Djokovic Era

[Riotbeard]

If Djokovic wins 4 slams and Nadal wins none, Novak would have 10 and Rafa 5. Do you agree that in this case 2011-2016 is Djokovic Era?

That's far too big an "if" for anyone to take seriously. Can you be a bit more realistic, and accept that most likely Rafa will win 3 majors over the next two seasons, and Nole 2 (max)?

I agree with the first sentence Kieran. No evidence to support your second sentence though. It's too hard to predict the next two year generally. If Rafa plays anything like 2014, he won't get three majors. I have no idea what Novak is going to do although I would bet on two majors more than that though is predicting something out of the ordinary.

 

[Kieran]

In fairness to Obsi, I like their thinking, and if the "If" happens, it's a great stretch of success by Novak. But barring 2011, it's a stretch to call these years Novak's era just yet.

Let the battles recommence in 2015, though! One thing I love about the tennis calendar is that we go straight into a slam at the beginning. Novak's best one, too. Vamos!

 

[Obsi]

Obsi, when, in the future, people will talk about this decade in tennis, most probably the name Djokovic will be the first mentioned, considering what we all expect he is still to achieve (as you say, more four majors in the next two years, for example).

That being said, the question you ask in the OP, as I am pretty sure people have stressed it before, is highly subjective. It is hard to see 2013-2014 as part of a Djokovic "era" given that he won so few in this period. Yes, I wrote "few", considering a standard that himself -- and Nadal and Federer -- created recently.

So if he wins 4+ slams in the next two years, yes, I could see 2011-2016 as a Djokovic era, but with a two years interlude in it. I guess most people here would agree with that.

Is 1996 part of Sampras Era?

That's far too big an "if" for anyone to take seriously. Can you be a bit more realistic, and accept that most likely Rafa will win 3 majors over the next two seasons, and Nole 2 (max)?

Nadal 3 and Djokovic 2? I strongly disagree that's the most likely scenario. I think Novak 3 and Rafa 1 is the probable outcome and Djokovic 4 and Nadal 0 is a reasonable prediction.

I'm way too busy getting calls from sport gamblers asking me about SuperBowl results, UEFA Champions League final, and the 8 players who will be participating in this year's WTF.

You have an inferiority complex.

 

[mrzz]

Is 1996 part of Sampras Era?

Yes, as Sampras has 14 majors to his name, he gets a break.

 

[Riotbeard]

Obsi, when, in the future, people will talk about this decade in tennis, most probably the name Djokovic will be the first mentioned, considering what we all expect he is still to achieve (as you say, more four majors in the next two years, for example).

That being said, the question you ask in the OP, as I am pretty sure people have stressed it before, is highly subjective. It is hard to see 2013-2014 as part of a Djokovic "era" given that he won so few in this period. Yes, I wrote "few", considering a standard that himself -- and Nadal and Federer -- created recently.

So if he wins 4+ slams in the next two years, yes, I could see 2011-2016 as a Djokovic era, but with a two years interlude in it. I guess most people here would agree with that.

Is 1996 part of Sampras Era?

That's far too big an "if" for anyone to take seriously. Can you be a bit more realistic, and accept that most likely Rafa will win 3 majors over the next two seasons, and Nole 2 (max)?

Nadal 3 and Djokovic 2? I strongly disagree that's the most likely scenario. I think Novak 3 and Rafa 1 is the probable outcome and Djokovic 4 and Nadal 0 is a reasonable prediction.

I'm way too busy getting calls from sport gamblers asking me about SuperBowl results, UEFA Champions League final, and the 8 players who will be participating in this year's WTF.

You have an inferiority complex.

I am a Djokovic Fan and dislike Rafa but Picking rafa to break streak of ten years in a row of winning at least a slam is not in any way reasonable, much less that he won't win any in the next two years... You are being delusional and fanboyish.

 

[Obsi]

Yes, as Sampras has 14 majors to his name, he gets a break.

You're applying double standard. If 2013 can not be part of Djokovic Era because he won only one slam neither 1996 can be part of Sampras Era.

I am a Djokovic Fan and dislike Rafa but Picking rafa to break streak of ten years in a row of winning at least a slam is not in any way reasonable, much less that he won't win any in the next two years... You are being delusional and fanboyish.

No player before Nadal has ever won at least one slam 9 seasons in a row let alone 10 so to say that he is due to have a slamless season is reasonable. And it's reasonable to forecast that he won't any slams in the next two years considering the fact that Rafa will turn 29 this year and that he is increasingly prone to injuries.

PS I do not forecast that Nadal won't any slams in 2015 and 2016. I think it's unlikely. I'm just saying that it's a reasonable prediction.

 

[mrzz]

Yes, as Sampras has 14 majors to his name, he gets a break.

You're applying double standard. If 2013 can not be part of Djokovic Era because he won only one slam neither 1996 can be part of Sampras Era.

[q

That's the idea of the "get a break" part.

