How Many Grand Slam Titles Will Djokovic End His Career With?

[Sundaymorningguy]

You know I had thoughts and I am not exactly sure Djokovic might have issues when he comes close to reaching Nadal and Federer slam numbers like Serena had reaching #18 and #22. Djokovic seems pretty content to operate independently from whatever else is going on with Nadal and Federer. I don't think he is looking at matching their achievements more along the lines of marching to his own tune.

 

[herios]

My initial projection from 4+ years ago on tennis.com forum was 12 and he just managed that
I was among the more optimistic fans back than, but nothing close to Maastor of course
Now a reassessment should be made. I will be happy with 15+, but of course I would not mind 17+...
So I would say 15 is the more realistic, then anything more just a bonus.

 

[herios]

By the way, I think Nole and Jelena should start working on baby #2, because since Stefan was born, Nole is 5 slams out of 6.
He has brought joy, luck and happiness.

 

[Riotbeard]

My initial projection from 4+ years ago on tennis.com forum was 12 and he just managed that
I was among the more optimistic fans back than, but nothing close to Maastor of course
Now a reassessment should be made. I will be happy with 15+, but of course I would not mind 17+...
So I would say 15 is the more realistic, then anything more just a bonus.

I tend to agree with this, unless Novak were to win Wimby and the USO this year, then 15 seems very low. Hard to say though. I think he wins at least two more slams after this year, so if he gets to 13 by year end, then I would put it at 15-16.

 

[nehmeth]

The press will build up Murray to win Wimbledon, McEnroe coached Raonic to be a lock on the semis and maybe a dark horse for the finals. Depending on how Roger does in the grass warm ups they will be touting him too.

I think Nole being the two time defending champion there and having just won the French will be relaxed and able to swing freely for his best tennis. If he wins, maybe even some of the drunken bast*rds at the U.S. Open might cheer for him. It's a huge "if" but should he manage 14 by years end, who knows what he might do in 2017.

 

[herios]

My initial projection from 4+ years ago on tennis.com forum was 12 and he just managed that
I was among the more optimistic fans back than, but nothing close to Maastor of course
Now a reassessment should be made. I will be happy with 15+, but of course I would not mind 17+...
So I would say 15 is the more realistic, then anything more just a bonus.

I tend to agree with this, unless Novak were to win Wimby and the USO this year, then 15 seems very low. Hard to say though. I think he wins at least two more slams after this year, so if he gets to 13 by year end, then I would put it at 15-16.

I am staying on the conservative side, because I do not want to be caught cheerful and with pants down, in a year or two, once he gets in the 30+ club.
I am almost sure that he will be able to manage better than most how he will "grow old" on the tour,
but who knows what else can happen?
I will take it one at a time once he gets to 14, which I am 100% he will reach.

 

[Fiero425]

My initial projection from 4+ years ago on tennis.com forum was 12 and he just managed that
I was among the more optimistic fans back than, but nothing close to Maastor of course
Now a reassessment should be made. I will be happy with 15+, but of course I would not mind 17+...
So I would say 15 is the more realistic, then anything more just a bonus.

I tend to agree with this, unless Novak were to win Wimby and the USO this year, then 15 seems very low. Hard to say though. I think he wins at least two more slams after this year, so if he gets to 13 by year end, then I would put it at 15-16.

I think we're all being very conservative in the count! He should pick up at least 1 more this season and 2 more next year! There's no reason to believe anyone on the tour right now can stop him from adding to his count consistently for the next 3 years even with history showing how difficult it is after turning 30! He's in great shape, quite flexible, and the tour is deficient mentally and can't seem to compete at his level for any length of time! There are great players, but they can't seem to stay on court themselves for more than a month or so; esp. Raonic and Kei! Things could change, but right now I see no reason to believe Nole can't break all the top records or add to his own! :angel:

 

[Front242]

I never used those words in any of my posts.

You didn't use those words literally but you said it indirectly.

I said your tone in slagging Federer's achievements gives Djokovic fans a bad name and it does. And congrats to Novak today but it's still a weak as hell era and he had a dream draw this year. A lot of things went his way this tournament and yet you go on and on about Federer's opponents when he won his slams :nono Murray's record in slam finals is woeful and he is Djokovic's pigeon. Federer with a bad back wouldn't have won only 3 games in 2 sets today.

You started with slagging Djokovic's achievements by talking about "weak" competition and then I retaliated. There was a discussion who had the most dominant run in history and I stated the fact that the gap between Federer (when he dominated) and a No. 2 was never as big as between Djokovic and Murray now. In your reply you said Federer faced stronger competition http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=4418&pid=226638#pid226638. Before that moment I never used level competition to diminish Federer's achievements. You're giving Federer fans a bad name.

