Why is Djokovic the one getting ''punished'' for the one slam a year thing?
- Thread starter RF-18
- Start date
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
Dubai 2015 final was more than sufficient. :lol:
But it's not Djokovic losing that's good, it's Fedal winning.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
I love seeing Fed slice and dice him like a tomato, I must say. Shanghai was orgasmic 
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
I love seeing Fed slice and dice him like a tomato, I must say. Shanghai was orgasmic
You're telling me.
He's become craftier with age, even though he has declined sharply in terms of physicality.
On the right surface, he can still leave the "dominant #1" in ruins.
Sadly, his physical fragility means that can't happen on slower surfaces any more.
I think if Rafa overcomes his doubts, he should be able to perform his trademark struggles and keep RG, too.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Things like this are why I came to appreciate him over the years. Obviously I couldn't stand him when he was losing 5 matches a year, it was just too much, but when he has those days where he brings all that variety, he's just amazing to watch. Federer from the baseline isn't all that exciting for me, but matches like Shanghai?
#SoMuchWow
I'm bored at work, time for some highlights and popcorn. (and yes, there's really popcorn here).
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
Can't say I was a fan of the Annacone tactics either.
I used to dislike Nadal, but the last couple of years I've come to quite like him.
The battles which he seems to enjoy, and the fire.
Afraid of nothing, a competitor to the bitter end.
You have a good workplace. :lol:
DerekNoleFam1
Hall of Fame
It is a common argument seen, even comments on ATP and other articles etc, ie that he is a "one season wonder".
In a way, even as a devout NoleFam member, it is something that has held him back, as 2 out of his 3 YE#1's with only 1 Slam is not exactly dominance.
With a bit of luck at least 1 of the last 3 years could have 2 Slams, but that does not change the history book scoreboards.
Most other greats did have more than 1 year with >1 Major, so no doubt it is something Novak is aware of, and is something that will be addressed this year - and will silence his critics for good.
In a way, even as a devout NoleFam member, it is something that has held him back, as 2 out of his 3 YE#1's with only 1 Slam is not exactly dominance.
With a bit of luck at least 1 of the last 3 years could have 2 Slams, but that does not change the history book scoreboards.
Most other greats did have more than 1 year with >1 Major, so no doubt it is something Novak is aware of, and is something that will be addressed this year - and will silence his critics for good.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
I find confident Nadal on HC the most fun to watch. Montreal, Cincy, USO 2013 are perfect examples. I can watch him all day when he's playing like that. Same with his peak form on grass.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOnRzSTXSPA
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
The AO 2009 F is my favourite Nadal match, even though I was (and am) gutted by the result.
Djokovic would have lost that 3:0 to either player IMO and I'm not joking.
Both of them were in absolutely scary form.
Also I loved Montreal 2013.
My favourite non-Federer Masters match.
It was glorious from start to finish.
Last edited by a moderator:
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Yeah AO 2009 is just ridiculous tennis. My only critique is that Nadal was still too defensive back then, (not that it wasn't amazing 
) but he shouldn't have had to work that hard.
) but he shouldn't have had to work that hard.
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
Yeah AO 2009 is just ridiculous tennis. My only critique is that Nadal was still too defensive back then, (not that it wasn't amazing
Working hard has always turned out pretty well for Nadal.
Also about your sig, who is the Seth Rollins of tennis?
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Working hard has always turned out pretty well for Nadal.
Also about your sig, who is the Seth Rollins of tennis?
Kyrgios is the first name that popped into my head, so I'll go with that
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
"The Future of the WW... of TENNIS."Kyrgios is the first name that popped into my head, so I'll go with that
I think its because the general feeling is that he should have won more over the past 3 years. He's been the consensus bestplayer since his dominant run in 2011, but he has failed to dominate the slams accordingly.
The other factor is pretty simple - if you want to compare someone to Federer and Nadal, then that is the standard they are going to be judged by. You mention Nadal's numerous one-slam years, but fail to mention that he's had three seasons of 2 or more. Federer has 5 seasons of 2 or more.
Last edited:
SpinToWin
Talk Tennis Guru
This answer is given in response to Djokovic fans speaking of dominance, which quite frankly is not the case from 2012-2014, mainly due to his relative poor results at slams.
The less Djokovic fans try to push Djokovic onto levels he has not reached, the more time we have to appreciate him for what he has actually achieved.
The less Djokovic fans try to push Djokovic onto levels he has not reached, the more time we have to appreciate him for what he has actually achieved.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Boom. Exactly what I was saying. They're so hype, just relax! Jeeze.
maratha_warrior
Hall of Fame
Firstly ,remove the djokovic mask from your face and wear the real one ...