And of course it is a double standard. It is a multi-standard, in fact, as I don't remember in which of the ten commandments the definition of "tennis era" is writen. For example, I could say that for me, in order to call a given period of time an "era", the supposed era owner could not have passed more than 4 majors without winning at least one (among other things). Sampras passes this test, Djokovic doesn't.

Anyway, I do NOT like this criterium, I am just using it as an example. All I am saying is that from 2011 AO to 2012 AO, Djokovic won 4 out 5 majors. From then onwards, 2 out of 11. If you can't see the difference bewteen those two periods, I give up.

Consider this: Assume Djokovic wins not 4, but 6 majors in the next two years... in this case, 2012, 2013 and 2014 would stand out clearly as "weaker years", wouldn't them?

Am I saying that it is a complete absurd what you proposed on your OP? Of course not. It is more than likely that people shall refer to those years (considering the possibility of 4 slams in 2015/16) as "Djokovic era". But some people may not. When you're winning 3 majors a year, there's no discussion. When you're winning "just" 1, there is. That's the point.

 

[herios]

I am pulling this thread I was not participate in back up, because I read an article by R. Koenig where he states that he eexpects Novak to dominate ATP Tour for the next 3 years:

http://www.sport24.co.za/Tennis/ATPTour/Koenig-expects-Djokovic-to-dominate-20150204

I am hoping he is right, I would be thrilled to see Novak ending his career with 13 slams

 

[brokenshoelace]

I am pulling this thread I was not participate in back up, because I read an article by R. Koenig where he states that he eexpects Novak to dominate ATP Tour for the next 3 years:

http://www.sport24.co.za/Tennis/ATPTour/Koenig-expects-Djokovic-to-dominate-20150204

I am hoping he is right, I would be thrilled to see Novak ending his career with 13 slams

Novak will be the best player on tour for the next 3 years, unless Murray can provide a serious challenge on the faster surfaces (Wimbledon, US Open), and he can. But other than that, yeah, I wouldn't be worried about anyone challenging his dominance unless Nadal somehow stays injury free and in form.

The real question then becomes, can he avoid upsets? Because while it's easy to see him being the best player in the world for the next couple of years, that doesn't necessarily mean "dominance." Case in point a year like 2012, where he reached 3 slam finals and one semi, but ended up with one slam anyway. He was still the best player in the world, just not necessarily "dominant."

 

[auto-pilot]

It will be fascinating to see if Djokovic can beat Nadal at a slam event during "the djokovic era".
Nadal has won their last 4 slam meetings, and the gap is widening (their last 2 slam meetings only went 4 sets).
I know 2013 was not "the djokovic era" because Nadal won 2 slams that year.
So did "the djokovic era" begin in 2014 or does it begin 2015?

 

[Riotbeard]

It will be fascinating to see if Djokovic can beat Nadal at a slam event during "the djokovic era".
Nadal has won their last 4 slam meetings, and the gap is widening (their last 2 slam meetings only went 4 sets).
I know 2013 was not "the djokovic era" because Nadal won 2 slams that year.
So did "the djokovic era" begin in 2014 or does it begin 2015?

This part of the discussion kind of took place over the last 10 pages of this thread. You will find few people actually calling the Djokovic era, including novak fans like myself.

 

[Riotbeard]

I am pulling this thread I was not participate in back up, because I read an article by R. Koenig where he states that he eexpects Novak to dominate ATP Tour for the next 3 years:

http://www.sport24.co.za/Tennis/ATPTour/Koenig-expects-Djokovic-to-dominate-20150204

I am hoping he is right, I would be thrilled to see Novak ending his career with 13 slams

Novak will be the best player on tour for the next 3 years, unless Murray can provide a serious challenge on the faster surfaces (Wimbledon, US Open), and he can. But other than that, yeah, I wouldn't be worried about anyone challenging his dominance unless Nadal somehow stays injury free and in form.

The real question then becomes is, can he avoid upsets? Because while it's easy to see him being the best player in the world for the next couple of years, that doesn't necessarily mean "dominance." Case in point a year like 2012, where he reached 3 slam finals and one semi, but ended up with one slam anyway. He was till the best player in the world, just not necessarily "dominant."

I enjoyed the article, because I like Robbie K., but I am not necessarily convinced. I am confident Novak will break double digits, probably even tie borg. I think if he went on a tear this year and grabbed 3 (unlikely but much easier now that he has 1), he could get an average of 2 a year, but Novak is getting older too, so 2 slams in 2017 seems a bit optomistic to me. If Nadal is really declining, and none of lesser-than generation steps up then maybe so. Truth is, outside of 2011, Novak only was getting one a year during his true physical peek. While he wasn't crushing it like nadal as a teen, Novak has been in the top 3 for 7 or 8 years. Time has to catch up in the next couple of seasons.

