Is Djokovic dominating in a weak era?

[Obsi]

What do you think?

 

[El Dude]

I was dabbling with writing a blog article about this and relating it to Roger's era of dominance (2004-07). Maybe after my next two-part series is up.

If by "era" you mean his current streak of 15 of 19 big titles, going back to 2014 Paris Masters, and more so his seven in a row big titles going back to the US Open, then yes, I think it is a weak era. Both are unparalleled streaks, by the way. But if you mean his rise to the #1 in 2011 to the present, not at all - or at least not from 2011-13. 2014 on has been weaker.

While statistically 2015 was Novak's best year, in some ways 2011 was more impressive because Novak did it when Rafa was at his peak (and also Roger was closer to his peak). The only difference between Rafa in 2011 and 2010, arguably his best year, is Novak being better. Other than his matches against Novak, Rafa's results were exactly the same.

2012 saw a varied cast, with Andy rising to a higher level, Rafa still strong for about half the year, and Roger having a bit of a resurgence and his best year since 2009. It was the true "Year of the Big Four." 2013 saw Roger collapse, but Andy stay strong and Rafa utterly dominating. When we get to 2014, we see a shaky Andy, a collapsing Rafa, and an improved Roger, but not to 2012 levels. So form 2014 on it has been a weaker tour.

This isn't to take anything away from Novak. He is truly a great player. But he's putting up all of these titles without another great player in his prime and with an overall somewhat weak cast of second tier players who are also now in decline.

My guess is that by 2018 at the latest, the "weak era" will be over. The new young elites will have emerged and reached a high level. Kyrgios and Thiem are almost there already, but it will take another year or two for the younger guys--Coric, Fritz, Zverev, etc--to challenge in the big tournaments.

That said, I think 2017 will be a very interesting year, because we'll see a lot of balance between the Rafa/Novak generation (b. 1984-88), the weak Nishikori-Raonic generation (b. 1989-93), and the rising Kyrgios-Zverev-Fritz group (b. 1994-98). Novak's generation will be turning 29-33 and on its last legs, while Kei's gen will be at full peak at 24-28, and Kyrgios's gen will be starting to peak at 19-23. So before the new elites emerge, we might see a bit of a "wild west" scenario next year, and maybe even signs of it later this year with a possible Slam upset. Or so I hope!

 

[mrzz]

My guess is that by 2018 at the latest, the "weak era" will be over. The new young elites will have emerged and reached a high level. Kyrgios and Thiem are almost there already, but it will take another year or two for the younger guys--Coric, Fritz, Zverev, etc--to challenge in the big tournaments.

This reflects exactly what I don't like about the "weak era" discussion. Given that you, as always, dissected the situation perfectly in terms of data (supported by earlier era analysis), yes, it becomes quite evident that, as far as results go, from 2018 onwards the "weak era" might be over.

The problem is that this will happen regardless of the actual level people might show on court. Somebody has to win, after all...

 

[Front242]

Yes.

 

[Riotbeard]

I think this is a bit of weak era, but I also wonder if this whole construct isn't fundamentally flawed. If somewhat dominates, don't their competition look weak? I mean I would say 2013 for Rafa, while not weak, a lot of players didn't seems to be consistently playing their best. Novak was still at a high level, but had also certainly dropped off a bit since 2011. Moreover, if one player is able to win a majority of the important tournaments, aren't the competition by definition performing weakly?

Like I have said, I think dominating in 2011 required a higher level, but I also am very suspect of this whole conversation.

 

[Obsi]

If by "era" you mean his current streak of 15 of 19 big titles, going back to 2014 Paris Masters, and more so his seven in a row big titles going back to the US Open, then yes, I think it is a weak era.

What about Federer? Would say there was a period during his domination that you would call a "weak era"?

