Novak's Dominance - and some hypotheticals

[El Dude]

The Great Serb deserves his own thread to discuss just how dominant he is now.

Consider:

There are 14 "big tournaments" a year--4 Slams, the WTF, and 9 Masters. Novak has currently won 7 in a row. This is unparalleled in Open Era history. Roger never won more than 3 in a row, Rafa 5. He's also won 15 of the last 19 big tournaments going back to the Paris Masters of 2014. That is the most dominant year and a half in Open Era history, or at least going back to Laver in the late 60s.

He also just won his 28th Masters, which puts him in the lead all-time, although this is a record that really only has meaning from 1990 to the present, as the tour was structured a bit differently before then (the Grand Prix tournaments were equivalent to Masters, but I don't think the tour was as cohesive). It was also his 63rd title, which puts him one behind Borg and Sampras and 4 behind Nadal.

Here's one more thing. He's got 193 weeks at #1, which is 5th on the all-time list going back to 1973. Here's who is ahead of him:

302 Federer
286 Sampras
270 Lendl
268 Connors
193 Djokovic

And that is 193 weeks and counting. Right now he has 16540 points to Andy Murray's 7815 - that's 8725 more! Let's say that he stops playing and Andy wins every single tournament until he gets the #1 ranking. By rough estimation, Novak would still be assured the number one ranking through April, May, June, and lose it around Wimbledon or in August - so another 12-15 guaranteed weeks at #1. And of course chances are he won't get injured and he'll play reasonably well, so I think the year-end #1 is almost a sure thing - which would give him another 40 weeks and put him over 230.

If his dominance continues through 2017, he has a chance of passing Connors, Lendl, and Sampras sometime in 2018, and even a chance at Roger later that year.

Given all of that, I would offer three variant futures for him, with my rough guess of the percent change of each occuring:

Pessimistic (10%): He loses Roland Garros again this year, doubt sets in, and while he still remains very good for the next 2-3 years, he's more like 2013-14 for the next year or two, and loses the #1 ranking sometime in 2017 and doesn't get it back.

Career stats: 13-14 Slams, 30-35 Masters, 75-80 titles, 230-250 weeks at #1, 5 year-end #1s

Moderate (60%): His current dominance continues through the year, although he still loses a Slam and "only" wins 3-4 more Masters. He does finish #1, is still the best player next year, although starts to be challenged, maybe losing the #1 at some point, at least for a time, before eeking out the #1 in 2017 as well. But in 2018, significant decline is noticeable. From 2018-20 he remains a Slam threat and a top 5ish player. By 2021 he is rapid decline, even retirement.

Career stats: 15-17 Slams, 35-40 Masters, 80-90 titles, 250-300 weeks at #1, 6 year-end #1s

Optimistic (30%): 2016 makes 2015 look like yesterday's news. He wins all four Slams, 12+ titles, and is an easy #1 his year and next, winning 2-3 more in 2017. In 2018 he passes Roger Federer's 17 Slams, wins a couple more and has a nice slow decline, retiring sometime in his mid-30s.

Career stats: 18-20 Slams 40+ Masters, 90+ titles, 300+ weeks at #1, 7+ year-end #1s

So what do you think? The moderate prediction has the highest probability, but I think the optimistic is far more likely than the pessimistic. Even if the pessimistic occurs, he still ends his career with terrific stats, and is right there with Rafa and Pete. the moderate prediction and he vies with Federer for Open Era GOAT, and the optimistic puts him as probably the clear greatest ever, or at least with Rod Laver.

 

[Kieran]

Nicely drawn up, brother, a typically thorough and provoking read. I read earlier that Novak passed Roger as the all-time money earner too...

 

[Front242]

Nicely drawn up, brother, a typically thorough and provoking read. I read earlier that Novak passed Roger as the all-time money earner too...

Yeah he did. They said it in the match commentary too. Not taking away from it but it is definitely one of the less impressive stats though as prize money is going up and up each year. I mean compare what Borg and Laver won for their slams and it's a pretty pointless stat. The 28 masters and others records though are mighty impressive. An IFT futures on the challenger circuit is worth $10,000 or so, for example. Borg and Laver probably won 500 quid for theirs

 

[nehmeth]

Two more things: Djokovic is still looking to improve and the tour competition is weak at present.