I also would rather be surprised that Novak won six over the next three years than disappointed he didn't

 

[El Dude]

2011-Present
Slams: Novak 7, Rafa 5, Andy Murray 2, Stan Wawrinka 1, Marin Cilic 1
Year-end #1: Novak 3, Rafa 1
World Tour Finals: Novak 3, Roger 1
Masters: Novak 15, Rafa 9, Roger 6, Andy 3
Total Titles: Novak 31, Rafa 21, Roger 17, Andy 15

Clearly Novak has the edge over Rafa. But a couple things to consider:

1. An "era" is a subjective time span. If we extend this to 2010 then we're going to see that gap not only narrowed but in some ways Rafa gets the edge (e.g. his Slam count goes up to 8, edging Novak's 7).
2. While I have argued that staying healthy is a skill and that we shouldn't use injury as an excuse, it does bear mentioning that Rafa has struggled over the last few years. When he's been healthy he's at least been Novak's equal, except in the case of 2011.

All that said, I would be surprised if Novak wasn't the top player for the next few years. As I've said before, I see something akin to the status quo--with gradual decline from Roger and Rafa (if in different ways)--for two or three years, and more and more upsets. Then, gradually but perhaps most clearly in 2018, the baton will be passed to the Kyrgios-Coric-Zverev-Kokkinakis generation, when those guys enter their primes.

To put that another way, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray will be entering what is historically the "rapid decline phase" of their early 30s at the same time the younger kids are entering the early prime years of their early 20s. As I wrote elsewhere, here is the age the various players turn in 2018:

Nadal 32, Djokovic 31, Murray 31
Nishikori 29, Raonic 28, Dimitrov 27, Thiem 25, Vesely 25
Kyrgios 23, Coric 22, Kokkinakis 22, Zverev 21

My guess is that those two factors, along with the late peaks of Nishikori-Raonic-Dimitrov, not to mention Vesely-Thiem, should see a tidal shift. Even if Novak and Andy (and perhaps even Rafa) maintain a high level into their 30s, tennis--all professional sports, really--is a game of inches, so just losing a bit and the younger players gaining a bit will see the shift happen.

2018 - mark your calendars! But that's several years away yet. Again, my prediction is that Novak remains the top dog for two or three more years with more upsets from non-Big Four players in the transitional period of 2015 to 2017.

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if 2015 is something of a "return to full dominance" by the Big Four, with them taking all the Slams and leading people to believe that last year was an aberration. But I think the gap will continue to narrow, and that by 2016 or 2017 we'll see a wider field. But the balance of power won't have fully shifted until 2018.

 

[auto-pilot]

The window on hardcourts is small because Nishikori, Cilic, Raonic and Dimitrov all prefer hardcourts.
Nishikori bagelled Djokovic at 2011 Basel and beat him at 2014 US Open, so Nishikori will probably win the US Open at some point; but if Nadal is healthy then Nadal is favorite at the US Open.
Australian Open whereas, the field is smaller it seems, maybe because some of the big names are traditionally not in-form in January.

 

[Front242]

Nadal is one of the favourites there for sure but not the favourite.

 

[Obsi]

It will be fascinating to see if Djokovic can beat Nadal at a slam event during "the djokovic era".

Djokovic beat Nadal in 2011 and 2012 in total 3 times.

Nadal has won their last 4 slam meetings, and the gap is widening (their last 2 slam meetings only went 4 sets).
I know 2013 was not "the djokovic era" because Nadal won 2 slams that year.
So did "the djokovic era" begin in 2014 or does it begin 2015?

The topic is period 2011-2016. If Novak wins another slam in 2015 and two more in 2016 while Nadal wins none, the total slam count would be as follows:

Djokovic 10
Nadal 5

Even if Nadal wins one slam this or next year, there would still be a big difference 10:6.

 

[Fiero425]

What is all this supposition for? Time isn't exactly draggin'! We'll be at the FO before you know it people! Relax! Give the tour some credit; Nole and Rafa aren't going to win everything! Get over yourselves! Shhheeshhhh!

 

[Kirijax]

IMO We've been in the Djokovic Era since 2011. Nadal has put up some resistance and had to play out of his mind to barely edge Novak for the YE No. 1 in 2013, but he's fading. Murray does not have what it takes to be No. 1 so we'll have to wait for a younger player to overthrow King Novak.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

This post is turning into a 'fan boy' post quite frankly,

Rafa is fading? not when he wears Fluro Pink Tee shirts he isn't

When Rafa doesn't make finals of tournaments,remember he has won 9 RG titles beginning in 2005,I was there live by the way,also many times after,he is the Greatest Clay Court Player Period,no that isn't a 'fan girl' statement by the way,that is Fact,getting back my original statement,if Rafa dosent make finals of tournaments,incuding Grand Slams finals,Then I will accept He Is Fading.

 

[Fiero425]

IMO We've been in the Djokovic Era since 2011. Nadal has put up some resistance and had to play out of his mind to barely edge Novak for the YE No. 1 in 2013, but he's fading. Murray does not have what it takes to be No. 1 so we'll have to wait for a younger player to overthrow King Novak.

Exactly; you covered it! Thanks! This is Nole's time and he had minor hiccups in '12 & '13, but he still ruled for the most part; ending YE #1 most of those years! Roger and Rafa filled a few empty holes! :angel: :dodgy: