Djokovic Era

[Kieran]

You are the best Kieran:ras:, but quit acting like rafa should get bonus points for not being fit enough to play all the slams.

The thread isn't about Rafa.

The point I'm making is, there's no way this is a Djokovic era, since he hasn't been the main collector of slam titles through the last 3 years. I'm not looking for any bonus points for Rafa, I'm just pointing out an obvious detail...

You're using an arbitrary cut-off of 3 years, just as including 2011 is an arbitrary cut-off. But again, Obsi - the original poster was talking about 2011-16 as a possible Novak Era. So let's honor the original poster and use their arbitrariness rather than our own!

I gave the stats up-thread that support the idea that Novak has the edge over Rafa during those 4 years. As for 2015-16, we'll know more in two years. But if, say, Novaks 3 more and Rafa only 1 to give Novak the 9-6 edge, then I think you can make a valid argument that 2011-16 is the "Era of Novak."

I liked Obsi's post and it opened up a great chat about this. It gets arbitrary selecting what qualifies for an era, doesn't it? So by this system, it could turn out that 2011-2016 is argued eventually as the Novak era - and 2010-2014 gets argued the Nadal era.

But I don't think either of them have owned these years. Maybe single years, but not dominantly across the years in significant numbers. It's most likely the Rafa-Novak Era, which has followed hot on the heels of Fedal...

 

[Riotbeard]

The thread isn't about Rafa.

The point I'm making is, there's no way this is a Djokovic era, since he hasn't been the main collector of slam titles through the last 3 years. I'm not looking for any bonus points for Rafa, I'm just pointing out an obvious detail...

You're using an arbitrary cut-off of 3 years, just as including 2011 is an arbitrary cut-off. But again, Obsi - the original poster was talking about 2011-16 as a possible Novak Era. So let's honor the original poster and use their arbitrariness rather than our own!

I gave the stats up-thread that support the idea that Novak has the edge over Rafa during those 4 years. As for 2015-16, we'll know more in two years. But if, say, Novaks 3 more and Rafa only 1 to give Novak the 9-6 edge, then I think you can make a valid argument that 2011-16 is the "Era of Novak."

I liked Obsi's post and it opened up a great chat about this. It gets arbitrary selecting what qualifies for an era, doesn't it? So by this system, it could turn out that 2011-2016 is argued eventually as the Novak era - and 2010-2014 gets argued the Nadal era.

But I don't think either of them have owned these years. Maybe single years, but not dominantly across the years in significant numbers. It's most likely the Rafa-Novak Era, which has followed hot on the heels of Fedal...

Even using the 2011 as the cutoff, I agree with you that this is a shared era, no matter how you slice it, but I think bringing up the injury card doesn't enhance rafa's years or record. Novak had one truly dominant year, and rafa had a big year, and then novak has twice been the lead player in years where no one was dominent.

 

[El Dude]

I liked Obsi's post and it opened up a great chat about this. It gets arbitrary selecting what qualifies for an era, doesn't it? So by this system, it could turn out that 2011-2016 is argued eventually as the Novak era - and 2010-2014 gets argued the Nadal era.

But I don't think either of them have owned these years. Maybe single years, but not dominantly across the years in significant numbers. It's most likely the Rafa-Novak Era, which has followed hot on the heels of Fedal...

Well there never or rarely ever is just one single dominant player, beyond a year or two. In all of my ranking systems, I deliberately like to include second place and runner's up because it doesn't seem right to give full credit to the winner of, say, a Slam, but none to the loser in the final - who might have lost just by the hair of his chinny-chin-chin. The same with #2 in the rankings - sometimes it is very close.

But yeah, I like 2010-14+ as being the Rafa-Novak Era, with 2008-09 being Fedal, and 2004-07 being the Federer Era. Rafa was a solid #2 for three-quarters of the Federer Era, but Roger was just so damn dominant that he deserves to be the sole "named partner."

 

[Front242]

Call 2011-2014+ the Rafa and Novak era by all means but by no means was 2014 part of the Nadal era as a solo year seeing as he wasn't even playing for quite a few months. An era on the sofa or what? And even then, Roger's 2012 was pretty damn good so he munched up quite a bit of that section of their combined era for one year even when over the hill. Not bad. Maybe leave out 2012 from the Rafa/Novak era on 2nd thoughts.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Call 2011-2014+ the Rafa and Novak era by all means but by no means was 2014 part of the Nadal era as a solo year seeing as he wasn't even playing for quite a few months. An era on the sofa or what? And even then, Roger's 2012 was pretty damn good so he munched up quite a bit of that section of their combined era for one year even when over the hill. Not bad. Maybe leave out 2012 from the Rafa/Novak era on 2nd thoughts.

2012 For Djokovic and Rafa:

For Novak: 4 major finals. 1 major win. For Rafa: 2 major finals. 1 major win. They even played a major final against each other.

2014 for Djokovic and Rafa:

For Novak: A major win. A major final. For Rafa: despite "being on the couch" A major final. A major win. One major final played against each other.

Both years are easily included in the Nadovic era. Especially in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Billie]

I read a follow up interview with uncle Toni. He says: don't be ridiculous, I never said that Novak or the great Roger are better than Rafa. When it comes to clay, there is only one King of Clay. I just talked about other minor tournaments like some on grass or hard courts, there they are better than Rafa, but he will be back next year and we will see then, no?

Direct quote from him.


* Don't bother searching for the link of this quote.

 

[Billie]

How many FOs did Federer win in his era of 2004-2007? If we call something an era, isn't it supposed to mean that that particular player won pretty much everything on any surface?uzzled

 

[GameSetAndMath]

In terms of what I'll call the Cali-call, people often speak of Rafa as an artisan, gaining titles and victories through sheer effort and stubbornness against the excessively more gifted Djoker and Federer.

I think this is a whole shed-load of stinky tripe...

I agree. :snigger Rafa's win against Andujar in Rio made it to one of the best matches of ATP this year. :snigger

3. Rafael Nadal d. Pablo Andujar 2-6, 6-3, 7-6(10), Rio de Janeiro semi-finals
Rafael Nadal has enjoyed a decade of dominance on clay against fellow Spaniards and the Mallorca native entered 2014 having won 63 of his past 65 such encounters.

Nadal’s 14th season on the ATP World Tour would mark a stark departure from the norm, as his countrymen had seemingly begun to crack his clay code. David Ferrer halted the World No. 3’s nine-year run of reaching the Monte-Carlo Rolex Masters final, with a straight-sets win in the quarter-finals, and a week later Nicolas Almagro would hand him his first defeat in 11 years at the Barcelona Open Banc Sabadell.

The wheels of a Spanish uprising against Nadal were already set in motion two months prior, as an upset-minded Pablo Andujar entered a semi-final clash at the inaugural Rio Open presented by Claro hdtv full of Nadalconfidence. The Spanish No. 8 was the pebble in Nadal’s shoe for two hours and 46 minutes, wreaking havoc on his compatriot’s game. A rematch of a 6-0, 6-4 rout by Nadal in the semi-finals of the Mutua Madrid Open last year, Andujar would get off to a roaring start in the Brazilian coastal metropolis, claiming the first set 6-2.

Nadal looked to have restored order after snatching the second set and securing a break in the seventh game of the decider, but Andujar was far from willing to acquiesce to defeat, breaking back immediately. A defiant Andujar played the set of his life, executing an exceptional game plan with a ferocious offensive onslaught, opening the court and forcing Nadal into uncomfortable positions. He would force a deciding tie-break and both players would save their best for the climax of the match, which was epic all on its own.

Andujar’s anticipation and movement in the critical moments was off the charts, saving a match point at 8-7 with a half-volley drop shot and giving himself one of his own with a lunging backhand passing shot at the net, a point later. It would not be enough, however, and, having saved two match points, Nadal converted on his fourth opportunity, advancing to his 88th tour-level final.

"Pablo played a great match, playing very aggressive,” said Nadal. “I played too short and I gave him the chance to have control of the point... It is the first edition of a big tournament like Rio, a very important city in the world, and after coming back from injury it always makes the victory a little more special."

The 28 year old would go on to win the inaugural edition of the tournament, his second of four titles in 2014. Andujar, meanwhile, would surge to his third title on the ATP World Tour a few months later, topping Juan Monaco on the clay of Gstaad.

Read More & Watch Highlights

Coming Tuesday: The 2 Best ATP World Tour Matches of 2014



Facebook Fans

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Actually, there is a lot to ponder here. And there's certainly a point to be made. If Novak is on par with Rafa as Toni claims (and I think he is, just not career wise), then how come there's a discrepancy in slam count? Don't you think that's an interesting point to discuss? Certainly more interesting than how many points Novak gathered since 2011.

The discrepancy in slam count is pretty easy to explain. Novak's mental toughness in the biggest events fluctuates from laser focused to completely distracted. When he's focused, the top players agree he's extremely difficult to beat.

When he's not? Well, I've seen more than my share of ugly matches from him.

Novak had a year - 2011. He's been consistently one of the top players for quite some time and finished YE #1 three out of the last four years. Had he won a few more of those slam finals he lost over the past few seasons maybe "era" talk would be a fair discussion.

No arguments from me.

I do think Novak will look at 2009 and 2010 as lost years where he should have done better. I actually think that's part of the reason behind his 2011 explosion: He acknowledged that he underperformed in the previous two seasons and took measures accordingly.

He looked like he arrived in 2008 and was there to stay. Granted, he did stay. His results were consistent. But between Wimbledon 2008 and the 2010 US Open, he was sort of there, making it deep (for the most part), but never really threatening. Even in the 2010 US Open, whether fairly or not, most looked at his presence in the final as "the guy who Roger blew it against" and the guy who's just there for Nadal's big moment. I don't remember many giving him a serious chance. I could be wrong though.

So yeah, I do think more than the finals he lost post 2011 (though that certainly played a factor), it was his relatively sub-par performances post AO 2008 and pre AO 2011 that were the issue. Incidentally, that was the period in which Nadal racked up 6 majors.

So I do think the major reason for the discrepancy is Nadal matured sooner and was able to maximize his potential on a consistent basis far sooner (that's a testament to him as a player by the way). Djokovic wasn't able to keep it up mentally or physically (the latter gets ignored sometimes) early on. Though on the flipside, he might have the greater longevity of the two and compensate.

Part of the problem was that after his AO win in 2008, his mom told him that the king was dead
and he perhaps believed it just like children do when their Mom says Santa Claus exists.

On the contrary Toni kept instilling in Rafa's head that Roger is the goat whether or not
Toni actually believed it (of course, it is a tactical ploy on Toni's part to make Rafa the eventual
goat) in such a manner that if you wake Rafa up at 3 a.m. and ask who is the goat, he would instantly reply that it is Roger.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

Like everything else we should take what Toni says with a big grain of salt. When he says stuff like that he is just trying to motivate his nephew.

Bingo! That was my first thought, too. But that doesn't mean Toni doesn't mean it -- I genuinely think he believes Roger is the GOAT, for example, but yes, there's an element of motivation in there, too.

"uncle toni" got to keep rafa/wafa feeling like he is still the underdog with everything to prove. lot

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

what about murray in this 2012-14 or whatever timeframe ?..

2majors, Olympic gold, Olympic silver, some masters titles, plus a couple more major finals.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

24th June 2013 to 7th Juley 2013 was clearly Andy's Era.

 

[brokenshoelace]

How many FOs did Federer win in his era of 2004-2007? If we call something an era, isn't it supposed to mean that that particular player won pretty much everything on any surface?uzzled

Genius question. Comparing 4 consecutive seasons in which a player won 3 slams per year three times, and 2 slams per year once, to someone who's been winning 1 slam per year for the past 3 years.

 

[Ilovetennis2]

24th June 2013 to 7th Juley 2013 was clearly Andy's Era.

Let's not forget the Nalbandian Era from October 15th to November 4th.

 

[El Dude]

How many FOs did Federer win in his era of 2004-2007? If we call something an era, isn't it supposed to mean that that particular player won pretty much everything on any surface?uzzled

I hope you're being facetious. If we can't call 2004-07 the Federer Era, then we can't call any span of 2+ years the anyone era. Consider that from 2004-07, Roger...

...won 11 of 16 Slams
...won 3 of 4 World Tour Finals
...won 13 Masters
...won 42 titles overall
...had a record of 315-24 (93%)

Yeah, I'd call that the Federer Era.

p.s. No one, and I mean no one, has won "just about everything" for more than a year or so. There are a handful of single seasons in which a player was just that dominant - Novak in 2011, Roger in 2006, McEnroe in 1984, Connors once, Laver, etc - but as far as sustained dominance over multiple years, you're not going to surpass Federer in 2004-07. Maybe Laver at some point in the 60s or Rosewall in the late 50s/early 60s.

 

[Federberg]

How many FOs did Federer win in his era of 2004-2007? If we call something an era, isn't it supposed to mean that that particular player won pretty much everything on any surface?uzzled

You have got to be joking... :eyepop

 

[Front242]

Call 2011-2014+ the Rafa and Novak era by all means but by no means was 2014 part of the Nadal era as a solo year seeing as he wasn't even playing for quite a few months. An era on the sofa or what? And even then, Roger's 2012 was pretty damn good so he munched up quite a bit of that section of their combined era for one year even when over the hill. Not bad. Maybe leave out 2012 from the Rafa/Novak era on 2nd thoughts.

2012 For Djokovic and Rafa:

For Novak: 4 major finals. 1 major win. For Rafa: 2 major finals. 1 major win. They even played a major final against each other.

2014 for Djokovic and Rafa:

For Novak: A major win. A major final. For Rafa: despite "being on the couch" A major final. A major win. One major final played against each other.

Both years are easily included in the Nadovic era. Especially in the grand scheme of things.

If you want to credit slam finals where the player didn't win then fair enough but they each won 1 slam along with Roger who won more masters events (Indian Wells, Madrid, Cincy) in 2012 than Rafa and made the WTF final, silver medal at the Olympics and claimed his 300th week at world number 1. Rafa won the French Open, Monte Carlo and Rome. There's really not much in it to call it more of a year for Rafa and Novak than Roger imo. Finals are a very good achievement but in much the same way as Roger's 2014 Wimbledon final, he lost so it's not really remembered for much other than a loss at the end of the day. Not in any disagreement about any year other than 2012 since Roger hasn't won a slam since then.

 

[Riotbeard]

Call 2011-2014+ the Rafa and Novak era by all means but by no means was 2014 part of the Nadal era as a solo year seeing as he wasn't even playing for quite a few months. An era on the sofa or what? And even then, Roger's 2012 was pretty damn good so he munched up quite a bit of that section of their combined era for one year even when over the hill. Not bad. Maybe leave out 2012 from the Rafa/Novak era on 2nd thoughts.

2012 For Djokovic and Rafa:

For Novak: 4 major finals. 1 major win. For Rafa: 2 major finals. 1 major win. They even played a major final against each other.

2014 for Djokovic and Rafa:

For Novak: A major win. A major final. For Rafa: despite "being on the couch" A major final. A major win. One major final played against each other.

Both years are easily included in the Nadovic era. Especially in the grand scheme of things.

If you want to credit slam finals where the player didn't win then fair enough but they each won 1 slam along with Roger who won more masters events (Indian Wells, Madrid, Cincy) in 2012 than Rafa and made the WTF final, silver medal at the Olympics and claimed his 300th week at world number 1. Rafa won the French Open, Monte Carlo and Rome. There's really not much in it to call it more of a year for Rafa and Novak than Roger imo. Finals are a very good achievement but in much the same way as Roger's 2014 Wimbledon final, he lost so it's not really remembered for much other than a loss at the end of the day. Not in any disagreement about any year other than 2012 since Roger hasn't won a slam since then.

Come on Front, by that standard you could say Federer didn't have an era, because other people won slams. Over the past four years, two guys have one 11 of 16 of the slams. Rafa even won 3 slams during the federer era, and a good couple masters.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Call 2011-2014+ the Rafa and Novak era by all means but by no means was 2014 part of the Nadal era as a solo year seeing as he wasn't even playing for quite a few months. An era on the sofa or what? And even then, Roger's 2012 was pretty damn good so he munched up quite a bit of that section of their combined era for one year even when over the hill. Not bad. Maybe leave out 2012 from the Rafa/Novak era on 2nd thoughts.

2012 For Djokovic and Rafa:

For Novak: 4 major finals. 1 major win. For Rafa: 2 major finals. 1 major win. They even played a major final against each other.

2014 for Djokovic and Rafa:

For Novak: A major win. A major final. For Rafa: despite "being on the couch" A major final. A major win. One major final played against each other.

Both years are easily included in the Nadovic era. Especially in the grand scheme of things.

If you want to credit slam finals where the player didn't win then fair enough but they each won 1 slam along with Roger who won more masters events (Indian Wells, Madrid, Cincy) in 2012 than Rafa and made the WTF final, silver medal at the Olympics and claimed his 300th week at world number 1. Rafa won the French Open, Monte Carlo and Rome. There's really not much in it to call it more of a year for Rafa and Novak than Roger imo. Finals are a very good achievement but in much the same way as Roger's 2014 Wimbledon final, he lost so it's not really remembered for much other than a loss at the end of the day. Not in any disagreement about any year other than 2012 since Roger hasn't won a slam since then.

But we're not talking about 2012 as a separate year. Nobody looks at 2012 and goes: That was the year of Novak. But once you're looking at the grand scheme of things (ie the previous 4 seasons), then how can 2012 and 2014 NOT be part of the Nadovic era? We're talking about 4 seasons in which they won a combined 11 slams out of a possible 16.

 

[nehmeth]

The discrepancy in slam count is pretty easy to explain. Novak's mental toughness in the biggest events fluctuates from laser focused to completely distracted. When he's focused, the top players agree he's extremely difficult to beat.

When he's not? Well, I've seen more than my share of ugly matches from him.

Novak had a year - 2011. He's been consistently one of the top players for quite some time and finished YE #1 three out of the last four years. Had he won a few more of those slam finals he lost over the past few seasons maybe "era" talk would be a fair discussion.

No arguments from me.

I do think Novak will look at 2009 and 2010 as lost years where he should have done better. I actually think that's part of the reason behind his 2011 explosion: He acknowledged that he underperformed in the previous two seasons and took measures accordingly.

He looked like he arrived in 2008 and was there to stay. Granted, he did stay. His results were consistent. But between Wimbledon 2008 and the 2010 US Open, he was sort of there, making it deep (for the most part), but never really threatening. Even in the 2010 US Open, whether fairly or not, most looked at his presence in the final as "the guy who Roger blew it against" and the guy who's just there for Nadal's big moment. I don't remember many giving him a serious chance. I could be wrong though.

So yeah, I do think more than the finals he lost post 2011 (though that certainly played a factor), it was his relatively sub-par performances post AO 2008 and pre AO 2011 that were the issue. Incidentally, that was the period in which Nadal racked up 6 majors.

So I do think the major reason for the discrepancy is Nadal matured sooner and was able to maximize his potential on a consistent basis far sooner (that's a testament to him as a player by the way). Djokovic wasn't able to keep it up mentally or physically (the latter gets ignored sometimes) early on. Though on the flipside, he might have the greater longevity of the two and compensate.

For Novak, 2009 and 10 were definitely lost years... hiring Todd Martin, the various distractions that come with success... and the physical frailty that led to so many of his early exits.

Ralf, under the Spartanesque tutelage of Tio Toni, was certainly able to make the most of his career sooner - a very good thing when one considers how much time he's lost due to injury.