What does Novak have to do to be truly in the Fedal conversation?

[Federberg]

However, this would be ignoring that he first broke into the scene in 2008, when the field was incredibly strong, and he TOOK away Fedal's dominance when Federer was still really good and Nadal was at the height of his powers. So he's proven himself in a strong era. After all, he really had to deal with arguably the two most dominant players of all time for much of his career, and was stuck in their shadow for a good 3-4 years. If anything, he deserves a little break. And like I said, it counts in his favor that he actually became the best player in the world when Nadal was still in his prime and Federer was still very much a strong factor.

I think the thing that prevents me from seeing him in the same vein as Nadal and Federer, is that he never really did beat them at their best. He was losing to them pretty badly back in the day with only a few performances here and there to the contrary. These losses weren't only when he was a young player either. We're talking 21-24 years old, which is normally smack in a players prime years. It was only when they started to slow down a bit that the door opened. Even years into his dominance, they would still sneak some wins over him (Rogers FO 2011, Wimbledon 2012, Masters final) and Rafa at RG every year and the USO two years ago. Even the famous wins that he has over an age 30+ Roger are mostly by the closest hairline margins.

This pattern is unlike Roger and Rafa in several respects. Both of them were soundly beating their older generation players when they were in their primes. Roger was routinely thumping Agassi, and Rafa was clearly beating Roger.

So for that reason I just don't think he's the next evolution of a tennis player, he's a great one for sure, but I am just not convinced that he's in the same conversation given the caveats and that he chose to time his success so late in his career.

Hmmm... he was beating Rafa in 2011, and as far as I can tell Rafa was at his best. It's difficult with Federer because he's much older. But if it wasn't for Novak Rafa would have had a career year. How many finals did he lose to Novak. Just imagine if he'd won all of those. No, we simply can't say Rafa wasn't at his best. It's just that Novak was in beast mode

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Obviously the numbers are the closest thing to an objective gauge so his slam count and what not will determine his place among the other greats. But even then you can look at it in different ways. If for example, both Rafa and Nole finish at 15 slams but Rafa has 10 RGs and Nole's 15 is more diversified, I would give the edge to Nole for versatility.

Subjectively speaking though, when you look at peak Nole, like parts of 2011 and this year, he is right up there with anyone in regards to where he took the game of tennis. Best returns, best backhands, amazing defending...

 

[DarthFed]

However, this would be ignoring that he first broke into the scene in 2008, when the field was incredibly strong, and he TOOK away Fedal's dominance when Federer was still really good and Nadal was at the height of his powers. So he's proven himself in a strong era. After all, he really had to deal with arguably the two most dominant players of all time for much of his career, and was stuck in their shadow for a good 3-4 years. If anything, he deserves a little break. And like I said, it counts in his favor that he actually became the best player in the world when Nadal was still in his prime and Federer was still very much a strong factor.

I think the thing that prevents me from seeing him in the same vein as Nadal and Federer, is that he never really did beat them at their best. He was losing to them pretty badly back in the day with only a few performances here and there to the contrary. These losses weren't only when he was a young player either. We're talking 21-24 years old, which is normally smack in a players prime years. It was only when they started to slow down a bit that the door opened. Even years into his dominance, they would still sneak some wins over him (Rogers FO 2011, Wimbledon 2012, Masters final) and Rafa at RG every year and the USO two years ago. Even the famous wins that he has over an age 30+ Roger are mostly by the closest hairline margins.

This pattern is unlike Roger and Rafa in several respects. Both of them were soundly beating their older generation players when they were in their primes. Roger was routinely thumping Agassi, and Rafa was clearly beating Roger.

So for that reason I just don't think he's the next evolution of a tennis player, he's a great one for sure, but I am just not convinced that he's in the same conversation given the caveats and that he chose to time his success so late in his career.

I'm genuinely shocked that this is coming from you. We know by now that players mature differently. With Nole there were fitness issues and I'd say it got to be mental by the end of 2010 when he had a horrendous serve and generally had played poor for much of that year. What exactly was wrong with Nadal in 2011?

 

[Billie]

I won't even bother with his post it is so over the top. Who choses to time his success in sport?:cover

All I can say is that both Federer and Nadal fans should be pretty happy that Nole solved his problems when he did and not sooner because winning all those majors before 2011 would have been a lot harder for them than it actually was.

 

[Moxie]

However, this would be ignoring that he first broke into the scene in 2008, when the field was incredibly strong, and he TOOK away Fedal's dominance when Federer was still really good and Nadal was at the height of his powers. So he's proven himself in a strong era. After all, he really had to deal with arguably the two most dominant players of all time for much of his career, and was stuck in their shadow for a good 3-4 years. If anything, he deserves a little break. And like I said, it counts in his favor that he actually became the best player in the world when Nadal was still in his prime and Federer was still very much a strong factor.

I think the thing that prevents me from seeing him in the same vein as Nadal and Federer, is that he never really did beat them at their best. He was losing to them pretty badly back in the day with only a few performances here and there to the contrary. These losses weren't only when he was a young player either. We're talking 21-24 years old, which is normally smack in a players prime years. It was only when they started to slow down a bit that the door opened. Even years into his dominance, they would still sneak some wins over him (Rogers FO 2011, Wimbledon 2012, Masters final) and Rafa at RG every year and the USO two years ago. Even the famous wins that he has over an age 30+ Roger are mostly by the closest hairline margins.

This pattern is unlike Roger and Rafa in several respects. Both of them were soundly beating their older generation players when they were in their primes. Roger was routinely thumping Agassi, and Rafa was clearly beating Roger.

So for that reason I just don't think he's the next evolution of a tennis player, he's a great one for sure, but I am just not convinced that he's in the same conversation given the caveats and that he chose to time his success so late in his career.

My take on the OP's question is not so much 'what does Djokovic have to do to be in the Fedal conversation,' but more in terms of legacy in general. I could be wrong, but I think others are reading it that way, as well. The Fedal conversation will always exist, and I don't just mean on these or other forums. Their legacies are tethered together. For Novak to break free of that, and not just be the "other best guy who played during the Federer-Nadal era," he has to win the French, because a career slam is de rigueur in this era. Then it becomes about accumulating Slams, particularly, as it is for everyone else. Other records will help. I'm not so much about dominance as federberg is, and he will likely sneer, but Rafa's failure to dominate at #1, for example, is not so much a failure of results, as injury time-outs, and being sandwiched between Roger and Nole. He has dominated them, anyway, as well as a good deal of the field for many years. So Novak may sit at #1, but he has other work to do. As Broken points out, Novak has scored big wins over a very good Roger, and a prime Nadal, so I don't think it counts against him that they lead the H2H at this point. However, when/if he passes them, it will be a little discounted as they are past their primes. Anyway, I don't think Nole wants to be measured only against them. He wants to be measured against tennis history. And he's doing a pretty decent job of getting there.

 

[Moxie]

However, this would be ignoring that he first broke into the scene in 2008, when the field was incredibly strong, and he TOOK away Fedal's dominance when Federer was still really good and Nadal was at the height of his powers. So he's proven himself in a strong era. After all, he really had to deal with arguably the two most dominant players of all time for much of his career, and was stuck in their shadow for a good 3-4 years. If anything, he deserves a little break. And like I said, it counts in his favor that he actually became the best player in the world when Nadal was still in his prime and Federer was still very much a strong factor.

I think the thing that prevents me from seeing him in the same vein as Nadal and Federer, is that he never really did beat them at their best. He was losing to them pretty badly back in the day with only a few performances here and there to the contrary. These losses weren't only when he was a young player either. We're talking 21-24 years old, which is normally smack in a players prime years. It was only when they started to slow down a bit that the door opened. Even years into his dominance, they would still sneak some wins over him (Rogers FO 2011, Wimbledon 2012, Masters final) and Rafa at RG every year and the USO two years ago. Even the famous wins that he has over an age 30+ Roger are mostly by the closest hairline margins.

This pattern is unlike Roger and Rafa in several respects. Both of them were soundly beating their older generation players when they were in their primes. Roger was routinely thumping Agassi, and Rafa was clearly beating Roger.

So for that reason I just don't think he's the next evolution of a tennis player, he's a great one for sure, but I am just not convinced that he's in the same conversation given the caveats and that he chose to time his success so late in his career.

Hmmm... he was beating Rafa in 2011, and as far as I can tell Rafa was at his best. It's difficult with Federer because he's much older. But if it wasn't for Novak Rafa would have had a career year. How many finals did he lose to Novak. Just imagine if he'd won all of those. No, we simply can't say Rafa wasn't at his best. It's just that Novak was in beast mode

He absolutely was beating Rafa at his best in 2011.

 

[Riotbeard]

However, this would be ignoring that he first broke into the scene in 2008, when the field was incredibly strong, and he TOOK away Fedal's dominance when Federer was still really good and Nadal was at the height of his powers. So he's proven himself in a strong era. After all, he really had to deal with arguably the two most dominant players of all time for much of his career, and was stuck in their shadow for a good 3-4 years. If anything, he deserves a little break. And like I said, it counts in his favor that he actually became the best player in the world when Nadal was still in his prime and Federer was still very much a strong factor.

I think the thing that prevents me from seeing him in the same vein as Nadal and Federer, is that he never really did beat them at their best. He was losing to them pretty badly back in the day with only a few performances here and there to the contrary. These losses weren't only when he was a young player either. We're talking 21-24 years old, which is normally smack in a players prime years. It was only when they started to slow down a bit that the door opened. Even years into his dominance, they would still sneak some wins over him (Rogers FO 2011, Wimbledon 2012, Masters final) and Rafa at RG every year and the USO two years ago. Even the famous wins that he has over an age 30+ Roger are mostly by the closest hairline margins.

This pattern is unlike Roger and Rafa in several respects. Both of them were soundly beating their older generation players when they were in their primes. Roger was routinely thumping Agassi, and Rafa was clearly beating Roger.

So for that reason I just don't think he's the next evolution of a tennis player, he's a great one for sure, but I am just not convinced that he's in the same conversation given the caveats and that he chose to time his success so late in his career.

My take on the OP's question is not so much 'what does Djokovic have to do to be in the Fedal conversation,' but more in terms of legacy in general. I could be wrong, but I think others are reading it that way, as well. The Fedal conversation will always exist, and I don't just mean on these or other forums. Their legacies are tethered together. For Novak to break free of that, and not just be the "other best guy who played during the Federer-Nadal era," he has to win the French, because a career slam is de rigueur in this era. Then it becomes about accumulating Slams, particularly, as it is for everyone else. Other records will help. I'm not so much about dominance as federberg is, and he will likely sneer, but Rafa's failure to dominate at #1, for example, is not so much a failure of results, as injury time-outs, and being sandwiched between Roger and Nole. He has dominated them, anyway, as well as a good deal of the field for many years. So Novak may sit at #1, but he has other work to do. As Broken points out, Novak has scored big wins over a very good Roger, and a prime Nadal, so I don't think it counts against him that they lead the H2H at this point. However, when/if he passes them, it will be a little discounted as they are past their primes. Anyway, I don't think Nole wants to be measured only against them. He wants to be measured against tennis history. And he's doing a pretty decent job of getting there.

On the flip side, Rafa and Fed got to play Novak for a number of years in their primes and before his, so it evens out at least a bit.

 

[Moxie]

I think the thing that prevents me from seeing him in the same vein as Nadal and Federer, is that he never really did beat them at their best. He was losing to them pretty badly back in the day with only a few performances here and there to the contrary. These losses weren't only when he was a young player either. We're talking 21-24 years old, which is normally smack in a players prime years. It was only when they started to slow down a bit that the door opened. Even years into his dominance, they would still sneak some wins over him (Rogers FO 2011, Wimbledon 2012, Masters final) and Rafa at RG every year and the USO two years ago. Even the famous wins that he has over an age 30+ Roger are mostly by the closest hairline margins.

This pattern is unlike Roger and Rafa in several respects. Both of them were soundly beating their older generation players when they were in their primes. Roger was routinely thumping Agassi, and Rafa was clearly beating Roger.

So for that reason I just don't think he's the next evolution of a tennis player, he's a great one for sure, but I am just not convinced that he's in the same conversation given the caveats and that he chose to time his success so late in his career.

My take on the OP's question is not so much 'what does Djokovic have to do to be in the Fedal conversation,' but more in terms of legacy in general. I could be wrong, but I think others are reading it that way, as well. The Fedal conversation will always exist, and I don't just mean on these or other forums. Their legacies are tethered together. For Novak to break free of that, and not just be the "other best guy who played during the Federer-Nadal era," he has to win the French, because a career slam is de rigueur in this era. Then it becomes about accumulating Slams, particularly, as it is for everyone else. Other records will help. I'm not so much about dominance as federberg is, and he will likely sneer, but Rafa's failure to dominate at #1, for example, is not so much a failure of results, as injury time-outs, and being sandwiched between Roger and Nole. He has dominated them, anyway, as well as a good deal of the field for many years. So Novak may sit at #1, but he has other work to do. As Broken points out, Novak has scored big wins over a very good Roger, and a prime Nadal, so I don't think it counts against him that they lead the H2H at this point. However, when/if he passes them, it will be a little discounted as they are past their primes. Anyway, I don't think Nole wants to be measured only against them. He wants to be measured against tennis history. And he's doing a pretty decent job of getting there.

