Will Novak pass Federer?

[Kieran]

My father has a similar elbow growth and I'm 100% sure it has nothing to do with steroids.

If Federer develops an elbow growth like that, Front will tell us that his of course has nothing to do with steroids. No, his would be caused by too much of Mirka's milk, or genetics, or tossing the twins in the air. All of them. At the same time... :laydownlaughing

 

[lob]

I think that Roger's unfortunate injury will make it more difficult for Novak in the short term. While Roger hasn't seemed capable of defeating Novak at a slam, he could take out almost every other player on tour, eliminating potential competition for Novak.

On the other hand, this could potentially (I don't know what is the level of seriousness of the injury) mean Roger would forever be stuck at #17, making it easier for Novak to catch and/or pass. A static target is easier than a moving one.

:laydownlaughing

Moving target?? What kind of moves it does, it may be visible only to you, from where I am sitting, is dead for 3.5 years by now.

there could be something there. He's probably been sticking around because if he retires the static target with good tires a and and a bit of gas becomes a static target with flat tires and no gas...he knows that, psychologically, the latter is easier to catch up to.

 

[rafanoy1992]

To answer this question: No, I do not think Djokovic will surpass Federer in the Slam count.

Just like I said in other thread, 7 is a big number to climb even for Djokovic. Also, pressure will only get bigger once he gets close to Federer's record. So, I think he will get close but he will fall short of the record.

Now, can I see Djokovic surpassing Nadal, I could possibly see him do that as long as Nadal does not win 1 more slam in his career.

 

[Busted]

To answer this question: No, I do not think Djokovic will surpass Federer in the Slam count.

Just like I said in other thread, 7 is a big number to climb even for Djokovic. Also, pressure will only get bigger once he gets close to Federer's record. So, I think he will get close but he will fall short of the record.

Now, can I see Djokovic surpassing Nadal, I could possibly see him do that as long as Nadal does not win 1 more slam in his career.

I don't think Nole will pass Roger either. For one thing - he's no spring chicken himself. He'll be 29 in May. Even if he runs the tables this year and wins the Grand Slam and then wins the Aussie again in 2017 he'll only be at 15 and will have to win 2 majors after his 30th birthday to tie and then pass Roger. How many male players have won 2 Slams after age 30? None. Even Roger's only won 1 Slam after turning 30.

As Roger said - it just gets harder and harder to keep up the pace. And given the extremely physical game that Nole plays it'll take a miracle for him to not feel it physically at some point in the next 12-15 months. Look at Nadal. Everybody thought he'd pass Roger after his 2013 season. Where's Nadal now? He can barely make it our the 4th round at a Slam right now.

At some point other players are going to catch up and pass him. It happens to every great player. It happened to Conners with Borg, Borg with McEnroe, McEnroe with Lendl, Lendl with Becker, Wilander & Edberg, Becker, Wilander & Edberg had Sampras and Agassi, etc, etc....and Roger's had Nadal, Djokovic AND Murray. Where the competition will come from is up from debate, but sooner or later Nole will have a let down AND someone will come along to challenge him. That's just the nature of sports.

 

[Great Hands]

I agree that it is unlikely that Nole will pass Roger.What makes it feel just about possible though - and thus up for debate - is two things:

1. The weakness of the generation behind Novak.
2. Players peaking at later ages, and staying at the top of the game at later ages, than in the past.

You say that Roger only won one slam after 30. But the only people stopping him from winning more slams were Novak and Rafa. If the generation coming up behind Roger had been as weak as the one coming up behind Novak, Roger could have won a lot more slams after 30. Look at who it took to beat Roger at slams after he turned 30 (after WD 2011): heck, if it wasn't for novak he'd have probably won the last 3 slams in a row, at age 34! so novak has a much better chance to win slams after 30 than roger did/does.

plus, players seem to be playing at elite level longer. 30 doesn't feel anywhere near as old as it used to. the average age of the current top 10 is 30. yes, players have not traditionally won slams after 30. but players used to peak earlier and delicne earlier than they do now. so again, novak's chances of winning slams after 30 seem higher than they did for players o fthe past.

 

[Great Hands]

I agree that it is unlikely that Novak will pass Roger. What makes it feel just about possible though - and thus up for debate - is two things:

1. The weakness of the generation behind Novak.
2. Players peaking at later ages, and staying at the top of the game at later ages, than in the past.

You say that Roger only won one slam after 30. But the only people stopping him from winning more slams were Novak and Rafa. If the generation coming up behind Roger had been as weak as the one coming up behind Novak, Roger could have won a lot more slams after 30. Heck, if it wasn't for Novak, Roger would have probably won the last 3 slams in a row, at age 34! So Novak has a much better chance to win slams after 30 than Roger did/does, because he doesn't have prime Rafa and Novak equivalents coming up behind him.

Plus, players seem to be playing at elite level longer. 30 doesn't feel anywhere near as old as it used to. The average age of the current top 10 is 30. It used to be being 30 or over was unusual for a top player. Now it is the average, the norm. So yes, players have not traditionally won slams after 30, but players used to peak earlier and decline earlier than they do now. So again, Novak's chances of winning slams after 30 seem higher than they did for players of the past.

 

[El Dude]

All true, Great Hands. It really is a sands-in-the-hourglass thing. Novak has to win six (or seven) more before the 1994-98 generation comes of age. Using my generation theory, here are the potential obstacles:

1979-83 Gen (Federer, Ferrer, etc): No real obstacles. Fed can't beat Novak at a Slam anymore.

1984-88 Gen (Novak, Rafa, Andy, Stan, etc): Unless Rafa rediscovers the fountain of youth, he's no obstacle. Unless Andy gets a new brain, he's not really an obstacle. Stan is always dangerous but is erratic. No one else is really a serious Slam challenger (sorry, Juan Martin).

1989-93 Gen (Milos, Kei, Grigor, Thiem, etc): This is the group that should be dominating the field right now. As I wrote elsewhere, if you go back and look at the year-end rankings in five-year increments--2015, 2010, 2005, etc--the #1 player in the world has always been in the age range that this generation is currently in, at least going back to 1975. Conclusion: it could be the worst generation in Open Era history, or at least since Arthur Ashe's weak generation (b. 39-43). Milos, Kei and Grigor could theoretically step up and be dangerous, at least at Wimbledon and the US Open, but we haven't seen any real signs of it - with the possible exception of Milos. The other players in this group that could be dangerous are Dominic Thiem, Jiri Vesely, and Jack Sock, but I don't see any of them being challengers to Novak, at least not until Novak starts dipping.

1994-98 Gen (Kyrgios, Coric, Zverev, Chung, Tiafoe, etc): If there's a new elite player on the horizon, it is likely in this group, which turns 18-22 in 2016. Even if there are no true greats in this group, it should be a lot better than the previous generation. Given that most elites were in or close to peak form by the time they were 21-22, some of these guys might start challenging Novak, but probably not for another year or two.

The point being, Novak's window of opportunity is 2016-17. In 2018 he'll be 30-31, and the 94-98 generation will be 20-24 and entering its prime. I think if Novak wins 6 Slams between 2016-17, he has a legit shot at 1-2 after. But 2-3 after might be too much to ask, so he really needs to win 5 of the next 7 to have a good chance of passing and surpassing Roger.

 

[Great Hands]

Excellent summary, Dude! It's going to fun seeing how this all pans out. It's intriguing...

I know some people say having a dominant player is boring, but if you're looking at it from the 'glass half full' angle, as I try to do, it can be an interesting time because you have the questions 'Just how dominant will the dominant player be?', and 'If they do slip up, who will take advantage?'

Take this year for example. With effectively 5 major titles up for grabs in an Olympic year, and with 4 of those 5 titles coming in quick succession over a period of less than 4 months, that is going to be a tall order for Novak to win all 5 of those titles. So there are two big questions this year in the mens' game, both of which I find intriguing. 1. Can Novak win all 5 big ones this year? - i.e it seems genuinely do-able, and would be an amazing achievement to witness. 2. If Novak slips up at any of them, who will take advantage? For me, this is all going to be fascinating to watch.

As regards Novak getting to 17-18, as others have mentioned, there is also the factor that if he gets close to the record, it will get harder mentally because there will be so much pressure/media hype, like what Serena is experiencing currently. She really underperformed in the AO final trying to equal Graf. So that is the thing that makes me really doubt that Novak can do it. But as I say, it doesn't seem out of the question, which makes it interesting to follow.

 

[Great Hands]

How many male players have won 2 Slams after age 30? None.

Agassi won two slams after turning 30 - AO01 and AO03.

 

[El Dude]

Yes, I agree. Actually, I find ALL eras and variations interesting, especially as they are all temporary. If Novak was this dominant for five more years it would be a snooze-fest, but all eras and configurations change more rapidly than that. Even Fed's era of 2004-07 had the added intrigue of that pesky little Spanish thorn...

I do have to differ with the idea of the Olympics as a fifth major. I mean, it is certainly a desirable title because it only comes around every four years, but it doesn't have the historical gravitas of a Slam or even a tour finals.

And yeah, it will get very hard once (if) Novak wins #16.

 

[Great Hands]

Yes, I agree. Actually, I find ALL eras and variations interesting, especially as they are all temporary. If Novak was this dominant for five more years it would be a snooze-fest, but all eras and configurations change more rapidly than that. Even Fed's era of 2004-07 had the added intrigue of that pesky little Spanish thorn...

I do have to differ with the idea of the Olympics as a fifth major. I mean, it is certainly a desirable title because it only comes around every four years, but it doesn't have the historical gravitas of a Slam or even a tour finals.

And yeah, it will get very hard once (if) Novak wins #16.

I am not saying that the Olympics is the same as winning a slam, but I am saying that it has become a very big title to win in tennis, and one that all the players want to win badly. Novak has said his two priorities this year are RG and the Olympics. These are, of course, the two big titles he has yet to win. He's said is going to go to Rio very early to prepare etc. Andy said at the start of the year that his two priorities this year were AO and Olympics, and he's already won the Olympics! Andy still says his proudest moment is winning the Olympics, not his two grand slam wins. Of course, I still think the Slams are the biggest achievement in the sport, but I think a case can be made that Olympic Gold is the fifth biggest title to win now. All the top players play in the Olympics now, they all really want to win it. Delpo cried on losing to Roger in the SFs in 2012, and cried again when he beat Novak to win the bronze. He said it was as big an achievement, if not bigger, than winning the USO, and that was the bronze. He said this was because he was playing for his country. So ragardless of what we think f the oplycpmis, it defnietlty means a lot to the players. I mean, if you asked any tennis player, would they rather win the World Tour Finals or be an Olympic Champion, they'd say the latter. I certainly would, if i was a player. so for me, it's the 5th biggest prize in our sport, now. it didn't used to be of course, but it is now.

 

[Fiero425]

Yes, I agree. Actually, I find ALL eras and variations interesting, especially as they are all temporary. If Novak was this dominant for five more years it would be a snooze-fest, but all eras and configurations change more rapidly than that. Even Fed's era of 2004-07 had the added intrigue of that pesky little Spanish thorn...

I do have to differ with the idea of the Olympics as a fifth major. I mean, it is certainly a desirable title because it only comes around every four years, but it doesn't have the historical gravitas of a Slam or even a tour finals.

And yeah, it will get very hard once (if) Novak wins #16.

I really hated that tennis was re-instated as a sport in the Olympics! If they were going to do it, let their top amateurs play; the pros have all the fame, money, and accolades necessary already! It's also ridiculous to have the pros in Basketball, Baseball, and Hockey for that matter! I've never been impressed by tennis as a glamour sport for the GAMES, but as an exhibition with Edberg winning it as a kid was noteworthy! At least it wasn't Borg coming out of retirement to take it! After that I've only paid minor attention; the OG winning of Henin and Murray! I don't even know a couple of past winners; Massu in 2004? WHO? Never saw a moment of it; if it was televised! :eyepop :cover :nono

 

[Great Hands]

I do have to differ with the idea of the Olympics as a fifth major. I mean, it is certainly a desirable title because it only comes around every four years, but it doesn't have the historical gravitas of a Slam or even a tour finals.