Your idol has been resting all year to add +1 at the coming french open ,and get closer to 17 .. All the best to Him .
Meanwhile djokovic has been fighting at all tournaments ,following rules, for past 4 years and will again stand across the net at coming french open versus nadal like all these years ...
Win or lose ,he has earned respect..
At every masters 1000 or slams or wtf , you need to defeat djokovic to win the trophy , Only federer has had such consistency in 03-07..
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
No one is whining about it. They are throwing it in your face, which is what fanboys do!
It's just like 23/10. No one whines about that record. It is what Nadal fanboys post to tick off Fed fanboys. Fed fans don't whine about it because they don't even want to bring it up.
It's just about one group throwing feces at another.
To me it is very clear that Novak is still the third best player from around 2000 on, but he is closing the gap every year. He is clearly the best player now. He has mostly been the best since 2011. He needs to extend that a few more years, and he has to fend off the newcomers. Fed slowed down around age 26, but he won two more slams close to age 28 (as Novak is now) and then two more later. If Novak is on track to do the same, he has 3 slams coming and will reach 11. There is no reason to assume he can't do that.
You Novak fans need to be patient. What we think now doesn't matter. We never know until the end of careers where the end line will be.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
1. Ever heard of humor?
2. I don't have an idol, I have a life
3. I think everyone respects Novak, he earned it years ago.
4. Have several seats boo boo \_ \_ \_ \_
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
That is absolutely true.
When Fed plays Novak, I pull for Fed.
When Nadal plays Novak, I pull for Nadal.
When Nadal plays Fed, it's very unpleasant. I don't enjoy the match.
So Novak is always in the way of the two players I enjoy watching most getting slams.
But against any other aggressive player I pull for Novak, because I think he is the most solid player of this era, and I like him. I also never feel good when he loses, same thing. I like the man.
And I do think he has had a hard time, living so long in the Fedal shadow.
The Green Mile
Bionic Poster
Really? I wonder how common that is? When your two favourite players face off? Personally, I love it when Federer and Simon do battle.
gregor.b
Professional
Because, on average, he is easily the best player going around now, as he has been for the last couple of years. He should be cashing in on the Majors to create his own legacy, not worry about the smaller tourneys so much. He already knows he can win them at will.
This is more like insecure Murray fanbois like JRAJ, who believes people aren't including Murray in same league of Big 3 and criticise him after every embarrassing loss expecting him to perform as good and consistent as Big 3, are unfairly bashing/punishing him.
Fact is you Fanbois are rating your idols very high without having that level achievements to talk about. Start rating them, where they truly deserve now, have a patience. Nobody will bash them.
Fact is you Fanbois are rating your idols very high without having that level achievements to talk about. Start rating them, where they truly deserve now, have a patience. Nobody will bash them.
I love seeing Fed slice and dice him like a tomato, I must say. Shanghai was orgasmic
Yes, I remember your comments in match thread. :lol:
I think it you were Federer on Topspin that night.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
This, I think a lot of us are just tired of all the things the Novak fans on here are spouting, not Novak himself.
Good memory :lol:
Cortana
Legend
The only reason why Djokovic isn't Tier 1 yet is because he lost so many US Open finals. He should have at least 3 titles there if you are looking at his playing level. That would mean that he would have 10 GS titles by now and 2-3 multi slam seasons.
But he can change it this year. Hopefully he wins RG and USO.
But he can change it this year. Hopefully he wins RG and USO.
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
You're confusing things. Nadal's streak is an incredible feat in itself. Djokovic is not being compared to Nadal in this regard.
Djokovic fans have posted some incredibly bullish predictions for his career-end title haul. When discussing these predictions, one can't help but take into consideration the pace of Djokovic's title haul during his peak years. This is where the scrutiny may be unnerving for those making the predictions. It's not malicious, just realistic. Nadal and Djokovic are apples and pears.
eldanger25
Hall of Fame
Yes, I think this is spot on. I'll add that Djokovic is the only 3x or more Open Era Player of the Year with just a single multi-slam season, so the critique is more pointed because in many ways he's clearly past the group of greats with 0 or 1 multislam seasons to their names (Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Wilander). Meanwhile, on the top end of the spectrum, you have:
Federer - 5x PoY, 5x multislam season (astounding)
Sampras - 6x PoY, 4x multislam season
Borg - 3x (or 4x, depending on where you stand on 1977) PoY, 3x multislam season
Nadal - 3x PoY, 3x multislam season
Connors - 3x PoY, 2x multislam season
McEnroe - 3x PoY, 2x multislam season
Lendl - 3x PoY, 2x multislam season
Djokovic - 3x PoY, 1x multislam season
I think he'll win one more (at least) this year though, and that'll be that.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
That is not the point for christ sake. Stop coming up with your own stories and read the OP.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
This is it exactly. That's what I'm trying to get at.