 

[Kieran]

Novak could more or less post the same results playing at 70%. He's not dropping sets. Of course it's a weak period for tennis. The Grigor Generation - AKA The Missing Link - have done zilch with themselves, and Rafa is in obvious decline. Murray hasn't risen to his 2013 levels since his operation to remove Lendl from the fort and replace him with a dishwasher :snicker and the next bunch of hopefuls are still relative greenhorns.

It's weak.

The game is in transition, and the only great player playing tennis at or near their best is benefitting. That's not his fault - any more than it was Roger's fault that the players challenging him from 2004-2007 were either strawballs or greenhorns...

 

[BIG3]

Is Nole too good, or field too weak? It is really half-glass-full/empty question. Personally, I don’t think his IW-MIAMI this year is as thrilling as 2011.

 

[El Dude]

This reflects exactly what I don't like about the "weak era" discussion. Given that you, as always, dissected the situation perfectly in terms of data (supported by earlier era analysis), yes, it becomes quite evident that, as far as results go, from 2018 onwards the "weak era" might be over.

The problem is that this will happen regardless of the actual level people might show on court. Somebody has to win, after all...

Yes, true - a good point, and one I think I made in my 94-98 generation blog post. Even if it ends up being a relatively weak era, SOMEONE has to win Slams, and it won't wait another 5+ years. I used to argue that even if someone like Grigor never really matures, when he's 27 he's going to be able to beat a 31 year old Novak more regularly, although I'm starting to doubt that.

If by "era" you mean his current streak of 15 of 19 big titles, going back to 2014 Paris Masters, and more so his seven in a row big titles going back to the US Open, then yes, I think it is a weak era.

What about Federer? Would say there was a period during his domination that you would call a "weak era"?

Overall it was relatively weak, although I haven't looked into whether there was a specific phase that was particularly weak. But as Riotbeard and BIG3 pointed out, an era is only "weak" relative to a dominant player (and vice versa). When it comes to Federer, it is hard to tell to what degree his dominance of his own generation weakened it overall. We can look at Andy Roddick, for instance, and see a player who very well might have won 2-4 Slams if he didn't play right alongside Federer at his best. And as I point out in my soon-to-be-published blog on the next great player, it is an aspect of greatness that Novak can take advantage of the weak field, or Roger could earlier on.

Anyhow, I think 2004 was weaker than 2005-07. In 2004 Rafa hadn't yet found his level, so Roger was the only truly great player in form. But I think also the secondary cast of characters, the so-called "second tier," was probably stronger than it is now, or at least in 2014-16. But overall 2014-16 is probably weaker than 2004-07. As I said, I might do a more in-depth steady to try to figure that out.

 

[isabelle]

If by "era" you mean his current streak of 15 of 19 big titles, going back to 2014 Paris Masters, and more so his seven in a row big titles going back to the US Open, then yes, I think it is a weak era.

What about Federer? Would say there was a period during his domination that you would call a "weak era"?

Mr Vavrinec certainly had a weak area (he won several GS vs Gonzalez, Philippoussis, Bagman who were no top 5)
Nole won the most part of his GS vs top 5 players so Nole has a strong area even if you don't like him something I can understand

 

[Front242]

While Federer is still better than everyone else (besides Djokovic - edited that to make it clearer) on tour even at 34, the loss of speed and reflexes that a 6 year gap gives is very difficult for him to beat a 28 year old in his prime. That doesn't make Djokovic any better than Federer was in his prime. It's expected that a 28 year old number one should beat a 34 year old. Nadal and Murray haven't beaten him in ages and may not ever beat him again so it can't possibly be a strong era. I'm hoping neither Murray or Nadal ever beat him again personally It may or may not happen but clearly if they never do beat him again it can't possibly be a strong era.

To put things in more perspective with stats:

Nadal has beaten Djokovic just once in their last 11 matches.
Murray has beaten Djokovic just once in their last 12 matches.

