The Djokovic Anomaly

First topic message reminder :

I thought of writing this article after the Australian Open finishes, but given the topsy turvy nature of today's match and Nole stumbling through, I think this isn't a bad time to analyse the topic.

The issue I'm talking about in the title is Djokovic's comparatively poor performances in Slams since 2011, where he has won 'only' (pretty harsh to use that term) 1 slam a year.
The reason I'm so surprised by the fact he's only won 1 slam a year, and hence call it an anomaly despite it being a trend for the past 3 years, is a) He seems to dominate the non Slam events so convincingly, and b) his game has stayed pretty similar from 2011, while Nadal has been injured for periods, Federer has got older and declined a bit, and Murray even had back injuries and then surgery which seemed to affect him for a year or so.

So how, with all of that in mind, has Djokovic only won 2/11 of the Slams after his amazing epic against Nadal in AO 2012?

I did a stats check for 2014, and I found this:
Outside Slams, Djokovic won 6 titles, and lost 5 matches. So outside slams, for the whole year, he won more titles than he didn't. Which is ridiculously good. Yet he only won 1 slam, and lost 3.
In 2012, 2013, and 2014, Djokovic won EVERY single match he played in the World Tour Finals, beating all the top 8 players he encountered.

I will now do my perception of Djokovic's slam performance since 2012. I genuinely think 2014 was the worst year for Novak in terms of doing worse than expectations:

2012-
Aus Open- Wins epic, at this point Djokovic has won the last 3 slams and won 4 out of last 5.
French Open- Loses to Nadal, not exactly punishable, but if not for the double fault match point down he could have atleast pushed it to 5 sets
Wimbledon- Loses to Federer, like Nadal at FO not exactly punishable
USO- Loses to Murray, Murray was on form and dealt with the wind better (which Nole never seems comfortable with)

So 2012 was a bit disappointing, but no alarming losses

2013-
Aus Open- Plays great to beat a Stan on fire, then dismiss Murray in 4 sets
French Open- Again losing to Nadal in 5 sets in FO is not a crime, but it could have been even closer if he hadn't touched the net
Wimbledon- Murray played great in the final, but Djokovic was tactically awful. Why come to the net on poor approaches against one of the best passers in the world ? Really poor, and Djokovic did not even deserve to win a set, despite being a break up in each
US Open- Fair enough, Nadal was on fire here; but Djokovic did have some chances and would be disappointed to not even make it a 5 set match

So the theme for 2012 and 2013 is this: None of the losses were particularly alarming, but he seemed to lose more than 50% of matches for matches that before the match you'd say was a 50:50 match. So a bit disappointing.
2014 for me was the worst year.

2014-
Aus Open- Stan played really great, but for 2 sets Djokovic just disappeared. And the muck-up match point down was inexcusable.
French Open- He would have been disappointed to not bring Nadal to atleast 5 sets here
Wimbledon- Played pretty poorly against both Cilic and Dimitrov in the run-up to the final, just about got through both, and then stepped it up really well for Federer in the final
US Open- Djokovic was really out of sorts against Nishikori. Yes Kei is very skilful and was playing well, but Djokovic was constantly making uncharacteristic unforced errors. Both Raonic and Wawrinka put up a far greater fights against Nishikori than Djokovic.

So 2014 was the most disappointing for me. With Nadal out injured for periods, Federer not peaking for slams, Murray coming back from injury, none of the young guns impressing hugely- I still don't understand how Djokovic only won 1 slam that year.

I see the past 3 years as a bit of an anomaly. I always thought to myself that I'd be writing the article after Djokovic had won the Australian Open, with me saying that Djokovic has now turned it around, and will win multiple slams this year for the first time since 2011.
I still stick by that, despite his poor display vs Stan today; I just don't see how this anomaly of him messing up in Slams for seemingly no reason while doing so well elsewhere can continue.

If Djokovic wins tomorrow he will have the same numbers in terms of win percentage in slam finals as Agassi and Connors and he will have the same number of slams as lendl in 3 less slam appearances. Did those guys all have anomalies?

Socal, don't take me saying this as a negative against Djokovic. I've come to the conclusion that I have simply based on the evidence, as well as the fact I rate Djokovic so highly. Reading this thread, I probably rate Djokovic higher than HM does !