On the flip side, Rafa and Fed got to play Novak for a number of years in their primes and before his, so it evens out at least a bit.

Good point, though the argument is that Novak could have featured more strongly after being in the USO final in 2007, and winning the AO in 08, and he didn't. He stayed a great "also-ran" for 3 years. I will point out early 2010, when Rafa was struggling to find his feet after injury lay-off. The #2 ranking was up for grabs, and neither Novak nor Andy stepped up to the plate. So there is a bit of a knock, in terms of failure to capitalize on an opportunity, for both of them.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

As some one pointed out in some other thread, it is more realistic to expect that Novak can win
RG, Cincy and Olympics thus winning every big title out there imaginable.

I really doubt, Roger can win MC, Rome and Olympics, the three missing form his resume.
He may win one of the three, but definitely not all three.

Similary, I doubt that Rafa can win Miami, Paris and WTF. In particular, now that he
is going past his prime and indoor hard courts not being his thing, the last two may be
very difficult.

Achieving all three missing big titles (very possible for Novak, especially considering
that Olympics is in 2016) would certainly give Novak something that he can boast of
that Fedal does not have.

Assuming he can do that, I am willing to give him a discount of 1 in slam counts.

Also, if he can achieve calendar slam, I am willing to give him a discount of 3 in slam counts.

I also agree with Federberg that dominance is an important aspect and so if he matches
Rafa, he should get the nod.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I think the thing that prevents me from seeing him in the same vein as Nadal and Federer, is that he never really did beat them at their best. He was losing to them pretty badly back in the day with only a few performances here and there to the contrary. These losses weren't only when he was a young player either. We're talking 21-24 years old, which is normally smack in a players prime years. It was only when they started to slow down a bit that the door opened. Even years into his dominance, they would still sneak some wins over him (Rogers FO 2011, Wimbledon 2012, Masters final) and Rafa at RG every year and the USO two years ago. Even the famous wins that he has over an age 30+ Roger are mostly by the closest hairline margins.

This pattern is unlike Roger and Rafa in several respects. Both of them were soundly beating their older generation players when they were in their primes. Roger was routinely thumping Agassi, and Rafa was clearly beating Roger.

So for that reason I just don't think he's the next evolution of a tennis player, he's a great one for sure, but I am just not convinced that he's in the same conversation given the caveats and that he chose to time his success so late in his career.

My take on the OP's question is not so much 'what does Djokovic have to do to be in the Fedal conversation,' but more in terms of legacy in general. I could be wrong, but I think others are reading it that way, as well. The Fedal conversation will always exist, and I don't just mean on these or other forums. Their legacies are tethered together. For Novak to break free of that, and not just be the "other best guy who played during the Federer-Nadal era," he has to win the French, because a career slam is de rigueur in this era. Then it becomes about accumulating Slams, particularly, as it is for everyone else. Other records will help. I'm not so much about dominance as federberg is, and he will likely sneer, but Rafa's failure to dominate at #1, for example, is not so much a failure of results, as injury time-outs, and being sandwiched between Roger and Nole. He has dominated them, anyway, as well as a good deal of the field for many years. So Novak may sit at #1, but he has other work to do. As Broken points out, Novak has scored big wins over a very good Roger, and a prime Nadal, so I don't think it counts against him that they lead the H2H at this point. However, when/if he passes them, it will be a little discounted as they are past their primes. Anyway, I don't think Nole wants to be measured only against them. He wants to be measured against tennis history. And he's doing a pretty decent job of getting there.

On the flip side, Rafa and Fed got to play Novak for a number of years in their primes and before his, so it evens out at least a bit.

I think that's Haelfix's point though (even if I feel he's being a tad harsh on Novak). It took Novak a long time to peak, and that counts against him as a player. I agree with that part to be honest. Novak wasted years of his career being very good but having sub-par results. He's only a year younger than Nadal and it's not like he was a late bloomer.

Nevertheless, numbers are numbers and Novak has the chance to "make up for lost times." If he gets close to them in number of slam wins or surpasses them, then his legacy as an equal or close-to-being-equal is established.

