Realistic scenario how Djokovic can end his career with 18 slams

[EdbergsGhost]

Mastoor's sense of humor is not for everyone I guess.

 

[Billie]

Yeah, Mastoor sometimes exaggerates but....I think this point is fair:

Of all 3 Fed, Rafa, Nole, Nole has way better results when turning 28 (before turning 29).

Fed turned 28 in August of 2009: 1 slam final, 1 slam win, 2 slam quarters
Rafa turned 28 in June of 2014 and has 1 slam win, 1 round 4, US didn't play and quarter final of following AO
Nole has 3 slam wins and 1 slam final.

That is significantly better than the other two. I think he can be better than two of them when he turns 29 (in respect to their years when they turned 29), perhaps at age 30. It remains to be seen, naturally, but at this point Nole looks like a prime tennis player (on the verge of being 29 years old in May).

As for Troicki, yes he is Nole's friend, but he is also a tennis player who knows what it takes to win or not win on the professional tour. I posted the article in Nole's world what exactly Troicki said if anybody is interested. I don't think he said it only because he likes Nole but because he knows how dedicated, good and serious about tennis Nole is.

Anyway it doesn't matter, nobody knows who is going to win what, this is all speculation. And we all like to speculate, I assume.

This is what he said about his mental and tennis state at the moment, in Dubai after his 1st round match:
http://espn.go.com/tennis/story/_/id/14823966/tennis-novak-djokovic-holistic-approach-success

 

[Obsi]

You also have to factor in Nole's conversion ratio at all the slam appearances, and once he gets to the final, what will be his win/loss record. Currently, Nole is 11-19 in the final, that's 57.9% rate. At that rate, for him to win 18 slams he would have to make some 14 more slam finals.

In the last 5 finals he is 4-1 which is 80% rate. How do you explain that?

 

[Moxie]

In the last 5 finals he is 4-1 which is 80% rate. How do you explain that?

Those dueling stats tell you that stats only get you so far.

 

[Billie]

Those dueling stats tell you that stats only get you so far.

Yes, they get you slam titles. It is a simple math, really. He played last 5 slams and won 4 of them, not bad. Obviously his fans or I hope he can at least win 50% of them this and next year. We don't know if that'll happen, naturally nobody knows that, but is this notion so crazy?

 

[Moxie]

Yes, they get you slam titles. It is a simple math, really. He played last 5 slams and won 4 of them, not bad. Obviously his fans or I hope he can at least win 50% of them this and next year. We don't know if that'll happen, naturally nobody knows that, but is this notion so crazy?

The notion is not at all crazy. Novak is playing like he invented tennis, and realistically, there is no one to stop him. No matter how much I'm arguing.

 

[Obsi]

I said Djokovic is 4-1 in the last 5 finals (which is true) but I forgot 2014 Wimbledon so in the last 6 finals he is 5-1.

Those dueling stats tell you that stats only get you so far.

There is a reason why Novak is 5-1 in the last 6 finals. What do you think is the reason?

 

[TMF]

In the last 5 finals he is 4-1 which is 80% rate. How do you explain that?

Because the field is weak and Federer/Nadal are past their prime. Nole is at his peak but eventually he will slow down and expect the conversion rate to drop too. The field can't get anymore worse, young players like Kyrgios/Zverev/Thiem can only get better.

 

[Denis]

Because the field is weak and Federer/Nadal are past their prime. Nole is at his peak but eventually he will slow down and expect the conversion rate to drop too. The field can't get anymore worse, young players like Kyrgios/Zverev/Thiem can only get better.

Not as weak as the 2004-2007 era. Federer basically got his slams for free during that period.

 

[Moxie]

Not as weak as the 2004-2007 era. Federer basically got his slams for free during that period.

I should probably just sit back and laugh, watching Fed fans and Djoker fans haggle over dueling "weak eras." But what would be the fun in that? There are legitimate arguments in both cases that there is/was some lack of competition. However, there is also the fact, in both cases, that each player was head-and-shoulders above the rest, for extended periods. Both have had the luxury of straddling an era change, and hitting their peaks just when the field didn't have so much to offer. Federer's window came early in his career, with Sampras and Agassi mostly done, and his generation, while talented, the best of them were hampered by distraction and injury. Djokovic's opportunity has been the coinciding of his peak form with a group behind him that is decidedly a "lost generation." He had to play 3rd fiddle to Federer and Nadal at their best, but he was peaking as they were waning. There's a bit of luck in the timing of it, but it doesn't diminish the high level that both are or were playing at in those periods.

(And of course I have to say it The unlucky one with timing is Nadal, who's prime was when Federer was still peak, and then when Djokovic hit his. Not to mention loss of peak time to injury.