I think both you and B_S made some good points too in terms of other factors- for example it is clear that at certain points both Nadal and Murray (who have beaten Djokovic in 6 of his last 9 defeats) do peak for Slams.

I do also recognise that the wording anomaly itself is inherently flawed in this case- I am using the word anomaly to describe what has clearly been a trend in the past 3 years (i.e. Djokovic winning 1 slam). However as I articulate in the OP, my reasoning is based on the fact his results as a preceding have been far higher in non-Slams than Slams, and in particular the contrast between his 3 recent WTFs (100% win ratio, every match against top 8), and last 9 slams (22% win ratio of tournaments) is sharp. B_S also showed the H2H vs main rivals, and it's much better in non-Slams than Slams.

Now I'd like to give my theory as to one of the factors why Djokovic has only won 2 out of 9 slams, despite dominating the non-Slams to the extent he has. (HM, tell me if you agree with this)
-Djokovic is a very efficient player, whose playing style is perfect for the conditions of the day. He's got a sublime return of serve, is a great mover; and has laser like precision on his baseline strokes.
His biggest strength in rallies is his ability to control and win them without: a) taking any huge risks and having to go for the lines or b) having to constantly pull off amazing defensive shocks regularly. It's like a narrow window (in terms of the position you can hold in a rally), which Djokovic exploits.
BUT, the issues emerges in slams where sometimes I think the pressure gets to Djokovic. The  combination of pressure and nerves means Djokovic loses his clarity of mind. He doesn't collapse like Berdych, but he can no longer operate as effectively from the baseline. Djokovic's game relies on ridiculously consistent accuracy, which has a bigger effect than one might think.
Unlike Federer and Nadal, when Djokovic doesn't have clarity of mind and can't operate in that narrow window in rallies (where normally he is controlling rallies without taking any risks)- he starts to get his tactics wrong. Federer when he's in a bad patch mentally knows what to do, he has to take the ball early and try to force the play. Nadal knows what he has to do to, hit with more depth, mix it up more with the DTL forehand, and chase everything down as usual- the combination of which means it becomes harder and harder for the opposition to sustain the attacking play needed to win.
But Djokovic doesn't have a specific identity like Federer and Nadal does. He either goes into a shell, like he did against Stan, or he tries to push too hard like he does against Nadal sometimes.

He has great mental strength in terms of will to win, and is himself an exceptional player, so I see him continue to win Slams- but in the last 3 years he could have won even more if not for his dip in level when it comes to Slams.
My feeling is that Djokovic will finally get over this. I think this year he will handle the nerves much better, and manage to keep his clarity of mind in the big moments. That's why I see him winning multiple majors in 2015. Maybe I'll be wrong, and the 'anomaly' trend will continue, but let's see.

IMBL I think you are just over-analysing. Novak is not a robot and if slam finals see him come up against someone playing at a higher level then he loses. No mystery there. Murray lost his first four slams but I don't consider it an anomaly in anyway just that he wasn't quite at that level required to win the slam and I think the same can be said for Novak's defeats.

CaledonianCraig wrote:IMBL I think you are just over-analysing. Novak is not a robot and if slam finals see him come up against someone playing at a higher level then he loses. No mystery there. Murray lost his first four slams but I don't consider it an anomaly in anyway just that he wasn't quite at that level required to win the slam and I think the same can be said for Novak's defeats.

Well of course the player playing at a higher level wins on the day, the question is whether Djokovic's level was surprisingly lower than it was expected in the latter stages of Slams.

It Must Be Love wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:IMBL I think you are just over-analysing. Novak is not a robot and if slam finals see him come up against someone playing at a higher level then he loses. No mystery there. Murray lost his first four slams but I don't consider it an anomaly in anyway just that he wasn't quite at that level required to win the slam and I think the same can be said for Novak's defeats.

Well of course the player playing at a higher level wins on the day, the question is whether Djokovic's level was surprisingly lower than it was expected in the latter stages of Slams.

It probably was a lower level purely down to his opponent who can boss the match and frustrate and lower Novak's level. It happens naturally.

IMBL, that's not a bad analysis.

The aspect I disagree on is the bit about Novak's game being based on not going for the lines. I actually think that going for the lines is the basis of his game.

Not in the sense of ripping winners that catch the outside edge but in the sense of always hitting with depth, opening the court and pulling players out of position. It's my impression that his 'standard' rallying shots land closer to the lines than the majority of players.

