Has Djokovic joined the ranks of the tennis greats, whatever that means?

Of course I am highly partial. But I think its time to discuss this issue. Novak has been in the top 3 for the last 5 years. In an era dominated by 2 goat candidates. He has a davis cup, 24 tournament victories, 9 master's series wins, a year end championship, an olympic medal in singles, and a Davis Cup. On the grandslam stage he has been to 4 grandslam finals, with 2 grandslam championships. Not to mention that he is the youngest player in history to make the semis or better of 4 grandslam events. In my mind if he retired tomorrow he would be one of the legends of the game. And his current streak only adds to the luster, he is now the holder of the 3rd longest winning streak in the open era. He is virtually guaranteed of attaining the #1 ranking at least for a few months following his stellar start. Where would you place on his current achievements? I would put him among the very elite of the game. Not top ten of all time in terms of legacy but closing fast. And if he retired tomorrow, he would rank higher in my mind than any of the players that have won 2 slams on the strength of his accomplishing all that he has in the Fedal era and his consistent level of play. As I watched the del potro match, and witnessed the startling level of hitting that Djokovic displayed I was struck with one thought. "I have never seen anybody hit and move like this before, nobody, and I mean nobody". yes there are those players with bigger serves, with better volleys. But when you look at movement and baseline play Djokovic has to rate at the very, very top of the game. He is so good at that style of play that he has bested the very best baseliner/defender we have seen in the modern era and has sent him scurrying for answers in the last fortnight. It is no Djoke to beat federer and Nadal seven straight times. His record against top 5 competition is 10-0, against top ten players it is 13-0. Novak, you are one of the greatest players of all time, a legend of the game and with so much more left to accomplish.

Much as I like him I think he has still a bit to go yet.

Impresive number of Master titles, but two slam silverware trophies are a bit short maybe!

Olympic Gold?

Not to say he wont get there one day however.

It takes a special player to nulify his game the likes of Murray who was only two points away from defeating him the other week.

Murray has a good h2h record of 5-1 against his opponent today who plays a similar game so there are players out there that can do it.

But not many.

socal very interesting discussion. I would hate to see his current form result in no further slam titles this year or beyond. I think he would be considered a GOAT like you say for winning to slam titles in the Fedal era and this current undefeated steak. In all fairness is better to have this discussion I feel at the end of this season by where he could be the World no.1 and also a multiple slam winner.

And what about the guy who will beat Djoko regularly in one or two years? Will he be the great as well?

Djoko's superiority is essentially based on his physique. Like we expected Nadal to be one in a billion phenomenon, now we have someone who can phyiscally challenge him but I am sure in 2 years, we will have 10 players as fit as them.

Djoko is a good tennis player but talent wise he will have to deliver a bit more to be talked amongst the greats.

In answer to your question, socal ... no. Not a chance yet. Obviously enjoy the success your player is having at the moment, but who are currently considered the tennis greats? Lendl, McEnroe, Connors, Sampras, Borg, Agassi, Federer, Nadal, Edberg, Becker ... and the thing that makes them great is that they have 6 and plus Slams individually. Djokovic can be considered a current great player of his own era, but not a tennis great.

I think its difficult to measure the quality of a player in anything other than Slams ... all the other stuff lays weight to how good they are, but at the end of the day, Slams are what you're measured by. Novak has two, at the same tournament. Even if he wins the French ... the answer's still no for me. Did Rafa winning 4 French Opens make him great? Well, no ... I don't think so. When he starting winning outside the French and racking the numbers up, then is was a yes for me.

I think it is way too soon to speak of Djokovic in those sort of parlants. When he's got number 5 and is still challenging for more, then we'll see. But he's not joined those illustrious ranks right now.

I would say that Djokovic is the worlds best player at this moment in time.

But we had Nadal going through a similar season in 2009, the only difference is the Slam totals. Although Djoko has won 2 AO's, we shall have to see if he can convert his amazing run into slam wins on the other surfaces.

But, he's still playing as the No1 right now.

right now, he's playing the best tennis out there, but one of the tennis greats, I guess that depends on what you call "great". If by "great" you mean top 50 of all time, then maybe. But he doesn't yet fit my definition of great. 2 slams, both at the same tournament doesn't quite cut it yet. However, he could very easily earn that title by the end of his career.

For me, greatness requires among other things longevity, and right now Novak has dominated tennis for five months. You quote things like 10-0 against the top 4, but again this is a hot streak, before that two of the top 4 dominated him, while Murray had won their last three encounters...

When I think of tennis greats, I think: Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Agassi, Borg, McEnroe, Laver, and I've probably left a couple of fairly obvious ones out. Djokovic isn't in that company, yet.

No way near the elite of the game.

He needs to win the most prestigious slams like Wimbledon, US Open or French Open.

I wonder whether the marketing director at Adidas still has his job? They put all their money on Murray and let Djoko go to Taccini 18 months ago!

I knew then it was a really stupid move.

Nice comments, I agree to a certain extent. But my definition of great is different. I don't look at tennis greatness simply as a function of having to be among the handful of best players in history. Certainly, Novak's accomplishments are not on the level of Fed, Nadal, Sampras, Andre, Laver, Borg, and a few others. Right now I would rate him in the top 20 or 25 of the open era. And I think he will accomplish more as he is young and has proven that he has the talent and the mentality for wining and consistency on the ATP tour.

As usual I disagree with Tenez, Djokovic's game is not dependent solely on physical ability. Yes he is fitter now than he has ever been, yes he is really fast. But he has great shots as well. He is probably the best guy on the tour at going up the line and changing direction on the ball. He has an elite forehand and even more elite backhand. His return game is phenomenal, this has little to do with his physicality. Technically, his ability to change direction on the ball and go up the line with such ease and regularity is one of the biggest things that have lead him to all this success.

I think you have a problem reading other people posts as Gallery already noticed. I never said "Djokovic's game is not dependent solely on physical ability".

There is a good article in the Mail Online today which touched on this very subject.
To quote part of the interview:

Djokovic arrived at the French Open championships last weekend with a perfect record in 2011: played 37, won 37. The rankings computer has yet to catch up, but it's only a matter of time before Djokovic's status as the best player on the planet is formally confirmed.

For the past seven years, that is a distinction known only to Federer and Nadal.

'Roger and Rafa have been so dominant that to compete with them has been difficult,' he admits.

'But it is also a challenge. Every time you play them they make you improve. I have just had to wait for all my hard work to pay off. As a kid, I dreamed of winning Wimbledon and becoming the best.

More the full article & interview
Mail Online Click Here

Certainly if he continues the form he is in and picks up some major slams along the way, then he will eventually be recognised in the same breath as the other 'tennis greats'.

Djoko's superiority is essentially based on his physique. Like we expected Nadal to be one in a billion phenomenon, now we have someone who can phyiscally challenge him but I am sure in 2 years, we will have 10 players as fit as them. " Tenez

I don't know you basically state that "essentially" his superiority is based on physique, which I dispute wholeheartedly. Essentially unless the meaning of the word has changed means that the defining or principal reason of his success is based on his physicality. In fact, the guy has easily one of the top 10 forehands on tour, one of the top 5 maybe top 3 backhands in the game, and the best return of serve in the business. And he is probably the best at changing the direction of the ball. Djokovic was able to win a grandslam and be among the top 3 in the world for 4 years running with very suspect conditioning and a nonexistant serve. This should prove what a brilliant technical player he is. I understand the difference, I dispute your essentially point. He isn't essentially winning because of physicality.

If you cannot see teh difference between "essentially" and "solely", then why would I want to discuss with you?

To be a tennis "Great," I think is too generous a labelling of Djokovic as his career and reults currently reflect.

He may well be on his way to this, but it's too early to accord him that priviledge at this point.

Two majors, 3 years apart, show it's no fluke; Nine TMS titles, against the opposition he has had, also a tremendous accomplishment, plus his current "winning" streak, and "opening" to the 2011 season - it's all amazing but quite a fall short of an "All Time Great."

