Is Djokovic a threat to Federer's 17?

DarthFed

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
17,724
Reactions
3,477
Points
113
If I remember correctly, just-turned-20 year old Novak Djokovic showed in Montreal in 2007 and beat: #3 and #2 players (Roddick and Nadal) in straight sets and topped it off with a win over #1 player (Federer) in the final, in consecutive days. And he was half a player than he is today and wasn't as nearly consistent as he's been from 2011. But yeah, we will never know.:)

Both Andy and Nole shot up the rankings in a year or two in 2006-2007 really quickly so I guess the competition wasn't as tough then either.

I haven't followed the grass tournaments but I read somewhere that Federer said that he thinks Nole can surpass him in major wins? Maybe it was in one of the pressers in Halle?

What does one win prove in this debate? We can easily point out that washed up 34 year old Federer beat Djokovic 3 times last year.
 

Ricardo

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 15, 2013
Messages
2,674
Reactions
646
Points
113
But.......Roger is better now than he's ever been, it's his peak
 
  • Like
Reactions: Federberg

britbox

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
27,509
Reactions
6,341
Points
113
Location
Gold Coast, Australia
I found this really well done graph which shows slams won by age. Almost everyone hits his limits around 29. This would indicate that Djokovic might only have next year to come close to Nadal's 14, but it will be difficult going beyond that:



http://www.tennisviz.com/can-djokovic-surpass-federer-in-grand-slams/



However, I do think there are a number of factors in Novak's favour, including the weaker competition and how Novak takes care of his body which should ensure longlivity. He is also starting to tweak his game a bit, notably by improving and relying on his serve more.

Do you think this is more or less likely since the time you started the thread?
 

isabelle

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Messages
4,673
Reactions
634
Points
113
Stan is a threat for every players for sure !!
 

shawnbm

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 15, 2013
Messages
3,597
Reactions
1,294
Points
113
That graph is pretty cool. Let us look at what lays ahead of us. We have almost four and a half months until the AO. Federer is resting, Nadal will likely be resting except for Davis Cup and the end of the year finals. Novak should take a rest from most everything but Bercy and the Barclays. Andy is playing well even though he lost in five sets in New York; he has been at the top of the game. Stanislas is a monster if he gets deep in a major and clearly has demonstrated he can wallop all of them. Apart from them, are there any real contenders for a major over two weeks in best of five sets?

Thiem has overplayed and is prone to playing himself out, but I feel he will rectify that come next year. I put him right at the top with another to break the big five's hegemony--Kei. Kei has reached a final and shown he can do it. He came close again this year in New York, and I think he is gaining confidence. Yet, I really don't see either of them faring well against a quality Nole--and this is about Novak catching Roger. I think he is the odds on favorite in Melbourne next year and he bags it--that is 13. The French and SW19 are too hard to call for me at this point--too many variables and we don't know how many of them will be doing. It is pretty wide open going into next year. If Federer does not come out on fire at the beginning, I don't know if the aura returns for him. If Rafa has more early exits, his aura will be further eroded. Unless he goes on a tear in the spring on clay, I question whether he will be one of two to beat in Paris. I think it is going to come down to Murray, Stanislas and one of the other two to pester Nole over next year. With that I think Novak bags one to two majors next year and ends the year at 14. At 30, I think we will see a slow decline. I have thought for some time 12-14 or 15 was where he would end up. Last night's loss makes me think that I could be lucky in picking that. If he had won last night, he would have tied Roger for most years with at least three majors (3), which he fell short of. Yet, his resilience is not to be understated. He is a real street fighter and if he does not get blistered toes or cramps like in this one, he is hard to count out.

Roger's record is safer for at least a few more years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: britbox

DarthFed

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
17,724
Reactions
3,477
Points
113
I do think yesterday was huge for Nole in regards to chasing the record. If he has 15 by the end of next year he still has a decent chance to at least tie Roger, but that just went from being a decent possibility to very unlikely. As great as he is it's tough picturing someone winning 3 slams in a year when they are turning 30. This next AO is enormous for him now.

One thing working in his favor right now though is that the highly touted youngsters still seem at least a year away from truly being relevant. I think many thought that'd start in 2017 but the guys we are often talking about (Thiem, Zverev, and Kyrgios) have barely been heard from the past few months. I think Thiem overplays, he really needs to tone it down going forward.
 