DerekNoleFam1
Hall of Fame
He has been substandard at the USO and the whole summer USO summer series in recent times.
But, taking nothing away from Kei, this was a golden opportunity that went begging. Marian Vajda (who was not in NY) stated that he was mentally "not there" last year - that is inexcusable. (and I am a huge Novak fan).
Was only watching his post-match AO interview in it's entirety yesterday, he seemed determined in his role as a family man to go better this year. That is a good sign of things to come, and no let downs.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Good poasts, illustrates my feelings on this perfectly.
There's nothing wrong with having a 1 slam YE #1, it's not uncommon. However when some like to regard Novak as the 3rd best of all time it rightly draws some ridicule.
eliars
Hall of Fame
What's obvious is the metrics of judging the greatness of a player are not static. Since the inauguration of the Open Era the four slams of today, weren't the most important; without being a tennis historian, it's safe to say that Australian Open previously had significantly less worth than WCT for example, since Connors, Borg, McEnroe hardly ever played it in the 70s/80s.
Today it's one of the four most important tournaments and you don't see top players skipping it, unless they're injured.
Yet today we're still using the slam metric to determine the greatness of the past. I know there are fans out there, who still take the inflation of slams into consideration when commemorating the past greats, but even those seem to be biased to number of slams won.
People are to a lesser degree also putting a lot of stock on the number #1 ranking. Personally I will never consider it an important metric, as it's just a way of showing who the most consistent player is in a calendar year and not a metric that necessarily shows who rises up to the big occasions. And the big occasions are the tennis tournaments that in a certain frame of time, are considered the most important by the tennis sport itself (governing body, players, fans).
This is not a way of defending the Djokovic fans' here, since Djokovic is well aware that the metrics of tennis have changed and the most important tournaments in his era have been the four slams. And from a personal point of view I'd much rather be the Lin Dan of tennis than the Lee Chong Wei of tennis.
The question is which metrics the future will use to determine the greatness of this current, then past, male tennis era.
Today it's one of the four most important tournaments and you don't see top players skipping it, unless they're injured.
Yet today we're still using the slam metric to determine the greatness of the past. I know there are fans out there, who still take the inflation of slams into consideration when commemorating the past greats, but even those seem to be biased to number of slams won.
People are to a lesser degree also putting a lot of stock on the number #1 ranking. Personally I will never consider it an important metric, as it's just a way of showing who the most consistent player is in a calendar year and not a metric that necessarily shows who rises up to the big occasions. And the big occasions are the tennis tournaments that in a certain frame of time, are considered the most important by the tennis sport itself (governing body, players, fans).
This is not a way of defending the Djokovic fans' here, since Djokovic is well aware that the metrics of tennis have changed and the most important tournaments in his era have been the four slams. And from a personal point of view I'd much rather be the Lin Dan of tennis than the Lee Chong Wei of tennis.
The question is which metrics the future will use to determine the greatness of this current, then past, male tennis era.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
#1 is a hugely important metric. It tells us how long players were the best in the world for. Among the confusion of Slams, Pro Majors, Pro Player Tours and everything else, the one thing that remains consistent from era to era is the value in being the best and proving it for a long period of time.
The #1 rank is actually the most reliable method of determining who the greatest players are.. it runs into less problems than counting by "Slam events".
It may not be as accurate as determining every single "Slam equivalent" in the history of tennis, but honestly it probably isn't far away.
It allows us to appreciate that Gonzales and Laver probably are slightly greater than Rosewall, although they won less majors (no Wimbledon for Ken).
The #1 rank is actually the most reliable method of determining who the greatest players are.. it runs into less problems than counting by "Slam events".
It may not be as accurate as determining every single "Slam equivalent" in the history of tennis, but honestly it probably isn't far away.
It allows us to appreciate that Gonzales and Laver probably are slightly greater than Rosewall, although they won less majors (no Wimbledon for Ken).
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
Definitely agree with this, although I still rate slams as being the most important stat for sure.
142 is incredible.
302 is out of sight.
Djokovic could take the record if he has another three or so years at #1.