When he's relaxed, he hits the angles and the depth with good pace, pretty much on instinct and muscle memory.

When he's tense, I think he overthinks and his conscious mind muddles the process and pulls the angles and depth back away from the lines to increase the safety of the shot.

When he does this, his game is neutered. He doesn't have a blunderbuss weapon to punch a hole with blunt force trauma. If he can't open the court, he's spent. (Or rather, he's spent against the top players. 'Human backboard' is an option against lesser players).

HM Murdoch wrote:IMBL, that's not a bad analysis.

The aspect I disagree on is the bit about Novak's game being based on not going for the lines. I actually think that going for the lines is the basis of his game.

Not in the sense of ripping winners that catch the outside edge but in the sense of always hitting with depth, opening the court and pulling players out of position. It's my impression that his 'standard' rallying shots land closer to the lines than the majority of players.

Yes, you're right- by saying 'he doesn't go for the lines' I meant he doesn't take huge risks by trying to rip winners. At his best he does control play with shots that are close to lines (great depth), and as well as that creating angles to make sure his opponent has some running to do.

Also one thing I would say is that, as well as sometimes going into a shell as you describe, when he loses his clarity of mind I think he pushes too hard and makes silly mistakes.

I think dominating Bo3 sets and dominating Bo5 sets is two totally different animals.

Djokovic is a beast at Bo3 as he's a supreme returner and he often breaks early and can easily win a set within 20 minutes. He carries on with that momentum and often wins matches inside 60 minutes.

Whereas in Bo5, there is more time for the momentum to shift. Djokovic's level sometimes drops(mentally goes walkabout at times as well) giving the opponent a chance to get a foothold in the match.

In Bo3 you can go out all guns blazing, where Bo5 you need to keep some of your powder dry.

But it's not like Djokovic gets bombed out in the early rounds at majors. Yes losing finals will hurt him, but he still gave himself the chance to win.

So it's harder to beat him in bo3 than bo5?

Jermaine2015 wrote:I think dominating Bo3 sets and dominating Bo5 sets is two totally different animals.

Djokovic is a beast at Bo3 as he's a supreme returner and he often breaks early and can easily win a set within 20 minutes. He carries on with that momentum and often wins matches inside 60 minutes.

Whereas in Bo5, there is more time for the momentum to shift. Djokovic's level sometimes drops(mentally goes walkabout at times as well) giving the opponent a chance to get a foothold in the match.

In Bo3 you can go out all guns blazing, where Bo5 you need to keep some of your powder dry.

But it's not like Djokovic gets bombed out in the early rounds at majors. Yes losing finals will hurt him, but he still gave himself the chance to win.

Yes, that's actually an excellent point too.

LuvSports! wrote:So it's harder to beat him in bo3 than bo5?

Statisally I'd say that would be true.

That said he's only losing to the top draw players in the majors eg Nadal, Murray and Wawrinka. No shame in losing to any of them.

LuvSports! wrote:So it's harder to beat him in bo3 than bo5?

It does kind of seem counter-intuitive to think that way, given his consistency at the slams. But when his record in non-slam finals is so good...

IMBL pulled out a great stat the other day about how he won more Bo3 finals in 2014 than he lost matches outside of slams (6-5, or something), and he's also undefeated in Bo3 finals going back at least a year. That is freaking amazingly good.

So basically, if he makes a final then he's worse at slams. But he's more susceptible to being bombed out early outside slams (Shanghai SF, recent Doha vs Karlovic, Cincy, Toronto last year).

Silver wrote:

LuvSports! wrote:So it's harder to beat him in bo3 than bo5?

It does kind of seem counter-intuitive to think that way, given his consistency at the slams. But when his record in non-slam finals is so good...

IMBL pulled out a great stat the other day about how he won more Bo3 finals in 2014 than he lost matches outside of slams (6-5, or something), and he's also undefeated in Bo3 finals going back at least a year. That is freaking amazingly good.

So basically, if he makes a final then he's worse at slams. But he's more susceptible to being bombed out early outside slams (Shanghai SF, recent Doha vs Karlovic, Cincy, Toronto last year).

I'm not sure Cinni or Toronto are the best examples TBH.

Djokovic had won a grueling Bo5 set Wimbledon final and got married. Perhaps his mind was otherwise engaged.