I am not saying that the Olympics is the same as winning a slam, but I am saying that it has become a very big title to win in tennis, and one that all the players want to win badly. The Olympics is, of course, one of the few big titles Novak has yet to win, and he has talked about how important the Olympics are to him at the start of this year: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/te...ic-reveals-Rio-Olympics-is-2016-priority.html
e.g. "I am going to take a week in preparation...That means going there earlier, and becoming used to those conditions so that I can get the best out of myself. There’s a different dimension to the Olympics: a dimension of pride and honour and passion."

Andy said at the start of the year that his priority this year is the Olympics e.g. andy-murray-would-rather-win-olympic-gold-again-this-year-than-wimbledon. Andy still says his proudest moment is winning the Olympics, not his two grand slam wins.

Delpo cried on losing to Roger in the SFs in 2012, and cried again when he beat Novak to win the bronze. He said it was as big an achievement, if not bigger, than winning the USO, and that was the bronze! So regardless of what we think of the Olympics, it's definitely a very big deal for the players. And, ultimately, in the long run, that's what makes something prestigious. The AO may have been officially a Grand Slam in the 60s and 70s, but since many top players were so indifferent to it that they didn't even bother to play it, it wasn't really a true Grand Slam, despite being called one. But now all the top players play the AO and want to win it, so it's prestigious now. Similarly with the Olympics. It's grown in stature because now all the top players play in it, and want to win it so badly. I am not saying it's as big as winning a slam, but it is a very big title now.

 

[Great Hands]

I do have to differ with the idea of the Olympics as a fifth major. I mean, it is certainly a desirable title because it only comes around every four years, but it doesn't have the historical gravitas of a Slam or even a tour finals.

I am not saying that the Olympics is the same as winning a slam, but I am saying that it has become a very big title to win in tennis, and one that all the players want to win badly. The Olympics is, of course, one of the few big titles Novak has yet to win, and he has talked about how important the Olympics are to him at the start of this year: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/te...ic-reveals-Rio-Olympics-is-2016-priority.html
e.g. "I am going to take a week in preparation...That means going there earlier, and becoming used to those conditions so that I can get the best out of myself. There’s a different dimension to the Olympics: a dimension of pride and honour and passion."

Andy said at the start of the year that his priority this year is the Olympics e.g. andy-murray-would-rather-win-olympic-gold-again-this-year-than-wimbledon. Andy still says his proudest moment is winning the Olympics, not his two grand slam wins.

Delpo cried on losing to Roger in the SFs in 2012, and cried again when he beat Novak to win the bronze. He said it was as big an achievement, if not bigger, than winning the USO, and that was the bronze! So regardless of what we think of the Olympics, it's definitely a very big deal for the players. And, ultimately, in the long run, that's what makes something prestigious. The AO may have been officially a Grand Slam in the 60s and 70s, but since many top players were so indifferent to it that they didn't even bother to play it, it wasn't really a true Grand Slam, despite being called one. But now all the top players play the AO and want to win it, so it's prestigious now. Similarly with the Olympics. It's grown in stature because now all the top players play in it, and want to win it so badly. I am not saying it's as big as winning a slam, but it is a very big title now.

 

[Great Hands]

I do have to differ with the idea of the Olympics as a fifth major. I mean, it is certainly a desirable title because it only comes around every four years, but it doesn't have the historical gravitas of a Slam or even a tour finals.

I am not saying that the Olympics is the same as winning a slam, but I am saying that it has become a very big title to win in tennis, and one that all the players want to win badly. The Olympics is, of course, one of the few big titles Novak has yet to win, and he has talked about how important the Olympics are to him at the start of this year: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/te...ic-reveals-Rio-Olympics-is-2016-priority.html
[e.g. "I am going to take a week in preparation...That means going there earlier, and becoming used to those conditions so that I can get the best out of myself. There’s a different dimension to the Olympics: a dimension of pride and honour and passion." ] Andy said at the start of the year that his priority this year is the Olympics e.g. andy-murray-would-rather-win-olympic-gold-again-this-year-than-wimbledon. Andy still says his proudest moment is winning the Olympics, not his two grand slam wins. Delpo cried on losing to Roger in the SFs in 2012, and cried again when he beat Novak to win the bronze. He said it was as big an achievement, if not bigger, than winning the USO, and that was the bronze! So regardless of what we think of the Olympics, it's definitely a very big deal for the players. And, ultimately, in the long run, that's what makes something prestigious. The AO may have been officially a Grand Slam in the 60s and 70s, but since many top players were so indifferent to it that they didn't even bother to play it, it wasn't really a true Grand Slam, despite being called one. But now all the top players play the AO and want to win it, so it's prestigious now. Similarly with the Olympics. It's grown in stature because now all the top players play in it, and want to win it so badly. I am not saying it's as big as winning a slam, but it is a very big title now.

