Djokovic's poor record in Grand Slam Finals costing him the chance to be the greatest ?

Article: http://www.sportpulse.net/content/has-novak-djokovics-poor-record-grand-slam-finals-stopped-his-chances-becoming-greatest-161004


Sorry the title is a bit hyperbolic, I'd say just forget that and look at some of the stats I researched.

If you remember I did an article on v2 which was a bit similar in January, where I analysed Djokovic's performance in Slams compared to out of Slams. In this article I looked at it with another angle, in particular what caught my eye was:

-Djokovic's final win percentage in first 7 slam finals, compared to most recent 9 slam finals (he's reached 16 in total) &
-Djokovic's final win percentage in slams compared to non slams in the past 3 years

The difference in both were pretty significant and dramatic, which was surprising for me for a variety of reasons. You'd expect Djokovic to do better in Best-of-5, he has a great stamina and is a baseliner who doesn't rely on redlining like someone such as Stan would.

It could be down to many reasons: just circumstantial luck, Djokovic getting nervous in big moments, or Djokovic's rivals stepping it up in big moments.

Why is the greatest tag being not applied to Djokovic?

He is in the elite company of Perry, Rosewall, Lendl and Agassi.

You can go back to 1987 and change the name from Djokovic to Lendl, and just write an article in a similar tone.

Perhaps Becker requires a refresher training course in new hand signals , as Vajda's signals and Beckers' are causing Djokovic some lapses like RG 2015.

I am sorry but his record in slam finals is pretty good. 2 of those 8 losses were to nadal at the French, 1 was to federer at us open when he was a kid, 1 was to Murray at Wimbledon when he was exhausted after del potro semi and Murray was in form. 1 was to 2010 nadal at the us open when he hardly dropped a set let alone a service game and was in the pinnacle of his career!!

Djokovic in slam finals has beaten federer at Wimbledon, 3 times beat Murray, 3 times beat nadal at 3 different slams.

I don't buy into it at all that his slam final record is poor, he has faced formidable opponents who were in great firm coming into each. He probably should have beaten Murray at the us open having come back and beaten wawrinka but even he was a guy possessed in that French final.

Very harsh!

slashermcguirk wrote:

Very harsh!

Yeah, the article title is not really fair, and I did hint that in the OP.

Anyway, I'm not really looking at his overall slam final record, in particular I'm comparing his recent slam final record to his first 7 slam finals; and the his record in non-Slam finals. The difference is quite stark, you can see from the stats- his success rate is nearly triple away from slams.

Yeah I mean Lendl is still very well respected despite a lot of runner ups. Novaks the same. You've gotta be in it to win it. Most of his ru losses are to Nadal and murray, but he's still got a load of slams

Forgot to answer the question. I dont think it takes away his chance because having a runner up is inherently damaging to your legacy, but because his conversion rate is too low, it means he wont be able to make enough finals to reach the 15 slams or so he would need to make a case

I can also say that Rafa should have beaten Novak in that 2012 AO final, so should have, could have dont count, what matters is you actually win it.

Novak is now 50:50 in slam finals, I wont say he's poor, having reach 16 slam finals and winning 8 slams is not poor imo. Its just that we cant compare to Fedal who are better at winning at the slams. If I'm not wrong Sampras had better winning % at slam finals 14/18 ie 78% but we can argue that he had reached fewer slam finals than Fedal.

I wasn't referring to his overall slam final record in the article, but yes that's a fair point.

He did better in his first eight slam finals, all thanks to his incredible 2011 - from USO 2007 to FO2012, he won 5 out of 8 slam finals. Thereafter, he won 3 out of the next 8, perhaps he won't be able to repeat what he had done in 2011 right up to AO 2012, where he won four out of four finals made.

Even if he had done nothing but to reach and win 4 out of the next 4 AO finals, he would still be 12 out of 20 slam finals, ie 60% win rate, still couldn't match Fedal.

Interesting to note that if we take out their respective favorite slam, ie Novak at AO, Rafa at FO and Fed at Wim, Fed has the best win% at the other slams, ie 10 out of 16 which is 62.5%; Rafa has 45% (5/11) and Novak 27%(3/11). Of course we have to consider Fed won 7 out of 9 Wim finals, ie 78% success rate vs Rafa's 9/9 at FO ie at 100% or Novak's 5/5 at AO, also at 100%.

The success rate is secondary to how many you actually win. If a player won 20 slams, but lost another 20 finals, the 50% success rate would be a mere footnote.

I doubt anyone could reach 40 slam finals! Like I said, winning 8 slams is certainly not poor by any standard, considering not many have won that many slams in their careers. What matters is to win the slams, regardless of how many failures.

Still, Fed's win rate at the other slams away from his favorite grass is telling, that he's good on more than one surface to allow him to win so many off his fav surface.

Granted a different sport but Jack Nicklaus won 18 majors but was runner up in 17 and he would have to be considered the greatest and most successful golfer. I think a lot of it comes down to the opponent. How many slam finals did federer win against nadal and djokovic, I think only 3 of his 17 slams!

Djokovic's slam final record against nadal, federer and Murray combined is a very respectable 7-7. Had he had easier opponents his slam final record would surely be far better. I know it's what ifs but this is ultimately the main reason why djokovic's slam final record is even

Not fair to Fed when he's 5 to 6 years older than Rafa, Novak and Murray. How can we be sure that his other opponents were easier ones when they're at their peak? It might be that they faced a more formidable Fed at his peak during 2004-2007, making them looked inferior.

Fed did also beat Murray at 3 slam finals - USO2008, AO2010 and Wimbledon 2012. So, he has 6 wins over the trio (2 over Rafa at Wim, 1 over Novak at USO2007). He lost to Rafa 4 times at FO finals, 1 at AO and 1 at Wim; lost to Novak at Wim 2014 final. So he's 6-7 vs the trio, not bad considering the last time he lost, he was almost 33 yo.

Rafa didn't have it easy either, 15 out of his 20 slam finals were against Fed and Novak ( didn't meet Murray at any slam final) and he's 10-5 against them.

Well, against the same field, ie Djoko, Nadal, Murray, Fed is 6-7 which is very similar. Nadal is 10-5.

Andy is 2-6, Stan is 2-0 beating world #1 and #2 each time on its way - yet Murray achievement is arguably bigger.

It's as always hard to compare for the usual reasons:
generation: why not include other #1 as Hewitt, Safin and Roddick?
opposition what ifs - you can only beat the guy on the other side: would Federer have a better record if he didn't reach 4 RG finals lost to Rafa? And would Rafa's record be any less impressive? And what if Rafa could go to more finals at that time in the other GS?

Djoko should work on his longevity, as he's the best player on tour with Murray currently - I hope they can bring a cool rivalry (although I fancy both Nadal and Federer much more) until the new stars come in.

If Rafa could reach more finals, chances of him winning them would be high. If Fed didn't reach those FO finals, then he probably won't get his career slam, as he's not good enough to reach the FO final in the first place.

So, it's getting to many slam finals and winning most of them that's the difficult part.

To reiterate, I wasn't referring to Djokovic's overall Grand Slam final record, I think 8-8 is actually fine.

Some of the stats from the article ( http://www.sportpulse.net/content/has-novak-djokovics-poor-record-grand-slam-finals-stopped-his-chances-becoming-greatest-161004 ):
-For the first 7 Slam finals, Djokovic won 5 out of 7.
-For the last 9 Slam finals, Djokovic has won 3 out of 9. (after AO 2012)

In the same time period Djokovic has won 3 out of 9 slam finals, he has won 21 out of 25 finals away from slams.
In Masters 1000 & WTF, Djokovic has won his last 13 finals in a row.

It's the contrast between different halves of Djokovic's career, and the contrast between slam and non slam that I was pointing out, rather than trying to criticise Djokovic.

Er.. Fed is old, Murray lack of fitness, Rafa half the time not there, the rest of the field, ugh don't know what to say.

These are some of the reasons I can think of, but most importantly, Novak can play at a high level above most players, but can't sustain it long enough over BO5.

It's temperament. He doesn't handle pressure as well as those at the very top of the historical tree.

Under the greatest pressure, his inclination is toward caution rather than proactivity.

Since AO12, the only time I'd say he raised his game for the final was Wimbledon last year. And even then he very nearly imploded.

His two AO wins v Murray in 2013 and 2015 were decent enough but had as much to do with Andy's travails as Novak's level. They weren't performances like Stan's last month or Rafa's at US13 where the matches weren't classic but it's clear that the winner produced a brilliant level of play.

I think he is shaping up to be this generation's Lendl (which is by no means a pejorative).

Pretty harsh HM, his win against federer at Wimbledon took serious guts after losing the 4th set!

He has come back from the brink in so many matches. Not only that but in most of his matches against nadal, Murray, djokovic normally is the one dictating play and hits more winners.

I would consider nadal and Murray to be far more defensive players. I think djokovic's head to head against the other top 3 shows just how great he is. He is the only player anywhere near nadal in the head to head and has beaten him at all 4 slams. He has beaten federer at all 4 slams and has beaten Murray at 3 of them.

That for me is proof that djokovic is an all time great, don't also forget he has won 4 world tour finals, with final wins over nadal and federer.

Maybe i am alone in thinking djokovic's final record is very good considering who he has faced in those finals

Djokovic's record is altogether very impressive! And re: the opposition, he's the one who broke the Fedal utter dominance, with the help of sidekick Andy.
He's on his way to a 4th YE#1 (although the year is still long)
He's got plenty of records surpassing other all time greats (I'd think he'll break 200 weeks at #1 for example)
He can play phenomenal tennis, and showed it time and time again.
And he still has 3-5 good years ahead of him...
There's no doubt he's an all-time great

Then back to the OP, he's still far from being the "greatest", and a bit late too, although things are not done yet. But indeed he can't keep that slam winning ratio so "low". At least his game level can reach the heights Fedal reached - so he would be in contention.

There could be a way to make categories for the sticky besides GOAT: greatest level displayed over a year, a tournament, a match...

HM, I think in general you're a bit too harsh on Djokovic, but I think I partly agree with you here. It's not that he plays badly in Slams when he loses, but he just doesn't seem to reach the level he can in Masters tournaments. Either making too many silly mistakes, or too passive sometimes.

Obviously we have to take this in context, he's still done ridiculously well and is currently undisputed number 1. But I think it's weird he's won last 13 finals in Masters 1000 & WTF in a row, won 21/25 non slam finals since Feb 2012, but 3/9 in Slam finals.

Slasher, I don't question how good he is and his place in the ranks of tennis greatness is assured.

But three slams wins in nine finals since AO12 is lower than one would expect from a healthy world #1.

Nadal entered three fewer slams in that same period and made four fewer finals but still won four slams to Novak's three.

Or consider that in the last 13 slams, Novak has managed to win only one more slam than Wawrinka despite playing in 7 more finals.

I think his slam final win rate is definitely lower than one would expect.

His rivalry with Wawrinka is an interesting one. Summerblues I think mentioned this a few weeks ago.

In slams they always seem to have thrillers, and it seems it can go either way. Yet in Best-of-3, where you'd think it's easier for Stan to redline and win... the H2H is not even close.

I think Djokovic has won every BO3 match vs Stan since 2007, and moreover they've played quite a lot in the last few years. What I noticed is not only does Djokovic always win these matches, but he wins comfortably, not even remotely troubled.

HM Murdoch wrote:Slasher, I don't question how good he is and his place in the ranks of tennis greatness is assured.

But three slams wins in nine finals since AO12 is lower than one would expect from a healthy world #1.

Nadal entered three fewer slams in that same period and made four fewer finals but still won four slams to Novak's three.

Or consider that in the last 13 slams, Novak has managed to win only one more slam than Wawrinka despite playing in 7 more finals.

I think his slam final win rate is definitely lower than one would expect.

Yes that's the sort of reasoning I had in my head when I decided to write this article. Definitely wasn't meant to be overly negative about Djokovic, besides reaching so many Slam finals consistently itself is impressive.

It Must Be Love wrote: It's not that he plays badly in Slams when he loses, but he just doesn't seem to reach the level he can in Masters tournaments. Either making too many silly mistakes, or too passive sometimes.  

Yes, he's not usually terrible. Wimbledon 13 was the only total stinker.

They're often just a good-but-not-great solid 7/10 type of performance.

He doesn't throw finals away i.e. lose when he should have won. But I think it's too frequent that he's been the worse player on the day.

Maybe Djoko is like Lendl, being to many slam finals winning about half of them, and winning many YEC and Masters.

In answer to the OP,

No.. he was never in contention.

A great, but distinctly limited player. An incredible baseliner but very average volleys, slice, overhead, touch. I think you get the point.

People try and make out that Rafa is a bit one dimensional. I actually think he has more dimension and subtlety in his game than Djokovic. More of an all courter with much better touch and net play and varies his play more often than Djokovic.

How many times have we seen Rafa pull out the flat serve down the middle when everyone is expecting the slider out wide, or come in behind a serve when expected to stay behind.

Not knocking Djokovic but he's tennis skillset, as displayed in his matches, is too limited to call him the 'greatest' without any qualification.

An argument could be made for the greatest baseliner of all time (although again I would disagree) but certainly not 'the greatest', and that's even if he had had won say three or four more of those slam finals (thus bringing his winning percentage in line with Fedal).

I'll be honest I disagree with him being average at everything else. He's got a serve and volleyers serve quality and his drop shots and touch when running to the new is better than anyone.

He has a good serve.

His volleying and touch are average (for say the top twenty, ie nothing special, and historically pretty rubbish). Occasionally he pulls off a difficult volley, but those are more noticeable for their rarity then anything else. Murray, Nadal, Federer, Tsonga, Lopez, Dimitrov (just off the top of my head) are all better volleyers in the top 20. There are many other lesser players who have better net skills; they just don't the same appreciation or coverage of their skills because they're not the number one.

It's very fashionable to hype the top players to the sky, and par for course not to mention their weaknesses (again relatively speaking, and i'm referring to media, pundits etc).

No one can say Djokovic is a good net player. Even by todays diminished standards, he's barely more than average. If we're talking about 'greatest' then there needs to be some context. In the overall context of 'greatest' of all time, he's way sub par at the net.

And boy does he look awkward at the net.

Novak is good with his serve, return, FH,BH,dropshots,lobs, movements, defence and offence. He's certainly a great player, having good court sense too.

Im impressed with the way he defends even on grass, the way he 'moonball' from the back of the court running all over the place just to get back into a point. He's good at both defence and offence, in fact I find him better in changing from defence to offence than Rafa, since 2011.

However, I do agree that he's not that great with his touches, slices, his feel at the net. I do feel Stan exposed Novak's weakness at the net in that FO final, a few exchanges at the net and Novak lost the point, despite his good dropshots.

I agree with AF that Nole is quite limited in many ways.  He is very good in current conditions but current conditions put an awful lot of premium on the baseline game and the related skill set.  He covers the baseline extremely well, has a great return and has very solid groundstrokes (and even there his FH is distinctly unspectacular).  His serve has also improved over the years where it is a strength now.

However, if the game required more varied skill set, his holes would become far more apparent - his volleys and net game are mediocre (and that is being generous), his slice is laborious and his overheads and even drive volleys can be suspect.

But that is how today's tennis is.  Instead of good proficiency in a larger number of areas, today's game rewards a great proficiency in a smaller number of areas.  That does not necessarily make it easier to succeed - much like a top high jumper is not necessarily either better or worse than a top decathlete.  So I am happy to rate him as highly as other players with similar level of success.

But I do find him boring

I dont think Novak vs Rafa, Novak being the more aggressive one, not in slams but maybe in BO3 matches.

Note that Rafa is more successful at the slams than Novak is because Rafa tends to play more aggressively at the slams esp during at business end of such tournaments. Note how he beat Novak at the FOs and USOs, not by being defensive but by being the aggressor. He hit more winners than Novak did when he won his FOs and USOs, with the exception of FO2012 when Novak had that stretch during the rain where he hit his winners without missing due to the heavier conditions.

I also feel that Novak vs Murray, Murray has to be the aggressor in order to beat Novak. Their H2H were pretty even prior to 2014 but after Murray's back surgery, he seemed to be lacking in his fitness that he was bageled by Novak at the final set when they went the distance.

Novak's earned recognition as one of the best ever but he nowhere near the running for the status of "the greatest".

I think the match v Stan highlighted why: he lacks the big weapon, the killer shot.

He has a brilliantly balanced game and, now that he has tidied up his game around the net, I don't there is any part of his game that his actively weak.

But his game is one of strategy. It all about court position, angles, opening the court and balancing risk. This, combined with the balance in his game, makes him very difficult to beat.

His reputation as a defensive grinder is inaccurate and very unfair but it hints at a basic truth - he is a tough nut to crack rather than an irresistible force in his own right.

"Winning" and "not losing" are two sides of the same coin but one could view Novak's greatest strength as the ability to avoid loss rather than to seize wins.

As a footnote to the above, I do think his return of serve is truly great. But it's a weapon that can only be used once a point, so will never be as devastating as a great forehand or backhand.

Actually both Rafa and Fed were also able to 'avoid' losses and seized wins during their times lest we forget. I don't think Fedal were always playing well all the time to smash their opponents off the courts, many times they also came back from the brink of defeats to snatch victories.

I do agree that his FH isn't a weapon the likes of Fed's and Rafa's and even if his BH is one of the best in the business, it's usually the FH that call the shot in tennis. While his ROS is the best in the business, compared to a great serve, winning points on ROS vs winning with a great serve, it's harder to rely on ROS to win points.

The way to beat Novak is to be aggressive and able to sustain that throughout a match; we know how difficult to do that and that's why Novak only loses three matches so far this season, and that's why he's the no.1 player.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:Actually both Rafa and Fed were also able to 'avoid' losses and seized wins during their times lest we forget.  I don't think Fedal were always playing well all the time to smash their opponents off the courts, many times they also came back from the brink of defeats to snatch victories.  

Yes, you're right, but I don't mean "avoid loss" in the sense of getting out of tricky situations.

I mean it in the sense that his game is constructed in a way that makes it hard for an opponent to land a punch.

I could perhaps contrast him to Federer at his peak. The Federer forehand was probably the most potent weapon in game. It would take the game away from an opponent. But the backhand was relatively weaker and if (big if!) an opponent could target it, they would be more successful.

Djokovic has no individual shot that can take the game away from an opponent but nor does he offer a clear weakness for an opponent to go after. The weakest area of his game, the forecourt, is an area that few modern players are themselves competent, so he can hold his own there. From the back of the court, he's equally happy on the FH and BH and both are good (BH very good) shots that don't often break down.

The players who have beaten Djokovic this year are the ones who been able bring their own strengths to bear and didn't dip - Karlovic served lights out, Federer served brilliantly and came to the net effectively, and Stan's BH was at lifetime best levels.

They had a part of their game that was 10/10 and Novak had no 10/10 of his own to fire back in return.

HMM

I think describing Fed's backhand as weak is at best a quarter truth. He has a weakness on the backhand if his opponent can get the ball up to shoulder height with some weight to it - basically, only Nadal can (could?) do this on a regular enough basis. Lower bouncing balls and particularly half-volleying backhands from the baseline and there are few if any better.

Agree though with your assessment of Djokovic - he is so difficult to beat because of his combination of court coverage and solidity off both wings on the baseline, which means there simply isn't a hole in his game for his opponent to exploit. It just keeps his opponent under pressure all the time.

Perhaps why Murray, who is one of the best exponents of the 'play to your opponents weaknesses' approach, has struggled to beat Novak in recent months.

Actually other than Fed, Rafa and Murray, who are fellow members of the big four, the players who have better chances than others to beat Novak are the big hitters who are also good enough movers, the likes of Stan and Delpo. Delpo is another one who gives Novak all sorts of troubles, at Wimbledon, Shanghai and beating Novak on slow HC of IW. Both Stan and Delpo have such firepower in their shots, that the big four have to play their best to beat those two.

Big servers are always hard to deal with and Raonic is one of the better ones among them, Isner is another so they do provide some tough matches for the big four, not only to Novak.

I also think that Cilic when his game is on,.or when hes playing in the zone, he's also hard to beat. He has beaten three of the big four, and has provided some tough challenges for Novak lately, at IW, RG and Wimbledon last year.

dummy_half wrote:I think describing Fed's backhand as weak is at best a quarter truth. He has a weakness on the backhand if his opponent can get the ball up to shoulder height with some weight to it - basically, only Nadal can (could?) do this on a regular enough basis. Lower bouncing balls and particularly half-volleying backhands from the baseline and there are few if any better.

I was careful to say "relatively weaker"!

His backhand was a good weapon but was definitely the less reliable, less potent wing. You simply couldn't target his forehand because he'd destroy you with it.

Easy for an opponent to know what to do. Actually doing it was, of course, another matter!

Isnt the 'real' Rafa also the best in 'play to your opponent's weakness'? He did have his successes vs Novak at the slams, esp on clay. Maybe Murray just wasnt aggressive enough or at least not able to sustain his aggression long enough,like at AO and Miami this year?

HM Murdoch wrote:Novak's earned recognition as one of the best ever but he nowhere near the running for the status of "the greatest".

I think the match v Stan highlighted why: he lacks the big weapon, the killer shot.

He has a brilliantly balanced game and, now that he has tidied up his game around the net, I don't there is any part of his game that his actively weak.

But his game is one of strategy. It all about court position, angles, opening the court and balancing risk. This, combined with the balance in his game, makes him very difficult to beat.

His reputation as a defensive grinder is inaccurate and very unfair but it hints at a basic truth - he is a tough nut to crack rather than an irresistible force in his own right.

"Winning" and "not losing" are two sides of the same coin but one could view Novak's greatest strength as the ability to avoid loss rather than to seize wins.

As a footnote to the above, I do think his return of serve is truly great. But it's a weapon that can only be used once a point, so will never be as devastating as a great forehand or backhand.

Stop being so reasonable and fair HM, or we run the risk of not being able to have fiery arguments.