Simply put, Novak couldn't sustain his high level of play over a BO5 sets match, vs a top class competitor like Rafa when pushed to go the distance. I think it's because he has to pace himself properly to last the five sets, so he couldn't play all guns blazing tennis to last for five sets; whilst in BO3 sets match, he could do it over two sets when he sees the finishing line in set two after winning set one. It's also because in BO5, his opponent has more time to turn things around.

I think Novak has to start a match feeling good, and going for the right strategy. Take his Wimbledon win over Rafa in 2011 for example. He played well enough in set one and capitalized on Rafa's nerve when Rafa lost his serve when serving to stay in the set. After winning the first set, Novak went all guns blazing to win the second set 6-1, and to do that vs Rafa, it cost him much energy and so he took a breather and lost the third to Rafa 1-6. However, the ground work had already been done as he was two sets to one up, and so he played reasonably well to win the fourth set and the match. He knew that when he's two sets to one up vs Rafa, it's much tougher for Rafa to win three sets in a row after that to win the match. Notice the same pattern at the USO final in 2011, and Rafa having to battle to win the third set after losing the first two, ran out of stream in the fourth and so lost that USO final too.

When Novak lost the first set, he ran into all sorts of troubles, especially against Rafa. Against Rafa, he won only one match out of four when he lost the first set, and ie the AO2012 final. He lost at the FO2012, FO2013 and USO2013 when he lost the first set in each of these matches. He couldn't afford to start slow when playing Rafa. He still has some chances if he's playing against Fed, probably because Fed is older now and couldn't sustain his level throughout five sets.

@BelovedLuckyBoy... I recall you from the old 606. It has been a while. Welcome!

Yes Laverfan, thanks. I'm a Rafa fan but enjoys watching other players' tennis too. Too bad my second favorite player Davy has retired, am looking for some other player(s) to support when Rafa retires, though I also like Murray and hopes he does well too. I like Kei, OK with Demi and a bit disappointed with Jerzy. I don't like Kyrgios but agree that he has talent, prefers that Alex Zverev among the young guys. Good day/morning/night.

Welcome to the forum BLB Great too we have another Nadal fan on board, you also seem very knowledgable from your posts so far.

Belovedluckyboy wrote: Too bad my second favorite player Davy has retired... 

DelPotro is also injured, but he does take the ball early. If his wrist heals, it would be wonderful to see him back competing with others. Perhaps you may consider him as well. He is good on Clay and Grass too.

Hi IMBL, thanks.

Yeah, I like Delpo too, he's such a likable guy, hard not to like him. He plays with such easy but awesome power, has a calm, 'not to be rushed' demeanor and like Rafa, he is able to perform under pressure and is also a clutch player. It's also rare that we have a player like Delpo where almost all fan groups, including the Fed/Rafa/Novak fan groups, tend to like him despite he beating their favorite players sometimes.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:Yeah, I like Delpo too, he's such a likable guy, hard not to like him.  He plays with such easy but awesome power, has a calm, 'not to be rushed' demeanor and like Rafa, he is able to perform under pressure and is also a clutch player.   It's also rare that we have a player like Delpo where almost all fan groups, including the Fed/Rafa/Novak fan groups, tend to like him despite he beating their favorite players sometimes.

The honest truth is that Delpo doesn't beat them very much and he hasn't been around. He is a very likeable guy but you become a more polarizing figure the more you win. If he was around and was routinely beating Rafa/Novak/and Andy some of their fans wouldn't like him as much. It is a shame he isn't around though and I feel for a player of such potential having so many injury issues.

There is something to the fact that Djokovic is harder to beat in best of three than best of 5. But could that simply be because it is easier to win those matches than a best of five against his main two rivals Nadal and Murray? I do think he tends to have losses of focus and belief over the course of a five set match when there is more opportunity for these ups and downs and frustrations to build up.

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I think he'll win on Sunday though. Stan is a proper challenge, Berdych isn't anywhere near as good.

You've either made a big big mistake, or you've worded this a bit weirdly.

Eh?

I meant that to draw lessons from the shorelines of the semis isn't sound.

It Must Be Love wrote:

He has great mental strength in terms of will to win, and is himself an exceptional player, so I see him continue to win Slams- but in the last 3 years he could have won even more if not for his dip in level when it comes to Slams.
My feeling is that Djokovic will finally get over this. I think this year he will handle the nerves much better, and manage to keep his clarity of mind in the big moments. That's why I see him winning multiple majors in 2015. Maybe I'll be wrong, and the 'anomaly' trend will continue, but let's see.