 

[EdbergsGhost]

I should probably just sit back and laugh, watching Fed fans and Djoker fans haggle over dueling "weak eras." But what would be the fun in that? There are legitimate arguments in both cases that there is/was some lack of competition. However, there is also the fact, in both cases, that each player was head-and-shoulders above the rest, for extended periods. Both have had the luxury of straddling an era change, and hitting their peaks just when the field didn't have so much to offer. Federer's window came early in his career, with Sampras and Agassi mostly done, and his generation, while talented, the best of them were hampered by distraction and injury. Djokovic's opportunity has been the coinciding of his peak form with a group behind him that is decidedly a "lost generation." He had to play 3rd fiddle to Federer and Nadal at their best, but he was peaking as they were waning. There's a bit of luck in the timing of it, but it doesn't diminish the high level that both are or were playing at in those periods.

(And of course I have to say it The unlucky one with timing is Nadal, who's prime was when Federer was still peak, and then when Djokovic hit his. Not to mention loss of peak time to injury.

This is quickly becoming like the Sampras/Federer discussions, lots of slights back and forth with increasing intensity until Djokovic either passes Fed or he doesn't.

Fed played the people who were available, Rafa and Novak made him a better player. Djokovic ate both their dust for years, and they helped him become the player he is today. Rafa collected 14 slams in the process, so I wouldn't feel too badly for him. But yes, the time he spent away from the game due to injury was unfortunate.

 

[Moxie]

This is quickly becoming like the Sampras/Federer discussions, lots of slights back and forth with increasing intensity until Djokovic either passes Fed or he doesn't.

Fed played the people who were available, Rafa and Novak made him a better player. Djokovic ate both their dust for years, and they helped him become the player he is today. Rafa collected 14 slams in the process, so I wouldn't feel too badly for him. But yes, the time he spent away from the game due to injury was unfortunate.

That's a pretty good recap. And I'm not asking anyone to feel sorry for Rafa, as 14, to date, is a great haul. My point is that it's note-worthy, being stuck between Roger and Novak, and having lost some of his peak years to injury. Neither Roger nor Novak has missed Majors for any reason. Nadal has the highest win percentage, when he participates. It is unfortunate that he had to skip some in his peak years.

 

[Billie]

The notion is not at all crazy. Novak is playing like he invented tennis, and realistically, there is no one to stop him. No matter how much I'm arguing.

One of the reasons we :heart: you!!!

 

[Obsi]

Because the field is weak and Federer/Nadal are past their prime. Nole is at his peak but eventually he will slow down and expect the conversion rate to drop too. The field can't get anymore worse, young players like Kyrgios/Zverev/Thiem can only get better.

I believe level of competition won't get much stronger before 2018 and also I think Novak is going to be among favorites to win slams at least until 2020. So, in my opinion, his conversion rate (in the last 6 finals) won't drop before 2018.

 

[britbox]

2018 is a long time Obsi... I think the competition will heat up a lot this year and next.

 

[Obsi]

We'll see.

 

[Moxie]

Indeed, we shall see. But I'm with Britbox...2018 is a long time away to say the competition won't get much stronger. Especially in light of the last few weeks, when several in the youngest group took a step up to the next level in their trajectories. I'm not saying these youngsters are about to turn into immediate and serious competition for the big prizes, but they are coming on "banana peel" status, which I would say means the field already just got a little larger in terms of potential spoilers. I'd wager no one will want to see Thiem or Kyrgios in their quarter at RG. The road already has more pot holes than it did last year, so it's short-sighted to say not much will change in the next 2 years.

 

[Obsi]

Moxie, don't forget some players will probably decline in the next 2 years. If Thiem, Kyrgios etc become tougher opponents they will replace those who declined.

 

[TMF]

When Nadal won his 14th slams in 2014, the chances of him breaking Federer's 17th is more realistic than Nole who is currently at 11. But now no one believes Nadal will break the record, and doubt if he will win another slam. Nole is one year younger than Nadal but is too far behind. I wouldn't be surprise if he can't surpass 14 slams.

In other sport, Tiger Woods was on pace to break Jack Nicklaus 18 majors eight years ago when he had 14. Now his chances are slim and none. Sports is too unpredictable. A player can win at a rapid pace, but can stop winning all the sudden, and never returned to glory again.

 

[Obsi]

When Nadal won his 14th slams in 2014, the chances of him breaking Federer's 17th is more realistic than Nole who is currently at 11. But now no one believes Nadal will break the record, and doubt if he will win another slam. Nole is one year younger than Nadal but is too far behind. I wouldn't be surprise if he can't surpass 14 slams.

In other sport, Tiger Woods was on pace to break Jack Nicklaus 18 majors eight years ago when he had 14. Now his chances are slim and none. Sports is too unpredictable. A player can win at a rapid pace, but can stop winning all the sudden, and never returned to glory again.

1. Nadal's playing style is much more taxing on body than Djokovic's
2. Nadal has played much more mathes than Djokovic
3. Djokovic's body is much more flexible and less prone to injury than Nadal's