Fed's freak injury with the twins, Andy a new father distracted and looking fat, and Rafa still battling self-doubt, the rest of the big four are question marks.

Ferrer is showing his age. Stan seems to be preoccupied in a similar way as Dimitrov, albeit with a much younger woman. Berdych, won't beat him unless his serve goes away like it did in 2010. Jo and Monfils? :nono

Then we have Raonic, Nishi and Grigor. Novak has learned from Fed, and is making sure he puts a beat down on those youngsters at every opportunity. Nishi completely choked today - that was very disappointing.

Goffin out-Nole'd Nole for a good part of their match. He was frustrating, but the only player I saw Novak "nervous" playing was Thiem. It won't be any easier when he plays Dominic on the clay.

I hope for your best case scenario, but agree the middle one is probably the most realistic.

 

[the AntiPusher]

In a best of 3 only Roger has the weapons to defeat Novak . Best of 5 only Stan , otherwise this guy is unbeatable. The other players including Nadal have the wrong combination of strategy and execution tactics to be victorious against Djokovic at this stage in their careers. This is about uncompetitive a period of ATP since the 2003-2007 years of Federer. Really it's even worst now because Federer wasn't as dominant on the clay as Djokovic is these days. Congrats to him and his team , job well done.

 

[Kieran]

Nicely drawn up, brother, a typically thorough and provoking read. I read earlier that Novak passed Roger as the all-time money earner too...

Yeah he did. They said it in the match commentary too. Not taking away from it but it is definitely one of the less impressive stats though as prize money is going up and up each year. I mean compare what Borg and Laver won for their slams and it's a pretty pointless stat. The 28 masters and others records though are mighty impressive. An IFT futures on the challenger circuit is worth $10,000 or so, for example. Borg and Laver probably won 500 quid for theirs

Oh brother, you know nothing at all! :cover

Laver got a fifty quid voucher for a sports shop in Camden when he won Wimbo in 1969, bought himself a new set of tennis whites... :snicker

 

[nehmeth]

WHAT DJOKOVIC JUST ACHIEVED
- Record 28th ATP World Tour Masters 1000 title
- Record-tying sixth Miami title (w/Agassi)
- Passed coach Boris Becker for 11th on Open Era match wins list with No. 714
- Surpassed Roger Federer as all-time prize money leader on ATP World Tour
- Achieved a three-peat at a record seventh different tour-level event
- Completed Indian Wells-Miami double for unprecedented fourth time
- Has compiled a 56-2 match record in reaching a record 11 consecutive Masters 1000 finals

Remember the early days when the big knock against Novak (besides early retirements), was that he could never defend a title?


http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/news/djokovic-wins-sixth-miami-title-2016

 

[El Dude]

AntiPusher, do you mean Nadal was as dominant on clay as Novak is these days? I think that's what you meant.

But yeah, I think this level of "competitiveness" is far worse than Roger's best years, both because of Nadal on clay, but also because there was (imo) a stronger secondary cast and greater upset potential back then.

Let's say that Novak right now is about as good as Roger was in 2004-07. Consider who they have been beaten by:

ROGER
2004: Tim Henman, Rafael Nadal, Albert Costa, Gustavo Kuerten, Dominik Hrbaty, Tomas Berdych
2005: Marat Safin, Richard Gasquet, Rafael Nadal, David Nalbandian
2006: Nadal x4, Murray
2007: Guillermo Canas x2, Nadal x2, Filippo Volandri, Novak Djokovic, David Nalbandian x2, Fernando Gonzalez

NOVAK
2015: Ivo Karlovic, Roger Federer x2, Stan Wawrinka, Andy Murray
2016: Feliciano Lopez

The Lopez victory was a retirement, with Novak injured. In 2015, he only lost to the best players in the sport, plus Ivo--who can beat anyone in a best-of-3.