No Obsi. I was the one who "retaliated" after you claimed 2004-2009 was weak competition. It was not. Not even close. Djokovic only played prime Nadal at Roland Garros once in 2008 and didn't even win a set. It took took till 2015 when Nadal was a mere shell of himself till he beat him. In Federer's prime years the difference between Nadal then and now was night and day. I never slagged Djokovic's achievements and as I said before I like him as a player and very happy for his win yesterday. It is, however, common knowledge in the tennis world that Federer is now pushing 35 and injured for much of this year to date, Nadal dropped out of RG after the 2nd round and Djokovic faced mighty Murray in the final. Great for him and his fans that he won but your claim that this is a stronger era than 2004-2009 is just plain delusional.

PS: I couldn't give Federer fans a bad name if I tried. I'm very rational and if you think pointing out the obvious above re Nadal being injured and out of RG before round 3, Federer not even able to play and almost 35 and Murray who is now 2-8 in slam finals makes this a strong era then so be it, that's slagging his achievements. The reality is though, it's just the plain honest to God truth.

They're all great players, Djokovic, Federer and Nadal and because of their age and respective peaks the younger guy is now beating the oldest guy most of the time and Nadal pretty much all the time from now on. That doesn't make Djokovic invincible like many people claim on various boards, it's to be expected as Nadal is well past his peak as is Federer and last time I checked both didn't even play RG. In Nadal's case a whole 2 matches. That can't be an example of a strong era or strong competition when they can't even play.

 

[El Dude]

I think Novak wins somewhere in the 15-18 range.

Or to put it another way...

...if he wins no more this year he'll win 15 total
...if he wins one more this year he'll win 16-17 total
...if he wins two more this year he'll win 17-18 total

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Novak is now 29. He will turn 30 on May 22, 2017. See chart below for how people have performed after going over the hill. Fed and Pete won one Slam, Rafa not even that. The general playing style of Novak has more similarity to that of Rafa, than to that of Pete or Fed. Let us give even 2 slams to Novak after he goes over the hill, due to lack of competition, his flexibility etc.

So, I would estimate Novak's total to be bounded above by

12 + (However many of the next 4 ending in RG17 that he wins) + 2

My (totally unscientific) estimate for the middle part in the above equation is 2.

Here is the distribution of slams won at different ages (going back to the beginning of open era and ending in AO 2014 as the graph is little outdated). Since the beginning of 2000, only 5 slams have been won by players over 30 ( 2 by Agassi, 1 by Sampras, 1 by Federer and 1 by Stan). So, recent history is even worse than the total history in this regard despite the fact that GS draw these days have lot more over 30 players (this RG had more than 50 over 30 players).

 

[shawnbm]

Well, he has already hit what I predicted. It is very difficult to imagine he won't win at least one more--and I am only referring to this year. The question becomes when will the burning desire to do what needs to be done to stay on top start to wane? I must now re-evaluate and go to the 14-16 crowd; those numbers seem quite attainable when you look at his continuing desire, his dominance over all (who can be said to be a real threat to him in slams these days?) and how the closest thing to a guy on the horizon (Thiem? Zverev?) are really not able to do much against him yet. He stands in his own way and it has been a long and steady climb since AO 2008--eight amazing years, particularly the last year and a half.

 

[Obsi]

I was the one who "retaliated" after you claimed 2004-2009 was weak competition.

Can you prove it?

your claim that this is a stronger era than 2004-2009 is just plain delusional.

I said 2011-2016 is a stronger era than 2004-2009 http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=4699&pid=227082#pid227082
You are delusional if you believe otherwise.

 

[BIG3]

Novak is now 29. He will turn 30 on May 22, 2017. See chart below for how people have performed after going over the hill. Fed and Pete won one Slam, Rafa not even that. The general playing style of Novak has more similarity to that of Rafa, than to that of Pete or Fed. Let us give even 2 slams to Novak after he goes over the hill, due to lack of competition, his flexibility etc.

So, I would estimate Novak's total to be bounded above by

12 + (However many of the next 4 ending in RG17 that he wins) + 2

My (totally unscientific) estimate for the middle part in the above equation is 2.

Here is the distribution of slams won at different ages (going back to the beginning of open era and ending in AO 2014 as the graph is little outdated). Since the beginning of 2000, only 5 slams have been won by players over 30 ( 2 by Agassi, 1 by Sampras, 1 by Federer and 1 by Stan). So, recent history is even worse than the total history in this regard despite the fact that GS draw these days have lot more over 30 players (this RG had more than 50 over 30 players).

Nole just right passed his 29th birthday. Let us examine what happened to other all-time-great at this stage.