But stay tuned, that may be where he ends up, but to keep it up for 5 or 6 years and get to 8 Majors, or so, that will bring him to a level where he might indeed be considered amongst the "long term" elite of the sport.

yloponom, good post I think he is all time great except that maybe my definition of all time great is a bit more generous than some people's. I think if you are good enough to win multiple slams and to win other honors like the Davis Cup and year's end master that you can be considered a great. I don't think Djokovic is among the handful of greatest ever yet, however he is fast approaching that status and even if he retires tomorrow I would consider an all time great.

Dunno about Davis Cup socal, Murray could be the best player on the planet and he still would struggle with that

As for definitions of greatness, as you say he doesn't fit mine. For me he'd be top 30 or 40 in the open era, don't think I'd have him in the top 20 yet...

I really can't comment on guys that played before I started viewing tennis, and the first match I remember was Connors and Mac in the 83 USO final. I'd have him in the top 20 of guys who I have watched play for sure maybe top 15. But then again I don't really recall Borg, Vilas, Nastase and those guys.

wait for next year..

when novak needs to defend all his points in 2011

wether his mental be able to maintain this stuff or not

Ebar, Novak doesn't have to defend all these points. If he sets a record breaking gap between his point total and the next nearest guy he can easily drop events and still remain #1. Look at how much it took for Novak to overtake Nadal, with all the points Nadal had to defend. Novak had to win everything for six months and he is still ranked #2. Besides the real number #1 is the year end #1, and that gets determined by who wins the most points in a 12 month span. Week to week you can have ups or downs but if Novak wins the most points in 2011 he will be number one. This defending points concept is only valid for the weekly rankings across the course of the year.

In answer to the title question, my answer would be 'Not yet'. Yes, he is playing great tennis, but a 6 month streak of great form is not enough to turn him into a player that you would consider as having had a great career (so far it's only a very good one). If he continues to play somewhere near this level for a couple of seasons, and picks up 2 or 3 more slams then he definitely moved up to the 'great' group with the likes of Edberg, Becker McEnroe, but he's still a bit short of the GOAT herd (Fed, Nadal, Laver, Borg and arguably Lendl).

Good article. I would agree with most that Djokovic is not quite there yet in terms of greatness. I think he does need to win a couple more slams on different surfaces to achieve this. However, I think he certainly has talent and game to achieve this.

He is blessed with an amazing ability to read the game, most notably on the return of serve. He takes the ball so early and gets the return so deep, it is no surprise that he breaks serve more often than any other player. This is a fantastic skill to have, it puts so much pressure on the opponent and with his improved serve, it is very difficult to get the breaks back.

He has always had a superb backhand even through the rougher times a year ago but his forehand has improved significantly.

His ability to contend on every surface shows how good a player he is and his consistency is something that is often overlooked. Only twice in the past four years has he failed to reach at least the the quarter finals of every slam. That is a really impressive achievement in itself for somebody of his age.

I always thought from the first time i saw him at French Open about 5 years ago that this guy would be the real deal...............now I have no doubts ! I really hope he wins the French Open !

Again, Dummy half it all depends on how you define great. Lets remember the guy finished in the top 3 for 4 straight years in an era dominated by two goat candidates at their peak. He is the youngest player to ever get to all 4 grandslam finals. He has something like 20 wins at the tour level against Fed and Nadal, two players that are as good as we have ever seen. Davis Cup, year end master's, 9 masters titles. It hasn't just been six months of good form. This six months has been amazing but he was a highly accomplished player among the very best before that. I think I am a bit more generous maybe in labelling someone an alltime great. I think if you have been consistently a top player for years and you have multiple grandslams then you deserve that title. I am not saying he is on the short list for goat candidates however.