 

[Moxie]

As some one pointed out in some other thread, it is more realistic to expect that Novak can win
RG, Cincy and Olympics thus winning every big title out there imaginable.

I really doubt, Roger can win MC, Rome and Olympics, the three missing form his resume.
He may win one of the three, but definitely not all three.

Similary, I doubt that Rafa can win Miami, Paris and WTF. In particular, now that he
is going past his prime and indoor hard courts not being his thing, the last two may be
very difficult.

Achieving all three missing big titles (very possible for Novak, especially considering
that Olympics is in 2016) would certainly give Novak something that he can boast of
that Fedal does not have.

Assuming he can do that, I am willing to give him a discount of 1 in slam counts.

Also, if he can achieve calendar slam, I am willing to give him a discount of 3 in slam counts.

I also agree with Federberg that dominance is an important aspect and so if he matches
Rafa, he should get the nod.

I would caution you on the Slam discounts. Not many are willing to give them. You should remember that MS have only been consolidated in the last 30-ish years, and so that's only a thing amongst the last few generations. Same with Olympics. I'm not at all against giving points for other accomplishments, and that's what makes the conversation interesting. But, like it or not, the Slam count stands as the Gold Standard. Believe me, Rafa fans have been arguing the other points, too. If Novak reaches 14 Slams, and has the career Slam, then I think he beats Sampras, but not Nadal. That would be a tie, anyway. And Nadal might well have a Slam or 3 left in him. But Novak is 6 Slams away from 14. Even at his level, right now, that's a lot, at 28.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

As some one pointed out in some other thread, it is more realistic to expect that Novak can win
RG, Cincy and Olympics thus winning every big title out there imaginable.

I really doubt, Roger can win MC, Rome and Olympics, the three missing form his resume.
He may win one of the three, but definitely not all three.

Similary, I doubt that Rafa can win Miami, Paris and WTF. In particular, now that he
is going past his prime and indoor hard courts not being his thing, the last two may be
very difficult.

Achieving all three missing big titles (very possible for Novak, especially considering
that Olympics is in 2016) would certainly give Novak something that he can boast of
that Fedal does not have.

Assuming he can do that, I am willing to give him a discount of 1 in slam counts.

Also, if he can achieve calendar slam, I am willing to give him a discount of 3 in slam counts.

I also agree with Federberg that dominance is an important aspect and so if he matches
Rafa, he should get the nod.

I would caution you on the Slam discounts. Not many are willing to give them. You should remember that MS have only been consolidated in the last 30-ish years, and so that's only a thing amongst the last few generations. Same with Olympics. I'm not at all against giving points for other accomplishments, and that's what makes the conversation interesting. But, like it or not, the Slam count stands as the Gold Standard. Believe me, Rafa fans have been arguing the other points, too. If Novak reaches 14 Slams, and has the career Slam, then I think he beats Sampras, but not Nadal. That would be a tie, anyway. And Nadal might well have a Slam or 3 left in him. But Novak is 6 Slams away from 14. Even at his level, right now, that's a lot, at 28.

I agree that the golden career masters (or whatever it is called) is relatively new and
should not be used for legacy purposes when comparing against former greats. However,
when the comparison is with Fedal, it is legitimate as they both were playing only after
the Masters became established.

 

[Moxie]

As some one pointed out in some other thread, it is more realistic to expect that Novak can win
RG, Cincy and Olympics thus winning every big title out there imaginable.

I really doubt, Roger can win MC, Rome and Olympics, the three missing form his resume.
He may win one of the three, but definitely not all three.

Similary, I doubt that Rafa can win Miami, Paris and WTF. In particular, now that he
is going past his prime and indoor hard courts not being his thing, the last two may be
very difficult.

Achieving all three missing big titles (very possible for Novak, especially considering
that Olympics is in 2016) would certainly give Novak something that he can boast of
that Fedal does not have.

Assuming he can do that, I am willing to give him a discount of 1 in slam counts.

Also, if he can achieve calendar slam, I am willing to give him a discount of 3 in slam counts.

I also agree with Federberg that dominance is an important aspect and so if he matches
Rafa, he should get the nod.

I would caution you on the Slam discounts. Not many are willing to give them. You should remember that MS have only been consolidated in the last 30-ish years, and so that's only a thing amongst the last few generations. Same with Olympics. I'm not at all against giving points for other accomplishments, and that's what makes the conversation interesting. But, like it or not, the Slam count stands as the Gold Standard. Believe me, Rafa fans have been arguing the other points, too. If Novak reaches 14 Slams, and has the career Slam, then I think he beats Sampras, but not Nadal. That would be a tie, anyway. And Nadal might well have a Slam or 3 left in him. But Novak is 6 Slams away from 14. Even at his level, right now, that's a lot, at 28.

