Ive got no issue with Novak winning minors or majors. Id just rather Rafa be the one getting the majors.
 
I see tennis as being about two main things: the majors and being the best player in the world.

Djokovic is far behind Nadal in one metric but is probably going to be miles ahead in the other.

Said it before and will say it again: Djokovic's ticket to all-time greatness isn't so much records in the majors, but potential #1 records.
 
BringBackSV said:
What are you talking about? Ive got no issue with Novak winning minors or majors. Id just rather Rafa be the one getting the majors.
Click to expand...

Fair enough although you do come across as a bit of a Djokovic hater at times. Just remember that he's out there doing a job he loves, not attempting to start a war in the Middle East.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Djokodalerer31
  • Poll Poll
What do you think is more impressive in tennis?
Replies
4
Views
648
Deleted member 733170
D
roysid
One thing is certain: Right now Federer and Nadal are the two greatest male players of all time
Replies
28
Views
2K
vex
vex
Entername
Objectively speaking, is Zverev the most accomplished player without a major?
2
Replies
71
Views
5K
King No1e
King No1e
M
More Impressive - one slam a year for 9 consecutive years or least 2 for 4 straight
Replies
18
Views
2K
Phoenix1983
Phoenix1983
Mainad
The USO is the one Slam Wozniacki wants to win
Replies
7
Views
1K
Mainad
Mainad
Back
Top