Feasible, you think?
eliars
Hall of Fame
Being #1 is a matter of collecting points throughout a calendar year. In a calendar year you can potentially be #1 without having won the most important tournaments. It's a metric of stability and consistency. That, to me, is not a way of determining greatness. Winning tournaments is (the important ones).
Of course there will almost always be a correlation between winning the most (and most important) tournaments and gaining the #1, but there are certainly exceptions (i.e. Wozniacki in 2010), which is why I don't think you can use the #1 ranking to determine greatness.
Of course there will almost always be a correlation between winning the most (and most important) tournaments and gaining the #1, but there are certainly exceptions (i.e. Wozniacki in 2010), which is why I don't think you can use the #1 ranking to determine greatness.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Honestly as long as he remains motivated, it probably is a possibility, but he'd still be lagging behind in majors won. Both are important. We are just in a hugely Slam-centric era right now. It might not always be like this, but majors (not Slams, but all majors) have always been very important.
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
Money was more important than ranking points for a significant part of the Open Era so going for YE #1 alone is the lazy and inaccurate route. Looking at the individual tournaments and judging their standings, with regard to the players' preference, is the way to go, imo.
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Winning tournaments here means winning Slams. That is already exceptionally complicated. After that, it's about winning the next tier of tournaments such as the YEC's or the 1000's, at which point things become almost impossible.
Being the best player in the world is important. Nobody is going to be the best player in the world for maybe 8 years (Pancho Gonzales) and not win a bunch of hugely important and prestigious tournaments, and yet we know him to have only won 2 "Slam" events. Two.
Being #1 is a representation of greatness. Theoretically it can coincide with being outdone by somebody who is lower ranked in the men's game but when is the last time that happened...
It's a reliable indicator.
To be the best player over the course of a season is a huge achievement.
This is the most respectable list I've found for determining the best player of each year:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_number_1_male_tennis_player_rankings
Last edited by a moderator:
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
eliars
Hall of Fame
Players' preferences are indeed important, but there being a causality between the organization's valuation of tournaments and the players' valuation of tournaments, need not be overlooked.
This we agree on.
I think it's more reliable, for comparing players, to look at the most important tournaments won and add them up.
There are a number of examples where the achievement of winning the most important tournaments trumps the achievement of having more weeks at number one:
Bjorn Borg is by the general public and most tennis experts considered to be greater than McEnroe, Connors and Lendl even though they are ahead in weeks at number #1.
The same can be said of Agassi over Connors. Nadal over Djokovic.
Last edited:
eliars
Hall of Fame
There are many outliers. Look at above post and or the link NN posted.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
This is to do with his dominance more than him arguably winning more Majors than the others. Rosewall as compared to Gonzales and Laver is a counter example. Typically, dominance is valued over longevity.
Also, going by the wiki list (it's pretty much agreed that computer rankings in some years was bogus) Borg has 4 YE#1. His retirement throws a wrench in the system of #1 or winning Majors because it opened up the field.. or maybe he'd have been considered the best player in the world for 5/6/7 years.
NatF
Bionic Poster
I'm not completely sold on all of those entries but in general that is a far far better account than the usual rankings cited on here.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Typically yes it's a good indicator but even if in outliers I'm not going to suddenly not care about #1. Djokovic was clearly the #1 in 2012 and 2014 yet only won 1 Slam in each year. OK, they were not dominant years and he is punished for that (in that we'd speak more glowingly about him if they were multi-slam years) but it takes nothing—nothing—away from his being the best of the bunch in both those years. It's a huge two feathers in the cap for Djokovic. I rate 2012 as the strongest year in recent history, and Djokovic won the war in that year. Only looking at big titles is dishonest. Djokovic was rightly rewarded for his more consistent superiority throughout the year. The #1 rank tells us more than just who won the biggest titles and offers the rightful respect to the rest of the tour that exists behind the "Majors".. rather than treating them as invisible and irrelevant. In 2012, Djokovic won a Major AND was the best player in the world.
Yes. I seem to remember some thread in TT where Rosewall was given 4-5 or so arguable years at #1 but an awful lot of historians who were offered leading questions by Laverlickers managed to—over the course of years—whittle down Rosewall at the expense of maximising Laver. So it's hard to know what to believe.
You should send me a visitor message with the titles of all the books you've read so far, so I can follow suit. Or just do it here or in the thread I made in FPPT about good books.
Last edited by a moderator:
eliars
Hall of Fame
Him winning 11 Slams and doing the channel Slam 3 years in a row is what puts him above the rest, imo.
But that's exactly the point why the #1 ranking shouldn't be used to measure greatness. It's a system, that is based on collecting points, not winning actual tournaments.
Similar threads