Only an imbecile would consider this a strong era. If this was Federer v Roddick a few years ago some of you here would be calling it a weak era. Well touché. This is maybe even worse. And to isabelle and others saying Djokovic is beating top 5 players. So what? Do those stats above impress you in any way whatsoever? Some of the scorelines have been beatdowns resembling a number 1 versus a player ranked 100 or lower rather than top 5 scorelines which shows just how weak the ATP tour currently is.

 

[Obsi]

If by "era" you mean his current streak of 15 of 19 big titles, going back to 2014 Paris Masters, and more so his seven in a row big titles going back to the US Open, then yes, I think it is a weak era.

What about Federer? Would say there was a period during his domination that you would call a "weak era"?

Overall it was relatively weak, although I haven't looked into whether there was a specific phase that was particularly weak. But as Riotbeard and BIG3 pointed out, an era is only "weak" relative to a dominant player (and vice versa). When it comes to Federer, it is hard to tell to what degree his dominance of his own generation weakened it overall. We can look at Andy Roddick, for instance, and see a player who very well might have won 2-4 Slams if he didn't play right alongside Federer at his best. And as I point out in my soon-to-be-published blog on the next great player, it is an aspect of greatness that Novak can take advantage of the weak field, or Roger could earlier on.

Anyhow, I think 2004 was weaker than 2005-07. In 2004 Rafa hadn't yet found his level, so Roger was the only truly great player in form. But I think also the secondary cast of characters, the so-called "second tier," was probably stronger than it is now, or at least in 2014-16. But overall 2014-16 is probably weaker than 2004-07.

2004-2009 is probably weaker than 2011-2016.

 

[isabelle]

What about Federer? Would say there was a period during his domination that you would call a "weak era"?

Overall it was relatively weak, although I haven't looked into whether there was a specific phase that was particularly weak. But as Riotbeard and BIG3 pointed out, an era is only "weak" relative to a dominant player (and vice versa). When it comes to Federer, it is hard to tell to what degree his dominance of his own generation weakened it overall. We can look at Andy Roddick, for instance, and see a player who very well might have won 2-4 Slams if he didn't play right alongside Federer at his best. And as I point out in my soon-to-be-published blog on the next great player, it is an aspect of greatness that Novak can take advantage of the weak field, or Roger could earlier on.

Anyhow, I think 2004 was weaker than 2005-07. In 2004 Rafa hadn't yet found his level, so Roger was the only truly great player in form. But I think also the secondary cast of characters, the so-called "second tier," was probably stronger than it is now, or at least in 2014-16. But overall 2014-16 is probably weaker than 2004-07.

2004-2009 is probably weaker than 2011-2016.

Agree with you, present area is much stronger than the previous one

 

[El Dude]

2004-2009 is probably weaker than 2011-2016.

Maybe, but it is front-loaded, with 2011-13 being stronger and 2014-16 probably weaker than any three-year phase of 2004-09.

 

[Front242]

Overall it was relatively weak, although I haven't looked into whether there was a specific phase that was particularly weak. But as Riotbeard and BIG3 pointed out, an era is only "weak" relative to a dominant player (and vice versa). When it comes to Federer, it is hard to tell to what degree his dominance of his own generation weakened it overall. We can look at Andy Roddick, for instance, and see a player who very well might have won 2-4 Slams if he didn't play right alongside Federer at his best. And as I point out in my soon-to-be-published blog on the next great player, it is an aspect of greatness that Novak can take advantage of the weak field, or Roger could earlier on.

Anyhow, I think 2004 was weaker than 2005-07. In 2004 Rafa hadn't yet found his level, so Roger was the only truly great player in form. But I think also the secondary cast of characters, the so-called "second tier," was probably stronger than it is now, or at least in 2014-16. But overall 2014-16 is probably weaker than 2004-07.

2004-2009 is probably weaker than 2011-2016.