Federberg

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
15,639
Reactions
5,729
Points
113
^I'm just wondering what's caused all these problems. My sense around Wimbledon was it was personal stuff. Now we have injuries. Are they related?
 

shawnbm

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 15, 2013
Messages
3,597
Reactions
1,294
Points
113
I have heard these rumblings about personal problems, but nothing more. I think speculating on it is a waste of time. We can see he had some physical issues, and I think they were largely inflicted by the Swiss Beast--he had Novak on his heels quite a bit and he is a few years older than when Nadal had him running around in those three straight slam finals. He is a little older and things pop up--same as with Roger and Rafa. I would put money on Roger's record being safe unless Novak were to somehow win 3 again next year--which I feel is highly unlikely. This loss was big for him as he would have won 12 majors in the last six years (his prime years), but winning 11 in six years is pretty damn stupendous. (Roger won 15 in 2003-2009 and Rafa won 10 between 2008-2013). I would say Novak is pretty stellar company there and that the three of them have had the best six year runs in the Open Era, along with Borg (10 between 1976-1981) and Sampras (10 also between 1993-1998)
 

brokenshoelace

Grand Slam Champion
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
9,380
Reactions
1,334
Points
113
He is not even close to being the fastest mover anymore.

Just saw this. I don't think Roger was ever the fastest mover anyway, not even in his prime, in terms of pure wheels. He was the best mover, because there's far more to movement than just speed, but yeah, he hasn't been in that conversation for a few years now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shawnbm

shawnbm

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 15, 2013
Messages
3,597
Reactions
1,294
Points
113
I concur with Broken--movement is also about tennis IQ or ball position intelligence. I always find it interesting to see how many players don't seem to understand how only certain shots--baring the truly unbeatable shot for a justified winner--can be played from certain positions based on ball height, pace, spin and angle. Another part of it is recognizing patterns of play and being able to adjust your own play under the circumstances. Borg and Rafa had both pure speed and what I am talking about and so did Roger (although his pure footspeed was not as good in my view). There is also movement to a shot and being set up a la Jimmy Connors--at master at that--great footwork.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brokenshoelace

Federberg

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
15,639
Reactions
5,729
Points
113
Just saw this. I don't think Roger was ever the fastest mover anyway, not even in his prime, in terms of pure wheels. He was the best mover, because there's far more to movement than just speed, but yeah, he hasn't been in that conversation for a few years now.
I concur. Roger was quick, but he anticipated insanely well. And of course his strongest quality was he was able to get his shots back into really uncomfortable places for his opponent that forced passive replies. Once that happened he was able to demonstrate his best quality, the most lethal point ender the game has ever seen
 
  • Like
Reactions: shawnbm

Carol

Grand Slam Champion
Joined
Jan 10, 2015
Messages
9,225
Reactions
1,833
Points
113
Stan is a very good player, not doubts about it but his GS wins have been under certain circumstances. I mean he won the first one at 29, he played a very good AO 2014 but Nadal was playing even better the whole tournament until he got the back injury which gave a huge help to Stan to win. RG last year? come on, Nadal was playing his worst, Federer also not too good, Muzz (we know him) and Novak? well, it seems that Stan plays more comfortable against him, better control and even more confidence than Novak which is a lot to say. He has not had a very good year but he has surprised me how well has played this USO. Age? who cares, good serve, good preparation and confidence are the key
 

Federberg

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
15,639
Reactions
5,729
Points
113
I think it's really odd that some people are placing qualifiers about Stans wins in slams. The guy played the best tennis in this tournament. And as for his AO win, if you beat both Nadal and Djokovic in a slam, the idea that there is any sort of taint on the achievement is utterly bizarre. Seriously..
 

Carol

Grand Slam Champion
Joined
Jan 10, 2015
Messages
9,225
Reactions
1,833
Points
113
Does someone say that Stan didn't play well in this last USO? he has played very well, better than anyone else.
 

DarthFed

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
17,724
Reactions
3,477
Points
113
Just saw this. I don't think Roger was ever the fastest mover anyway, not even in his prime, in terms of pure wheels. He was the best mover, because there's far more to movement than just speed, but yeah, he hasn't been in that conversation for a few years now.

Yes that is true and it is worth distinguishing between best and fastest. I don't think Monfils is the "best" mover but he's almost certainly the fastest and has been for a long time. I think Roger in his prime was at least close to the top in terms of pure speed, certainly compared to now.
 

DarthFed

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
17,724
Reactions
3,477
Points
113
Stan is a very good player, not doubts about it but his GS wins have been under certain circumstances. I mean he won the first one at 29, he played a very good AO 2014 but Nadal was playing even better the whole tournament until he got the back injury which gave a huge help to Stan to win. RG last year? come on, Nadal was playing his worst, Federer also not too good, Muzz (we know him) and Novak? well, it seems that Stan plays more comfortable against him, better control and even more confidence than Novak which is a lot to say. He has not had a very good year but he has surprised me how well has played this USO. Age? who cares, good serve, good preparation and confidence are the key

This is just laughable stuff even for you. Nadal struggled quite a bit at the AO 2014 aside from beating Federer easily in the semis. Meanwhile you may not have noticed Stan beating the 3-time defending AO champion in the QF's who has now won 5 of the last 6 AO's and 6 total. Stan was the best player all tournament and was decking Rafa badly before the injury.

At RG last year I wouldn't say Roger was playing his worst. Certainly beating Roger in 2015 isn't the same as 5-6 years ago but decking him in straights was pretty impressive and then he again beat Nole in a brilliant display in the final. To make it legit to you does Stan have to play all of the top 4 who are all playing at the top of their games? Stan's path to his 3 majors, particularly the first 2, are harder than we've seen from just about anyone.
 

brokenshoelace

Grand Slam Champion
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
9,380
Reactions
1,334
Points
113
Yes that is true and it is worth distinguishing between best and fastest. I don't think Monfils is the "best" mover but he's almost certainly the fastest and has been for a long time. I think Roger in his prime was at least close to the top in terms of pure speed, certainly compared to now.

Yup. Circa 2004, Hewitt would have been up there, and from 2005 on, Roger doesn't really compare to young Nadal in terms of foot speed. I don't think it's particularly close either. However, in terms of effortless movement that transcends universally across surfaces + footwork, Roger was unrivaled, throughout history.
 

Carol

Grand Slam Champion
Joined
Jan 10, 2015
Messages
9,225
Reactions
1,833
Points
113
This is just laughable stuff even for you. Nadal struggled quite a bit at the AO 2014 aside from beating Federer easily in the semis. Meanwhile you may not have noticed Stan beating the 3-time defending AO champion in the QF's who has now won 5 of the last 6 AO's and 6 total. Stan was the best player all tournament and was decking Rafa badly before the injury.

At RG last year I wouldn't say Roger was playing his worst. Certainly beating Roger in 2015 isn't the same as 5-6 years ago but decking him in straights was pretty impressive and then he again beat Nole in a brilliant display in the final. To make it legit to you does Stan have to play all of the top 4 who are all playing at the top of their games? Stan's path to his 3 majors, particularly the first 2, are harder than we've seen from just about anyone.

Struggled before the injury? what are you talking about? Nadal got the injury when he was practicing on the court minutes before to start the final but he was playing great in the previous matches.
Credit to Stan but as you can see NOBODY is unbeatable and NOBODY can play his best all the time because the injuries or just a simple bad patches. Roger long time has not played his best and less on clay, Stan in 2014 did beat Novak on his best surface but maybe you forgot that this last one had lost before in others tournaments so it wasn't any surprise. And talking about clay IMO Stan is better player than Novak.
If you as a Federer's fan have afraid that Novak will reach his numbers I don't think unless the rest of the players would play bad, 5 GS are a lot
 

Tennis Fan

Major Winner
Joined
Dec 14, 2013
Messages
1,171
Reactions
429
Points
83
Struggled before the injury? what are you talking about? Nadal got the injury when he was practicing on the court minutes before to start the final but he was playing great in the previous matches.
Credit to Stan but as you can see NOBODY is unbeatable and NOBODY can play his best all the time because the injuries or just a simple bad patches. Roger long time has not played his best and less on clay, Stan in 2014 did beat Novak on his best surface but maybe you forgot that this last one had lost before in others tournaments so it wasn't any surprise. And talking about clay IMO Stan is better player than Novak.
If you as a Federer's fan have afraid that Novak will reach his numbers I don't think unless the rest of the players would play bad, 5 GS are a lot

That's true, Carol. Rafa got the injury in the warm up before the match started so there was no way he was going to win. He was in pain throughout but chose to finish the match. Even with that he took a set based on sheer will, but if not for the injury I doubt Stan would've won that match. Sometimes matches do have extenuating circumstances and that match qualifies.

I really hate the way different standards are always placed on Rafa, but not the others. If it was any other player people would acknowledge the injury, but Rafa never gets the benefit of the doubt. He was injured and everybody knows that.