Will Djokovic now have a career like Federer?

First topic message reminder :

Will Djokovic now go on and have seasons like Federer in 2004, 2006 and 2007 and win the AO, Wimbledon, USO treble again this year like last year and have a career similar to Federer's?

Like I said Tipsarevic is consistent more than anything else but if you turn the clock back to other eras you will find similar-type players that made the top ten.

For example in June 2006 you had James Blake in the top ten. Five years before that you had Sebastian Grosjean in the top ten.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Like I said Tipsarevic is consistent more than anything else but if you turn the clock back to other eras you will find similar-type players that made the top ten.

For example in June 2006 you had James Blake in the top ten. Five years before that you had Sebastian Grosjean in the top ten.

Yes, I'm not trying to say Tipsy is any better or worse them them - but you also had youngsters in there as well. Again, my point is not about the strength of the top 10, it's about the age of the top 30 and the current lack of talent in the under 23/24 age group.

Yes but as is widely accepted now the average age of the top players has risen as players mature physically. I agree the lack of youngsters (in numbers) coming through is a concern and their standard but at the moment I'd sooner give them a year or two to mature and peak before judging their standard.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well come on bogbrush - Federer 16 slams, Nadal 11 slams, Djokovic 5 slams. Seems like an amazing standard to me. If not what would you call it?

As lags points out in his post at 1.31 it explains why the top players now are older than say the average was five to ten years ago. Tipsarevic is very consistent but doesn't have the tools to crack the big guns is that really such a crime?

Er, this post was in response to one of mine where I talked about the crapness of the group below the top 3. Not really appropriate was it?

Honestly, your determination is very impressive.

Apologies bogbrush. Crapness? Not very appropriate either but hey-ho....

JuliusHMarx wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Tipsarevic is very consistent but doesn't have the tools to crack the big guns is that really such a crime?

It's not about Tipsarevic vs those above him. It's about why no-one (or very few) under the age of 23 can get anywhere near Tipsy. I personally don't believe that all the 20 -23 year olds need to develop so much more physically (i.e. get to 24 or 25) before they can come up to Tipsy's standard. It's more that there seems to be a dearth of talent in that age group, with a very few, but very welcome exceptions.

The youth/physicality thing is total bull. How old has Nadal been while grabbing all these titles? And when I hear "oh he's exceptional" all I think is that it means the rule applies to everyone it applies to, and those it doesn't don't disprove it, they are just special".

How old was Djokovic in 2008? Or was he a special case too?

Oh and how old was Del Potro in 2009?

It Must Be Love wrote:Socal can you give me one example of a Slam you think Djokovic would have won if he had a different draw (in the semis).

I'm thinking FO2011 but after that I can't think of anymore.

Certainly the FO that year, Djoko was in the zone against Nadal and Nadal's confidence according to himself and his fans was in shambles till he won that title. I think Novak wins that match and rather easily in the final. I also think that if Novak had not had the war of attrition and emotion against Fed in USO 2010 despite how well Nadal was playing Novak is a better hardcourt player which I think you are fair enough to admit and might have had a much better chance in that match. Nadal that day was a machine but Novak didn't getting obliterated that day either. I mean who knows what would have happened if Nadal played fed that day in inspired form and then had to come back to play Novak. At this point draw discrimination at my own estimate that people will love I am sure has probably cost Novak 1.5 slams. The slams especially in this era are decided from the semis on. And having to beat 2 top 3 players to win a slam as opposed to one is a huge advantage for Nadal and a huge disadvantage for Djoko in the era of Fed, Nadal, and Novak.

Nah...Djokovic or Federer was not beating Nadal in 2010 at USO.
Remember Federer hasnt beaten Nadal in a slam since 2007...

Seifer Almasy wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Is Roger a specatacular champion who probably would be a dominant figure if not the dominant figure in any era?

No - he isn't dominating this era.

He dominated like no other from 04-07. Then age kicked in. He is now 30, and if you expect he should still be dominating now, you are much mistaken. I can't wait for Nadal and Djok to reach 28 and 29. let's see how they do, eh? Due to their games being based more on power and speed, I can assure you they are going to suffer far more than Federer has.

It really doesn't matter though because fans are happy to see him topping virtually every statistic known to tennis. Happy days.

Seifer you are coming late to the conversation possibly. I have never said that Fed is not the greatest player of the modern era or even of all times, he is. But I am also not going to pretend that his early rivals 2003-2007 where particularly great. You had a pre-prime Nadal as his only serious challenge. Even without Roger stealing their lunch money his contemporaries Ferrero, Safin, Hewiit, Roddick, and Nalbandian where quickly supplanted by Nadal, Djoko, and even later murray and many others. These players became nearly irrelevant in grandslam competition at WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN THEIR PHYSICAL PEAKS. Fed is great but if you ask me to maintain the apologist fiction that the competition in 2003-07 is as good or nearly as good as today well I am not buying.

If Djokovic defends Wimbledon title he will definitively have a career like Federer's.

Defending Wimbledon is big stuff.

Look at the players that defended Wimbledon in the last 20 years: Sampras and Federer. Goat material.