I'm not saying that winning the Olympics is equal to winning a slam, I'm just saying that it's a big title to win now.

 

[dante1976]

@rafanoy1992, Busted & Great Hands

You all realise that of the last 7 slams played (from 2014 WIM) Novak won 5 & play in finals/semi of other 2 plus there's no "his Nadal/Novak" in sight... it seems that the only guys that can actually challenge him (on slams) are Murray (enough said), Wawrinka who is older/plays great once a year, Fed who's knocking on the retirement's door/have a slim chance in best of 5 and... Oh yeah, there is Rafa ofc but his current form/career itself doesn't look promising. So called next "champions generation" currently is so pathetic that Novak will win in slams until 2019-20... easily So in the next 3-4 years (I personally think that he'll remain GS contender even in the next 5-6, hint: Federer) and ofc if he stays healthy, who will stop/challenge him on a regular basis at slams???

And what's even more impressive, he actually started this year on even higher lvl than the last one!!!??? Incredible stuff...

 

[nehmeth]

And what's even more impressive, he actually started this year on even higher level than the last one!

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/news/infosys-novak-djokovic-february-2016

You're right. By the numbers, he's playing better this year (even with the Simon match stats). Good analysis by Craig O'Shannessy.

 

[Riotbeard]

@rafanoy1992, Busted & Great Hands

You all realise that of the last 7 slams played (from 2014 WIM) Novak won 5 & play in finals/semi of other 2 plus there's no "his Nadal/Novak" in sight... it seems that the only guys that can actually challenge him (on slams) are Murray (enough said), Wawrinka who is older/plays great once a year, Fed who's knocking on the retirement's door/have a slim chance in best of 5 and... Oh yeah, there is Rafa ofc but his current form/career itself doesn't look promising. So called next "champions generation" currently is so pathetic that Novak will win in slams until 2019-20... easily So in the next 3-4 years (I personally think that he'll remain GS contender even in the next 5-6, hint: Federer) and ofc if he stays healthy, who will stop/challenge him on a regular basis at slams???

And what's even more impressive, he actually started this year on even higher lvl than the last one!!!??? Incredible stuff...

I agree with all of this with one caveat, a lot can happen in two years. I think Djokovic is atop the heap for sure (barring injury) through 2017, but some of these younger players could seriously develop in two years that are difficult to predict, so while he could have three more year end number ones in him, it's very difficult to say with any certainty.

 

[Fiero425]

Just looking at the record book and wondered where Nole'll be situated in each major historically; esp. if he were to win more! At the AO, he has 6 wins; just behind Agassi's 90.57% w/ 49 of 56 matches to Nole's 90.48% w/ 57 of 63 contests! If he takes it next season, he'll go by Andre and top all AO winners @ 91.4%! - Right now at the FO, he's woefully behind due to making only semi's and finals w/o a single victory! He's 81.36% and can't challenge Rafa's winning percentage of 97.22! Even if he wins in June, it'll only put him in 4th place behind Wilander @ 83.33%! On to Wimbledon, he's already made headway and is in 4th place and pushing Federer for 3rd at 88.06 if he wins in July! At the USO, winning 2 Chp., he has a lot of match wins and finals putting him in at in 3rd place, but can take over #2, leapfrogging Federer, but behind Sampras with a win putting him @ 87.67%! ;-) This isn't assuming a CYGS btw! :ras:

 

[GameSetAndMath]

So many of us had doubts whether any new players will rise up. But this week both Thiem and Fritz rose up. Of course, they need to prove that they can back it up before any of us can get our hopes high. Assuming they do, this will be a sudden development which was not seen by many, except for keen observers.

Of course, I am not saying they are ready to beat Novak right now. But, the point is challengers will keep coming from some dark corner when you least expect it. That is the norm of the world.