Agree with you, present area is much stronger than the previous one

You're both in complete denial and that's all that needs to be said here. Nadal has been irrelevant in this discussion since RG 2014 and Murray isn't good enough to beat Djokovic either anymore. That leaves Stan Wawrinka who turns up to play twice every decade (so far anyway) and old man Federer. Who exactly besides them makes this a stronger era than 2004-2009? Bear in mind now again that Nadal and Murray have a combined 2 wins out of the last 23 matches against Djokovic.

Nadal has beaten Djokovic just once in their last 11 matches.
Murray has beaten Djokovic just once in their last 12 matches.

How in the name of hell does that make this a strong era?

 

[Front242]

^ Since Wimbledon 2014 Djokovic won 1 slam against a 33 year old and 2 against a 34 year old and it's only getting uglier from here on in as Nadal and Murray aren't able to beat him anymore and neither is Federer in slams unless he really tightens up his game, capitalizing on break points and not making tons of errors. That leaves only Wawrinka left as the only guy to beat Djokovic and win a slam until proven otherwise. Clearly a very tough era alright.

 

[Fiero425]

^ Since Wimbledon 2014 Djokovic won 1 slam against a 33 year old and 2 against a 34 year old and it's only getting uglier from here on in as Nadal and Murray aren't able to beat him anymore and neither is Federer in slams unless he really tightens up his game, capitalizing on break points and not making tons of errors. That leaves only Wawrinka left as the only guy to beat Djokovic and win a slam until proven otherwise. Clearly a very tough era alright.

So is Nole in some kind of "time machine" where he remains the same age while Federer is gaining years alone? You are talking about the #2 player in the world who got to those major finals against him fair and square; no injuries to others involved IIRC! :cover uzzled :nono :angel:

 

[Sundaymorningguy]

He only won a slam in 2012, 2013 and 2014. If it wasn't a competitive era, he would have cleaned up despite any drop in his game those years if it was so weak. There has been some stroke of luck in the fact that Stan is so hit and miss, Roger well can compete, but has no stamina to take it the distance, Nadal's style of play has finally caught up to his body, and well Andy is still that same moody kid who pouts when things head South. Occasionally, those 4 men break out of their particular afflictions and score a win over Djokovic, but very rare and growing even rarer on the big, big stages.

 

[Fiero425]

He only won a slam in 2012, 2013 and 2014. If it wasn't a competitive era, he would have cleaned up despite any drop in his game those years if it was so weak. There has been some stroke of luck in the fact that Stan is so hit and miss, Roger well can compete, but has no stamina to take it the distance, Nadal's style of play has finally caught up to his body, and well Andy is still that same moody kid who pouts when things head South. Occasionally, those 4 men break out of their particular afflictions and score a win over Djokovic, but very rare and growing even rarer on the big, big stages.

Near perfection in 2011 almost killed Nole! IIRC, he even played in the inaugural event owned by his family in Serbia; not to mention beating Nadal 7 straight times! I give him a break in those years where Roger got his 17th at Wimbledon and Andy came into his own, Rafa's reprieve in 2013 taking back the #1 ranking, and 2014 adjusting to Becker's, "Svengali" enlightenment and encouragement getting him ready for Wimbledon! How's that? uzzled :nono :angel:

 

[Front242]

^ Since Wimbledon 2014 Djokovic won 1 slam against a 33 year old and 2 against a 34 year old and it's only getting uglier from here on in as Nadal and Murray aren't able to beat him anymore and neither is Federer in slams unless he really tightens up his game, capitalizing on break points and not making tons of errors. That leaves only Wawrinka left as the only guy to beat Djokovic and win a slam until proven otherwise. Clearly a very tough era alright.

So is Nole in some kind of "time machine" where he remains the same age while Federer is gaining years alone? You are talking about the #2 player in the world who got to those major finals against him fair and square; no injuries to others involved IIRC! :cover uzzled :nono :angel:

Clearly there's a big difference between the other players and the number 1 player in the world and it takes a lot more for a 34 year old to beat a world number 1 in his prime than to beat the inconsistent other players.