Looking back at Roger's losses, you can see how in 2004 he was still struggling a bit on clay, with three of his losses to clay-court specialists. The Hrbaty, Henman, and Berdych losses seem like brain-farts, or maybe Roger simply not reaching his full dominance. In 2005 he lost to two very dangerous players in Safin and Nalbandian, Rafa on clay, and Gasquet on clay. Since that loss to Gasquet, their first match, Roger has dominated him 15-1.

In 2006, his best year, he only lost to Rafa--four times!--and a surprise loss to Andy Murray. In 2007, he started getting upset more. Volandri, really? But the others were either young players coming into their own (Nadal and Novak), or established players who were very dangerous (Canas, Gonzalez, Nalbandian). The Canas losses had to hurt, though. He was a good player, but not that good that Roger should lose to him twice in the same year, and on hard courts, and once in the 2R of Indian Wells, and when Canas was almost 30!

Anyhow, I don't see the equivalent of Safin or Nalbandian on tour, except for perhaps Wawrinka - a player who is capable of beating anyone on a given day.

On the other hand, it may also be that Novak is more dominant now because his "B-game" right now is higher than Roger's ever was. I might give Roger's A-game a slight edge--it is unfortunately that we'll never get to see 2006 Roger vs. 2015-16 Novak--but Novak's B-game is just so damn good right now.

 

[the AntiPusher]

AntiPusher, do you mean Nadal was as dominant on clay as Novak is these days? I think that's what you meant.

But yeah, I think this level of "competitiveness" is far worse than Roger's best years, both because of Nadal on clay, but also because there was (imo) a stronger secondary cast and greater upset potential back then.

Let's say that Novak right now is about as good as Roger was in 2004-07. Consider who they have been beaten by:

ROGER
2004: Tim Henman, Rafael Nadal, Albert Costa, Gustavo Kuerten, Dominik Hrbaty, Tomas Berdych
2005: Marat Safin, Richard Gasquet, Rafael Nadal, David Nalbandian
2006: Nadal x4, Murray
2007: Guillermo Canas x2, Nadal x2, Filippo Volandri, Novak Djokovic, David Nalbandian x2, Fernando Gonzalez

NOVAK
2015: Ivo Karlovic, Roger Federer x2, Stan Wawrinka, Andy Murray
2016: Feliciano Lopez

The Lopez victory was a retirement, with Novak injured. In 2015, he only lost to the best players in the sport, plus Ivo--who can beat anyone in a best-of-3.

Looking back at Roger's losses, you can see how in 2004 he was still struggling a bit on clay, with three of his losses to clay-court specialists. The Hrbaty, Henman, and Berdych losses seem like brain-farts, or maybe Roger simply not reaching his full dominance. In 2005 he lost to two very dangerous players in Safin and Nalbandian, Rafa on clay, and Gasquet on clay. Since that loss to Gasquet, their first match, Roger has dominated him 15-1.

In 2006, his best year, he only lost to Rafa--four times!--and a surprise loss to Andy Murray. In 2007, he started getting upset more. Volandri, really? But the others were either young players coming into their own (Nadal and Novak), or established players who were very dangerous (Canas, Gonzalez, Nalbandian). The Canas losses had to hurt, though. He was a good player, but not that good that Roger should lose to him twice in the same year, and on hard courts, and once in the 2R of Indian Wells, and when Canas was almost 30!

Anyhow, I don't see the equivalent of Safin or Nalbandian on tour, except for perhaps Wawrinka - a player who is capable of beating anyone on a given day.

On the other hand, it may also be that Novak is more dominant now because his "B-game" right now is higher than Roger's ever was. I might give Roger's A-game a slight edge--it is unfortunately that we'll never get to see 2006 Roger vs. 2015-16 Novak--but Novak's B-game is just so damn good right now.

El Dude I wasnt comparing Rafa's level of dominant on clay but really it is true.

 

[Sundaymorningguy]

We will have to see what he does this year, but I see the 60% playing out. He could however choose to stick it out despite any decline given the tour climate especially if he is within striking distance of Roger and other records to really cement his status. If he can win 4 in a row, and get past Nadal in slam totals and within striking distance of Roger you might have an interesting GOAT talk.

