Can Djokovic sustain "leadership tennis"?

First topic message reminder :

I ask this for a few reasons:

1. Against Federer last week at times he appeared to be resigned to losing; it was like the road back into the match was just too tough and that drive, the belief wasn’t there. Maybe his mind isn't on tennis right now, after all he said..."It’s been a long five, six months for me. I didn’t have much rest,” said Djokovic. “Now I’m going to take some time off and really try to keep my mind off tennis.". Not much desire to be holding a racquet there.

2. To reinforce that he also said, “You know what, I reached my goals, I made my No. 1, I won my Wimbledon last year, that’s good enough.”. Sounds like someone who feels they have already achieved what they wanted.

3. After USO11 and as #1 he's taken a big fat exhale. To be #1in your sport you can’t do that. Federer never did it. Sampras didn't do it. Novak seems to have done it.

4. Since that USO11 win he has won just TWO titles.

So what do you think, temporary blip or signs of a player mentally sliding?

Josiah Maiestas wrote:That was a poor match, his level really started falling before that though, scraping through matches and final in AO, then in MC before the final. I would not choose him to win the US Open as it stands, this is the slam that really shows which direction he is heading, lose here and he is a one slam owner back to the depths of of being a mere mortal. His quality returns and error free rallies are now a thing of the past judging by the last 2 slams and various clay masters.

I think he was looking very good prior to Monte Carlo. AO semi and final were close but they were against the the #2 and #4 players in the world who both played well, so you expect it to be close.

He also won in Miami without dropping a set and was looking good in Indian Wells and was only stopped by an amazing serving performance by Isner (I seem to recall he broke Isner twice, was only broken once himself but still lost the match?).

Monte Carlo v Rafa was poor but I think the bereavement played a large role in that.

Rome was the turning point for me. He was getting frustrated, smashing racquets and generally looking like he wasn't happy.

I do agree that on present form he's not the favourite for USO. But it's early to make that prediction, let's see what happens in Canada and Cincy. I also think the Olympics will be important. If he can find a way to win there, I have a hunch that might rejuvenate him and set him on his way again. If he doesn't win though, I fear he may go deeper into the doldrums.

There's no way Djokovic should be dismissed - obviously he's so close to #1 that we could call him the #1.005 in the rankings.

However, taking the longer view, I don't see him as a long term mega top player. I just don't think that mentally he is the same kind of monster as Federer. I mean, Federer has this whole nice Swiss gent guy thing going on but he's utterly ferociously single-minded in the pursuit of winning forever. He's also come through the massive test of getting married and having kids - for most athletes this is the end.

He's also been unlucky to grow up in a period dominated by one player, which Federer didn't. By the time he'd started shaving he's beaten Pete and was being lauded as the big thing.

barrystar wrote:It's Federer's monster again - his career suggests that picking up 6 slams over a couple of years, or 8-9 in three is what the top dog does. Thus far neither Djoko nor Nadal has managed to have back-to-back multiple slam years - Djoko may still do it at the USO of course.

Nole's simply not that kind of animal. Fed has a Tiger Woods etc almost egotistical (not meant as a criticism) approach to his status within his game and he legacy he leaves. Nole and Murray are simply too 'down with the lads' to have the single mindedness to do this

They remind me of Mac, who got to No.1 in the early days of his career because he was a single minded miserable so and so - but couldn't maintain this as his natural personality was at odds with being a No.1, i.e. only his outrageous talent helped him from 79-84 once someone more driven for that prize came along, i.e. Lendl, he was toast. Then it all quickly unravelled

It's as though, they're far too vulnerable to cope with such a lauded status - I get the impression that they'd rather be very good and keep their friends than be a legend and be without

bogbrush wrote:However, taking the longer view, I don't see him as a long term mega top player. I just don't think that mentally he is the same kind of monster as Federer.

Difficult to say if it is more a mental difference or a difference in ability. The amazing thing with Fed is that, once he hit his stride, he immediately dominated.

Fed won his first slam at W 2003. By the time that tournament came around two years later, he had won another 6 slams, giving him a total of 7.

Nadal won his first slam at FO 2005. By the time that tournament came around two years later, he had won 1 more slam.

Djoko won his first slam at AO 2008. By the time that tournament came around two years later, he hadn't won any more slams.

As amazing as Federer's longevity is, I think it is colossal early dominance that is the greater influence his record. Rafa and Novak had their first success and then had a period of semi finals and runner up spots while they honed their craft. Roger just seemed to bypass this period. He went from being a 4th round player to one of the dominant sportsman on the planet in one hop! It's almost as if he realised "Ah, so that's how you win slams" and just hoovered them up!

HM Murdoch wrote:As amazing as Federer's longevity is, I think it is colossal early dominance that is the greater influence

You're on to something here. Timing is everything!!

When Fed came along and one Wimbledon 2003, most fans like me sighed in relief that at last here was someone to take us back to the silky skilled days of the Mac era, i.e. someone at last could combine the new power game with elegance and win Majors. Someone at last to get us away from those terrible days when the likes of Stich and Muster were winning Slams (and even Sampras - who bored me stupid.

We thought we had it with Agassi, who crumbled under the weight of expectation until late in his career - partly because he constantly got caned off-court during that early period

Hence everyone wanted Fed to work, wanted him to dominate and so lauded him and made him believe that he was the one. I loved the way he destroyed Roddick at Wimby 2005 and seemed to be capable of winning 90% of his matches for the loss of less than 8 games, without breaking sweat

Don't think people feel that way about Nole it's a bit after the main event. It's like people either want Fed or some new legend - not those challenging Fed.

I also think just getting to No.1 is such a mental toll (I mean Nole gave more of himself in the last two hard core events than he perhaps did from all of his earlier career) it's inevitable that it's a bit of a burden

"...Nole gave more of himself in the last two hard core events..."