See ??

Great performance from Nole today, superb in the first 2 sets, and then was clinical when Murray dipped a bit in sets 3 and 4.

Yes he is an 8 time slam winning anomaly. Why doesn't he win every match that is what I want to know?

Commiserations to Murray fans. Tough loss but he was close and he will be back challenging and winning the biggest trophies again.

Wahhhhhhh!!!! why has only won 8 slams!!!! wahhhhhhhhhh!!!

Socal, I'm going to be proved right, trust me.
Djokovic should not have just won 1 slam a year from 2012-2014; and he won't from 2015.
In the next few years, if he can avoid injury, he will win atleast 2 Slams a year.

It Must Be Love wrote:Socal, I'm going to be proved right, trust me.
Djokovic should not have just won 1 slam a year from 2012-2014; and he won't from 2015.
In the next few years, if he can avoid injury, he will win atleast 2 Slams a year.

I hope so but you do understand how nitpicking this thread looks now IMBL don't you?

socal1976 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Socal, I'm going to be proved right, trust me.
Djokovic should not have just won 1 slam a year from 2012-2014; and he won't from 2015.
In the next few years, if he can avoid injury, he will win atleast 2 Slams a year.

I hope so but you do understand how nitpicking this thread looks now IMBL don't you?

No, absolutely not.
Isn't it even more clear now that my analysis of 2012-2014 was correct ? That his performance was dipping for slams compared to non slams (as shown by the win percentage evidence) ? That much was clear to me, the debate was why. I thought it's a combination of his rivals playing better and peaking, the nature of BO5 having more intensity vs BO3 (as Jeremy pointed out), as well as my theory of Djokovic letting the nerves impede his clarity of thinking.
I talked about the third point in depth, because that I think was especially surprising.

But if Djokovic can sort himself mentally, I always though he can go on to do as well in the Slams as the non-Slams. The prospect of that is very good for Djokovic, and I suspected 2015 would mark a turn where he does so.

It Must Be Love wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Socal, I'm going to be proved right, trust me.
Djokovic should not have just won 1 slam a year from 2012-2014; and he won't from 2015.
In the next few years, if he can avoid injury, he will win atleast 2 Slams a year.

I hope so but you do understand how nitpicking this thread looks now IMBL don't you?

No, absolutely not.
Isn't it even more clear now that my analysis of 2012-2014 was correct ? That his performance was dipping for slams compared to non slams (as shown by the win percentage evidence) ? That much was clear to me, the debate was why. I thought it's a combination of his rivals playing better and peaking, the nature of BO5 having more intensity vs BO3 (as Jeremy pointed out), as well as my theory of Djokovic letting the nerves impede his clarity of nerves.
I talked about the third point in depth, because that I think was especially surprising.

But if Djokovic can sort himself mentally, I always though he can go on to do as well in the Slams as the non-Slams. The prospect of that is very good for Djokovic, and I suspected 2015 would mark a turn where he does so.

Yeah what does should have mean? IMBL I get what you are saying but it is just a different animal best of three from best of 5 and it isn't like he has been a failure in either respect.

Obviously he's not been a failure in either respect; but there has been a stark contrast in 2012-2014 between slams and non-slams in terms of results for him. I've tried to explain why I think the contrast has been so stark, and also why I think the contrast won't last from 2015 onwards.
Of course, feel free to disagree

No like I said I think he will get one of the next three slams at the least and win more than one slam. I predicted it from the beginning. But I am a bit sick of the negativity towards Novak and all that he has accomplished always people seeming to look for the negative as opposed to appreciating what he does bring to the game.

socal1976 wrote:No like I said I think he will get one of the next three slams at the least and win more than one slam. I predicted it from the beginning. But I am a bit sick of the negativity towards Novak and all that he has accomplished always people seeming to look for the negative as opposed to appreciating what he does bring to the game.

I don't see the thread as a negative against Djokovic but actually a compliment, if not anything I think it shows I rate him as a player higher than some Djokovic fans such as HM; but even if it was seen as a negative I don't really mind, this is a forum after all.

No its not this thread per se. Actually you were not that negative compared to some others. The worst you can say about Novak is that he is really hard to beat at a slam and almost unbeatable outside a slam the last few years. If that is a drawback ok then.