I agree that the golden career masters (or whatever it is called) is relatively new and
should not be used for legacy purposes when comparing against former greats. However,
when the comparison is with Fedal, it is legitimate as they both were playing only after
the Masters became established.

Yes, but as I think I posted above...Novak isn't interested in being compared only to Fedal. Or he shouldn't be. Either he gets 11, 14, 18 Slams, or he doesn't.

 

[Haelfix]

Hmmm... he was beating Rafa in 2011, and as far as I can tell Rafa was at his best. It's difficult with Federer because he's much older. But if it wasn't for Novak Rafa would have had a career year. How many finals did he lose to Novak. Just imagine if he'd won all of those. No, we simply can't say Rafa wasn't at his best. It's just that Novak was in beast mode

I'm not sure if Rafa was really at his 08 level, especially at Wimbledon and on clay, but the fact that he completely turned it around in 2013 counts against Novak imo. It's just a big question mark on what should have been uninterrupted dominance. You can kinda understand losing to Federer at Wimbledon the first time, and losing to Rafa on clay at RG, but losing the USO to Murray and Nadal shouldn't happen. Losing the AO to Wawrinka shouldn't happen.

And that's my point. Yes at the end of the day slams are mostly what counts, but there is a sort of recoil affect throughout Novaks career that makes one question him a bit. For instance he was poised after the end of the year 2007 and A0 2008 to really be the next big thing. Yet he was thumped by Safin at Wimbledon badly, and then Roger had a pretty spectacular win over him at the USO. Then for the next few years he just completely floundered. Again we see the same thing happen in 2012-2013. It's dominance followed by spurts of meh.

Now he's back to dominance, sorta the way we expect.. But, then I think it wouldn't be very surprising if he all of a sudden loses the grip again.

Again its worth contrasting Fed and Nadal. The only thing that ever stopped their dominance was injury or the rise of a younger competitor.

 

[Federberg]

Hmmm... he was beating Rafa in 2011, and as far as I can tell Rafa was at his best. It's difficult with Federer because he's much older. But if it wasn't for Novak Rafa would have had a career year. How many finals did he lose to Novak. Just imagine if he'd won all of those. No, we simply can't say Rafa wasn't at his best. It's just that Novak was in beast mode

I'm not sure if Rafa was really at his 08 level, especially at Wimbledon and on clay, but the fact that he completely turned it around in 2013 counts against Novak imo. It's just a big question mark on what should have been uninterrupted dominance. You can kinda understand losing to Federer at Wimbledon the first time, and losing to Rafa on clay at RG, but losing the USO to Murray and Nadal shouldn't happen. Losing the AO to Wawrinka shouldn't happen.

And that's my point. Yes at the end of the day slams are mostly what counts, but there is a sort of recoil affect throughout Novaks career that makes one question him a bit. For instance he was poised after the end of the year 2007 and A0 2008 to really be the next big thing. Yet he was thumped by Safin at Wimbledon badly, and then Roger had a pretty spectacular win over him at the USO. Then for the next few years he just completely floundered. Again we see the same thing happen in 2012-2013. It's dominance followed by spurts of meh.

Now he's back to dominance, sorta the way we expect.. But, then I think it wouldn't be very surprising if he all of a sudden loses the grip again.

Again its worth contrasting Fed and Nadal. The only thing that ever stopped their dominance was injury or the rise of a younger competitor.

I'm not sure what that has to do with 2011. The guy was utterly dominant and I was responding to a post that Novak had not beaten Fedal at their peak. Clearly in 2011 he beat a Rafa at the peak of his powers.