 

[BIG3]

AntiPusher, do you mean Nadal was as dominant on clay as Novak is these days? I think that's what you meant.

But yeah, I think this level of "competitiveness" is far worse than Roger's best years, both because of Nadal on clay, but also because there was (imo) a stronger secondary cast and greater upset potential back then.

Let's say that Novak right now is about as good as Roger was in 2004-07. Consider who they have been beaten by:

ROGER
2004: Tim Henman, Rafael Nadal, Albert Costa, Gustavo Kuerten, Dominik Hrbaty, Tomas Berdych
2005: Marat Safin, Richard Gasquet, Rafael Nadal, David Nalbandian
2006: Nadal x4, Murray
2007: Guillermo Canas x2, Nadal x2, Filippo Volandri, Novak Djokovic, David Nalbandian x2, Fernando Gonzalez

NOVAK
2015: Ivo Karlovic, Roger Federer x2, Stan Wawrinka, Andy Murray
2016: Feliciano Lopez

The Lopez victory was a retirement, with Novak injured. In 2015, he only lost to the best players in the sport, plus Ivo--who can beat anyone in a best-of-3.

Looking back at Roger's losses, you can see how in 2004 he was still struggling a bit on clay, with three of his losses to clay-court specialists. The Hrbaty, Henman, and Berdych losses seem like brain-farts, or maybe Roger simply not reaching his full dominance. In 2005 he lost to two very dangerous players in Safin and Nalbandian, Rafa on clay, and Gasquet on clay. Since that loss to Gasquet, their first match, Roger has dominated him 15-1.

In 2006, his best year, he only lost to Rafa--four times!--and a surprise loss to Andy Murray. In 2007, he started getting upset more. Volandri, really? But the others were either young players coming into their own (Nadal and Novak), or established players who were very dangerous (Canas, Gonzalez, Nalbandian). The Canas losses had to hurt, though. He was a good player, but not that good that Roger should lose to him twice in the same year, and on hard courts, and once in the 2R of Indian Wells, and when Canas was almost 30!

Anyhow, I don't see the equivalent of Safin or Nalbandian on tour, except for perhaps Wawrinka - a player who is capable of beating anyone on a given day.

On the other hand, it may also be that Novak is more dominant now because his "B-game" right now is higher than Roger's ever was. I might give Roger's A-game a slight edge--it is unfortunately that we'll never get to see 2006 Roger vs. 2015-16 Novak--but Novak's B-game is just so damn good right now.

It would be very interesting to compare Fed and Nole @ their respective age.

@ 28 years old, Fed 2009 vs Nole 2015
Fed reached all 4 majors final, the same as Nole. If Rafa is taken out, Fed would had 3 majors and USO loss to Del Potro is outliner, as shocking as Nole’s RG loss to Stan.

Fed 2010 AO = Nole 2016 AO, winner

2010 RG, reached QF and lost to Soldering
2010 W, reached QF and lost to Bird
2010 USO, reached SF and lost to Nole

2011
AO, reached SF and lost to Nole
RG, reached F and lost to Rafa
W, reached QF and lost to Tsonga
USO, reached SF and lost to Nole

2012
AO, reached SF and lost to Rafa
RG, reached SF and lost to Nole
W, winner
AO, reached QF and lost to Bird

2013
AO, reached SF and lost to Rafa

As we see, even though Fed passed his absolute peak (half-glass-empty/full question), he has been still extremely strong in majors. If Rafa/Nole are taken off, he would have been very likely to take 8 majors in the next 3 years (starting from 10 RG) , instead of only single one in 2012 Wimbledon.

No matter which camp you come from, we mostly agree there is no Rafa/Nole among the current youngsters. Based on Nole’s injury-proof history and current weak/normal field, it won’t be crazy to dream about Nole 17+ majors.

As Nole’s fan from 2007, I admit his peak is not as high as Fed. But IF his longevity is anything close to Fed, he does have very decent shot to pass Fed in history book, majors, # 1 weeks, # 1 year end, even consecutive # 1 weeks.