Slasher, agree with your post, his big attribute is the return of serve, I got a lot of flack last year when I did a comparison of Andy and Novak's game and said that novak was the better returner. Andy is a great returner as well but there is a reason that Novak lead the ATP in break percentage last year and is tops again this season. If he keeps improving the serve to the point that he gets a few more free points without any drop off in consistency, and maybe strengthens his slice backhand and volleys a little more he will be even more difficult to live with.

Welcome to the forum slashermcguirk.....hope you like it here : )

Solerina

Tenez wrote:I wonder whether the marketing director at Adidas still has his job? They put all their money on Murray and let Djoko go to Taccini 18 months ago!

I knew then it was a really stupid move.

Depends not on results, but money Tenez. Murray comes from a country with one of the worlds strongest economies and millions of people who would potentially fall for the Adidas branding. French love Murray, USA doesn't mind him - USA doesn't love Djoko so much after the Roddick incident. Djokovic might well dominate, but theres hard numbers to crunch before anyone can say whether it was the right money move or not.

Irrespective if it was the right move by Adidas, for a company their size the design department doesn't have a lot of imagination compared to Nike or Tacchini, even K Swiss can come up with some imaginative designs the likes of what Monfils was wearing.

sportslover wrote:Irrespective if it was the right move by Adidas, for a company their size the design department doesn't have a lot of imagination compared to Nike or Tacchini, even K Swiss can come up with some imaginative designs the likes of what Monfils was wearing.

100% agree

Tacchini have come up with some wonderful designs and their merchandising of Djokovic is second to none. A huge imaginative choice. As compared to Nike whose merchandising of Rafa is appalling when as everyone knows ... one of his major demographics is women ( ) for whom they cater absolutely nothing for.

Off topic, sorry.

Must admit "the Eagles" on the back of some of the first tops Novak wore were a bit gaudy to say the least however I see they have since "flown" and the tops have been toned down a tad.

What I do know is that if, in the form of his life, he loses this semi-final to a well-past-his-best Federer he can wave goodbye to any chance of being rated highly.

I doubt the question will matter anyway, he's an 85% favourite in my book.

I'm not sure BB, I think Fed is playing great at the moment, particularly with the serve, and is the one player Nole will not want to face next. I think its more 50:50 because this isnt a 3 set match, Federer over 5 sets is very tough to beat, and Nole will have to keep that level up over a long match which is tough.

Is there an equivalent of a spaghetti strung racquet, so that Nole could refuse to play and snap his own streak?

bogbrush wrote:What I do know is that if, in the form of his life, he loses this semi-final to a well-past-his-best Federer he can wave goodbye to any chance of being rated highly.

I doubt the question will matter anyway, he's an 85% favourite in my book.

A really bad post from Bogbrush, Djokovic wins 43 matches in a row beats said Federer 3 times in a row and Nadal 4 times in a row but he can't be a great player if he loses to Federer a 16 time grandslam champion this one time. Really bogbrush do you even think before you come up with some of this stuff. Sometimes the guy ranked number #1 in the world will lose a match to guy ranked in the 50s or 60s or even lower, it has happened to all of them from Federer to Sampras to Laver. So if Djokovic loses tomorrow goes on to have a great year, picks up more slams in his future he will have to say goodbye to any chance of being rated highly. I guess that shows how awful Federer is that losing to a 29 year old version of Federer destroys your standing and legacy. Funny Agassi was able to win grandslams in his 30s. Just goes to show how much Roger relied on his speed and physicality and how lacking in real tennis talent he is, now that he doesn't have his speed he is so deficient that unless Djokovic wins every single match he plays against him is legacy forever will be tainted.

Funny one loss against Federer would destroy any chance of Djokovic being highly rated, but 17 losses to Nadal don't do anything to Roger's legacy. I remember Roger two years ago losing to a several years retired Pete Sampras in Asia. That pretty much I guess nullified every single grandslam Roger ever won, losing to a late 30s retiree. Just for that I hope Novak straight sets Roger sticking a bagel on Swiss, not because I dislike Roger I don't, but some of his fans really take the cake.

I told everybody that we are watching one of the greats of all time right now. 5 straight wins over an all time goat candidate. 10-1 against Murray, Fed and Rafa in 2011. It is time the naysayers just acknowledge the greatness that is Nole.

Let's not get carried away. He has taken a giant step in the right direction socal. Right now 2011 has been about buliding the foundations for such a legacy. No doubt he is the best player in the world at the moment. Let's see if he can maintain the consistency. He has made world number 1 and won a third slam. Long may it last

Djoker probably end up with 10 slams and he is improving his h2h against another so called goat. What is the h2h in last matches?
5-0

See legend I don't think it is premature, beating Rafa a legend in a wimbeldon final to win your third slam and being #1 in the world is the foundation of a legacy of his own. He has his own place in history now.

I think it is socal. If he was to drop off next year and not win another title, he would be labelled a one season wonder. For example there was talk of Hewitt being dominant and it never happened. So like I say time will determine how he builds his legacy. For now I say lets appreciate him playing tennis, and when he calls time on his career, we can reflect on his achievements and talk about what made his career 'great'

legendkillar wrote:I think it is socal. If he was to drop off next year and not win another title, he would be labelled a one season wonder. For example there was talk of Hewitt being dominant and it never happened. So like I say time will determine how he builds his legacy. For now I say lets appreciate him playing tennis, and when he calls time on his career, we can reflect on his achievements and talk about what made his career 'great'

Djoko has been no. 3 for almost 4 years now. He aint gonna be one season wonder. He is definitely going to win more slams. Hewitt got outclassed and sorted out by a great player and also injuries played part in his career.

Hewitt was in the top 5 for 3 years. Djokovic has just made number 1. Like I said, time will determine. I would like to see him crack on from this seasons success. I am not taking anything away from the guy. He is 24. Let's see how far he goes.

Legend if he hung up his racquet tomorrow and never won another match he still has won 3 grandslams and reached the #1 ranking, two things that are accomplished by players that are seen as great. He is already one grandslam ahead of hewitt. And also Novak became #1 in an era dominated by 2 of the greatest players ever to pick up a racquet. The hewitt analogy doesn't work out.

Djokovic has the potential & the talent. Also, Djokovic has now defeated his main rival 5 times this year. I can't see who can beat Djokovic anymore besides Fed and now Fed seems to find it hard to even reach the semi finals, Djokovic will win more. 8/8 wins in finals this year suggests he can win a lot more this season.

Yes, Djokovic is one of the 'greats', whichever way you want to measure it. Three Grand Slams alone doesn't tell the whole tale - it's all about context. He's won those three Slams in an era which boasts the strongest top two of all time in Nadal and Federer.

Likewise, while Hewitt may have reached world number one at a younger age, there's no doubt that Djokovic reaching the top of the rankings is a far greater feat. Hewitt was edging out the likes of Haas, a 32-year-old Agassi and an incredibly inconsistent Safin to top the rankings. Djokovic has had to displace a potential goat at the absolute peak of his powers to get there, as well as a sixteen-time Grand Slam winner who, even if he is past his best, is still more than capable of adding to his tally.

Let's just wait a few years and see what happens

Hewitt done it with a young Federer coming through, Sampras, Agassi, Safin, Roddick.

socal belittling other accomplishments to somehow further your arguement that Djokovic should be considered a great is ludicrous. Nadal and Federer have done it year in year out. If Djokovic hung his racquet up tomorrow, he wouldn't be in my top 10 of all time.

Like I said, wait till he has a career.

Excellent post by Chris, have to echo everything he is saying. It isn't just the three grandslams and the #1 ranking. Look at who he has to beat to win these grandslams. Novak is 11-1 and against the rest of the top 5 players in the world. 11-1 against the top 5 that is ridiculous. This year added to the rest of his body of work 5 straight years of being ranked in the top 3 in the Fedal era in my mind establishes him as an all time great. The knock against Novak was that he had only won 2 australians and that somehow the AO is inferior to the other slams, well what about wimbeldon, he just won the granddaddy of them all.