Each player has their own trajectory, some go on an upsurge that doesn't get interupted, some win big then take some time to come to terms with it. The fact that Novak won his first slam when Roger and Rafa were at the height of their powers is worthy of respect. The fact that it took him some time to get back to that level (while still trying to compete against Fedal) is no demerit in my opinion. Sampras for instance won his first slam and then took a while to really get going. Sometimes it happens that way. Since 2011 Novak has been a factor every single year. He might have gone through a patch where he was the bridesmaid but so what? He was in the mix. Only Federer, Nadal and Sampras have been able to claim at least a slam a year for a sustained period of time, that doesn't mean that if Novak now has a period of years with multi-slams that his achievement is any less than theirs

 

[brokenshoelace]

I think the thing that prevents me from seeing him in the same vein as Nadal and Federer, is that he never really did beat them at their best. He was losing to them pretty badly back in the day with only a few performances here and there to the contrary. These losses weren't only when he was a young player either. We're talking 21-24 years old, which is normally smack in a players prime years. It was only when they started to slow down a bit that the door opened. Even years into his dominance, they would still sneak some wins over him (Rogers FO 2011, Wimbledon 2012, Masters final) and Rafa at RG every year and the USO two years ago. Even the famous wins that he has over an age 30+ Roger are mostly by the closest hairline margins.

This pattern is unlike Roger and Rafa in several respects. Both of them were soundly beating their older generation players when they were in their primes. Roger was routinely thumping Agassi, and Rafa was clearly beating Roger.

So for that reason I just don't think he's the next evolution of a tennis player, he's a great one for sure, but I am just not convinced that he's in the same conversation given the caveats and that he chose to time his success so late in his career.

My take on the OP's question is not so much 'what does Djokovic have to do to be in the Fedal conversation,' but more in terms of legacy in general. I could be wrong, but I think others are reading it that way, as well. The Fedal conversation will always exist, and I don't just mean on these or other forums. Their legacies are tethered together. For Novak to break free of that, and not just be the "other best guy who played during the Federer-Nadal era," he has to win the French, because a career slam is de rigueur in this era. Then it becomes about accumulating Slams, particularly, as it is for everyone else. Other records will help. I'm not so much about dominance as federberg is, and he will likely sneer, but Rafa's failure to dominate at #1, for example, is not so much a failure of results, as injury time-outs, and being sandwiched between Roger and Nole. He has dominated them, anyway, as well as a good deal of the field for many years. So Novak may sit at #1, but he has other work to do. As Broken points out, Novak has scored big wins over a very good Roger, and a prime Nadal, so I don't think it counts against him that they lead the H2H at this point. However, when/if he passes them, it will be a little discounted as they are past their primes. Anyway, I don't think Nole wants to be measured only against them. He wants to be measured against tennis history. And he's doing a pretty decent job of getting there.

On the flip side, Rafa and Fed got to play Novak for a number of years in their primes and before his, so it evens out at least a bit.

Prime and peak are two different things. Novak's peak was in 2011. But 2008 was in no way before his prime. He was super consistent, won his first major, moved like nobody's business, and was by no means too young. The fact that it took him a while to peak is on him. It's not like he was 17.

 

[El Dude]

Broken, it isn't that different for Roger. He entered his prime probably in 2003 when he won his first Slam, but his absolute peak was 2006 - his best year. In 2003 he was 21-22, in 2006 he was 24-25. Compare this to Novak who in 2008 was 20-21 and in 2011 was 23-24.

Now the big difference is that Novak plateaued for several years before everything came together for him in 2011. When Roger hit his prime, he just kept going up until peaking in 2006, then started to descend again.

Actually, comparing Novak and Roger highlights how every player has a different pattern. Novak peaked in 2011, but dropped a bit to a plateau for a couple years and now seems to be amidst a second peak. I do think this at least partially has to do with the decline of Fedal, so maybe Novak's 2015 is not unlike Roger's 2009 which was a resurgence to the top after his mono in 2008. I would say that Roger's off year in 2008 was a combination of three main factors: mono, Rafa's improvement, and perhaps some minor slippage in his skills - but that is tertiary, imo. 2009 was a return to health, but it also saw Rafa with his own struggles. So maybe 2015 is similar - Novak has stabilized a bit, but is also benefiting from an aging Federer and a struggling Rafa.

Interestingly enough, they were/are the same age, Roger in 2009 and Novak in 2015: 27-28. But where a 28-29 year old Roger had a 23-24 year Rafa and a 22-23 year old Novak and Andy to deal with in 2010, Novak has no comparable up and coming players to deal with next year, so any possible decline might be masked a bit, for awhile at least.