First, Fed.
10USO Lost to Nole in semi
11AO Lost to Nole in semi
11RG Lost to Rafa in Final
11SW19 Lost to Tsonga in quarter
11USO Lost to Nole in semi
12AO Lost to Rafa in semi
12RG Lost to Nole in semi
12SW19 Champion
12USO Lost to Berdych in quarter

He reached at least quarters in the next 2 years (9 majors). If Rafa and Nole were taken away, he lost only twice to outliner, which might be attributed to his aging. That is really amazing.

In Pistol’s case, he was only a factor in USO after 29th birthday and there were no Rafa or Nole stopping him. Ironically he didn’t face Agassi until his swan song. Pete fell from peak much more steeply. Though both Pistol and Fed won only one major after 29th birthday, the context is very different. It is as laughable to call one-time wonder the same between Roddick and Gaudio.

In Agassi’s case, he won 6 after 29th birthday. The baseline player didn’t necessarily age worse than S&V type. Nole’s style is closer to Agassi’s than to Pete and I didn’t see it disadvantage.

Playing style cannot tell much on aging pattern. Nole is different from Rafa that he doesn’t have repeated injury history. If his aging is anything close to Fed, 17 is not daydream in this WEAK ERA.

 

[nehmeth]

And then there is Ken Rosewall who won 4 majors between 33 and 38 years of age. I mean no man has held all four slam titles since that time. Who's to say Nole won't catch the longevity bug too?

 

[kskate2]

I didn't originally vote when this thread was started, but I would have to go on record and say he will end somewhere between 15-17 w/ a real possibility of tying Fed (then the GOAT debates would never end). :nono

 

[Front242]

I was the one who "retaliated" after you claimed 2004-2009 was weak competition.

Can you prove it?

your claim that this is a stronger era than 2004-2009 is just plain delusional.

I said 2011-2016 is a stronger era than 2004-2009 http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=4699&pid=227082#pid227082
You are delusional if you believe otherwise.

Old Federer and banged up past his prime Nadal and incidentally one couldn't even play the last slam and the other quit after the 2nd round. You lost me with 2011-2016 being a stronger era and delusional sorry :nono Meanwhile the guy who Novak beat at RG is a mighty 2-8 in slam finals. Am I missing something or are there other guys out there challenging Novak? :cover Stan 2 matches every decade? Last 3 slam finals Federer and Djokovic played guess who had an overwhelming advantage. Could it be the guy nearly 34/35? I think not. Pull the other one with the nonsense that this is a strong era in tennis right now please 'cos no one at all is buying that.

Seems to me your problem is you see the names Nadal and Federer and because they were once great you make out this "era" is strong but that is not the case as they haven't been great for a long time now. To his credit, Djokovic is clearly playing fantastic a lot of the time (not all of the time mind you as he wasn't particularly impressive for long stretches even when winning tournament after tournament as the competition he faces are far from great) and it's not his fault players are old/well past their primes and near retirement (Federer and Nadal), poor (Berdych, Ferrer, Tsonga, etc) Murray in slam finals (horrendous 2-8 record as aforementioned) and you can only play who is in the final at the time but to say these old, banged up or inconsistent players make it a strong era is just fairy tale stuff I'm afraid.

 

[Sundaymorningguy]

I didn't realize Djokovic is the only man to have ever reached 3 consecutive finals for each of the slams. This is why he will continue to win majors because you have to keep making it there. The minute you have a string of poor results at a slam the harder it gets.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

In Agassi’s case, he won 6 after 29th birthday. The baseline player didn’t necessarily age worse than S&V type. Nole’s style is closer to Agassi’s than to Pete and I didn’t see it disadvantage.

1. Agassi did not win 6 after 29th birthday. He won only five after 29th birthday. More importantly, he won only 2 after 30th birthday.

2. One of the important reasons for the longevity of Agassi's career is that he was goofing when he was young with extracurricular activities and became serious only when he was getting older. As a result he had less mileage and less burnout which helped him in the later part. However, Novak was always serious about tennis from the beginning and so the mileage and burnout will come into effect.

 

[Sundaymorningguy]

I think for Novak it is going to be a matter of how he navigates his schedule and fitness from this point forward. I don't see any reason barring injury that we should see some form of decline at least for another year/year and a half. I think if he finds the right balance he will be fine.

 

[herios]

I think for Novak it is going to be a matter of how he navigates his schedule and fitness from this point forward. I don't see any reason barring injury that we should see some form of decline at least for another year/year and a half. I think if he finds the right balance he will be fine.

He already started to manage his schedule smartly years ago. People keep asking why he is not playing warm up event for Wimbledon? Response is simple, he does not need to. He improved in Wimbledon, since he comes there fresh.
He plays less events than the majority of the top players, because he does not need to gain more points, he has enough
And once he will be able to skip masters without being penalized, I am sure he will take even more breaks. He already skipped Madrid a few times coming up with excuses.
At one point, health is more important than $.