People might forget that Rod Laver's Calendar Slam in 1969 was in a rather weak field. His main competitor was a past-prime 35-year old Ken Rosewall. The peaking generation of players, led by Arthur Ashe, was possibly the weakest in tennis history - similarly weak to the current young group in their early to mid 20s. No matter how great Laver was, a Calendar Slam might not have been possible a few years later when players like Connors and Borg were coming up. This is not to downplay Novak's future accomplishments, although it is to point out that he's got a nice window of opportunity to pad his numbers, which in turn will help his case in being considered in the small group of GOAT contenders.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Broken, it isn't that different for Roger. He entered his prime probably in 2003 when he won his first Slam, but his absolute peak was 2006 - his best year. In 2003 he was 21-22, in 2006 he was 24-25. Compare this to Novak who in 2008 was 20-21 and in 2011 was 23-24.

Yes, exactly, and no one says Nadal didn't beat a prime Roger in 2007. But we recognize that Roger had slightly fallen off from where he was in 2006.

The same applies for Djokovic. 2008 was definitely a prime year for Djokovic. It's not Fedal's fault he wasted years off his prime. Now if he can compensate by extending his peak at a relatively advanced age as he pushes 30, more power to him. He should be able to for the very reason you mentioned: He has no up and comer for the foreseeable future, though things can change.

 

[Great Hands]

As some one pointed out in some other thread, it is more realistic to expect that Novak can win
RG, Cincy and Olympics thus winning every big title out there imaginable.

I really doubt, Roger can win MC, Rome and Olympics, the three missing form his resume.
He may win one of the three, but definitely not all three.

Similary, I doubt that Rafa can win Miami, Paris and WTF. In particular, now that he
is going past his prime and indoor hard courts not being his thing, the last two may be
very difficult.

Achieving all three missing big titles (very possible for Novak, especially considering
that Olympics is in 2016) would certainly give Novak something that he can boast of
that Fedal does not have.

Assuming he can do that, I am willing to give him a discount of 1 in slam counts.

Also, if he can achieve calendar slam, I am willing to give him a discount of 3 in slam counts.

I also agree with Federberg that dominance is an important aspect and so if he matches
Rafa, he should get the nod.

I would caution you on the Slam discounts. Not many are willing to give them. You should remember that MS have only been consolidated in the last 30-ish years, and so that's only a thing amongst the last few generations. Same with Olympics. I'm not at all against giving points for other accomplishments, and that's what makes the conversation interesting. But, like it or not, the Slam count stands as the Gold Standard. Believe me, Rafa fans have been arguing the other points, too. If Novak reaches 14 Slams, and has the career Slam, then I think he beats Sampras, but not Nadal. That would be a tie, anyway. And Nadal might well have a Slam or 3 left in him. But Novak is 6 Slams away from 14. Even at his level, right now, that's a lot, at 28.

But if we are comparing Novak in the contrect of tennis hisotry, and not just fedal, then the slam count as teh gold standard is comromised too because until the ? a lot of top players didn't play the ao, and also players didn't always play the fo in previous gernationsit eiother. these days, everyonwe plays all 4 slams if fit and thus today's players have 4 chances a year to win slams rather than 2 or 3 chanves int he old days. so the slams won int eh odl days are worht more, one could say. and that's before we bring in the pre versus post open era slams, pro slams etc debates.

 

[the AntiPusher]

However, this would be ignoring that he first broke into the scene in 2008, when the field was incredibly strong, and he TOOK away Fedal's dominance when Federer was still really good and Nadal was at the height of his powers. So he's proven himself in a strong era. After all, he really had to deal with arguably the two most dominant players of all time for much of his career, and was stuck in their shadow for a good 3-4 years. If anything, he deserves a little break. And like I said, it counts in his favor that he actually became the best player in the world when Nadal was still in his prime and Federer was still very much a strong factor.

I think the thing that prevents me from seeing him in the same vein as Nadal and Federer, is that he never really did beat them at their best. He was losing to them pretty badly back in the day with only a few performances here and there to the contrary. These losses weren't only when he was a young player either. We're talking 21-24 years old, which is normally smack in a players prime years. It was only dwhen they started to slow down a bit that the door opened. Even years into his dominance, they would still sneak some wins over him (Rogers FO 2011, Wimbledon 2012, Masters final) and Rafa at RG every year and the USO two years ago. Even the famous wins that he has over an age 30+ Roger are mostly by the closest hairline margins.

This pattern is unlike Roger and Rafa in several respects. Both of them were soundly beating their older generation players when they were in their primes. Roger was routinely thumping Agassi, and Rafa was clearly beating Roger.

So for that reason I just don't think he's the next evolution of a tennis player, he's a great one for sure, but I am just not convinced that he's in the same conversation given the caveats and that he chose to time his success so late in his career.

Preach, Can the Pastor get a Amen,:angel: