Djokovic threatening the top tier the all time top five

First topic message reminder :

When you look at the list of all time greats of the open era Novak is threatening the top 5 players and make a strong case to join them. Of course we are talking about Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Laver, and Borg. Novak has 9 slams 8th on the all time list and with 17 slam final appearances puts him 5th on the all time list. Novak is now almost a lock to be the world #1 at the year end for the 4th time in 5 years. Additionally, he has a chance to become only the 9th player since 1932 to make the finals of all 4 slams in the same season. Djokovic also stands a great chance of finishing his career with the most master's titles of any player in history. His consistent brilliance and longevity at the very top level of the game places him probably just outside the group of players mentioned in the super elite level of the game. But with his dominance looking like it will continue for at least a little while longer he has a great chance to leap frog into the top 5. He has improved all the rough edges to his game to the point where he really has no weaknesses and numerous weapons from return, backhand, forehand, and serve to attack his opposition. Who would have thought this was possible when he was considered the nearly man back in 2010 struggling with his serve and fitness. Since then he has been able to win 8 of the last 19 slams.

I think Murray if he steps up his play may be the main rival of Novak going forward. Murray is also 28 but has fewer mileage on his legs and body. He was close to beating Novak during AO this year so its possible that the next time they meet he could do the job (of beating Novak). Stan may be 30 but he has lower mileage than Novak too and he's playing motivational tennis at the moment, is fit and healthy. Stan, like Novak, is good from both wings, hitting penetrating powerful shots too. He's one of the rare few who could overpower Novak from the baseline.

I think Stan will threaten Novak at AO and FO, Murray will at Wimbledon. At the USO, the other top players have better chances vs Novak than at the other slams.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

lydian wrote:The performances I enjoyed the most this year was oddly enough Martina Hingis 2 doubles finals...that was some serious talent for volleying on display and still the best BH in the game from a relative position. Re: mens final, I couldn't help but think Roger adopted the wrong tactics vs Novak, as he often seems to these days...seems to think he can hit through Novak and then ends up red-lining his game until he's lost his rhythm, ok he competed well for 2 sets but it knocked the wind out of his sails...should have attacked the net more as I'm sure Edberg was advocating ahead of the match!  

Long time no see

I don't think the tactics were wrong on Federer's behalf, just it was always going to be a step up in class from the performance Murray put in. I find it annoying the commentators say Andy didn't do much wrong, when infact you could see his length was poor as was the power in his shots. Simply for me it was like an exhibition match. It's testament to Djokovic's consistency. He wasn't going to put in a 'soft' performance like Murray did

I think it's easy to recall some half court balls - all players do it. This wasn't a 'soft' Murray performance as a second serve ace, showed. 35 winners isn't to be sniffed at either. He simply could not get in any rallies, because Roger's accuracy was so good. Very few shanked backhands

The conditions, best for Federer on Friday and best for Novak on Sunday made a huge difference. Simply because, Roger revels in hot (and hence the fastest) conditions - so he's already in a more positive frame of mind

Let's remember that Murray started well, even had a break point. In the final, Federer started well and went a break up and then served a nothing game (by his Friday standards). Such things often dictate a match - Fed often front runs and then gets better, if he's held back the doubts creep in

I think it's a bit picky to fault Murray, what was it 74% first serves in and 71% won.

Roger was simply revelling in having the court to his liking. His game is always dictated by how many unforced errors he made. 11 in Murray's and 35 (I think it was) in Novak's tells it's own story

Also note that Fed had seven break points and took just one against Nole, he didn't have that many more against Andy

It's like all these matches, it's usually a couple of incidents here and there. For instance I never thought there was much between Novak and Andy a couple of years ago. The scoreline can look like it was easy - but neither of these matches were

I honestly think that Murray would have beaten anyone else on Friday and I for the first time since three years ago

But overhall Novak deserves to have won 3 out of the last 5 Wimby's and so is a worthy champion

Hey socal, are we friends again? (no fruits involved)

Congrats to you and HMM for the Djoko win

Jahu, I have nothing against you just keep your humor from going into racial stereotyping. Thanks for the congratulations.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

lydian wrote:The performances I enjoyed the most this year was oddly enough Martina Hingis 2 doubles finals...that was some serious talent for volleying on display and still the best BH in the game from a relative position. Re: mens final, I couldn't help but think Roger adopted the wrong tactics vs Novak, as he often seems to these days...seems to think he can hit through Novak and then ends up red-lining his game until he's lost his rhythm, ok he competed well for 2 sets but it knocked the wind out of his sails...should have attacked the net more as I'm sure Edberg was advocating ahead of the match!  

Long time no see

I don't think the tactics were wrong on Federer's behalf, just it was always going to be a step up in class from the performance Murray put in. I find it annoying the commentators say Andy didn't do much wrong, when infact you could see his length was poor as was the power in his shots. Simply for me it was like an exhibition match. It's testament to Djokovic's consistency. He wasn't going to put in a 'soft' performance like Murray did. The return as well killed Roger. Djokovic will always look to return aggressive and not throw in any slice returns. For 2 sets in a way Djokovic was in cruise mode and it was only in the 3rd set that Djokovic's intensity went up a level. Federer really struggled to hold any court position in the rallies and as BB alluded to the use of the squash shot. Almost a white flag if you will. Most importantly the serve deserted Federer in key moments. Especially in the first set at 4-2. The pressure Djokovic exerts is immense. Just look at the 1st point in the 1st TB. Nothing wrong with the volley and yet Djokovic picked it up. Must be crushing to see fine play not rewarded.

I agree lk. I thought Murray's play lacked aggression. Sure his serve stats were very good but that alone doesn't win you matches (just look at Karlovic for evidence of that). Much of Murray's ground strokes were landing around the serve boxes whereas Novak's were peppering the baseline. Andy was rolling his shots in whereas Novak was hitting with venom. Sure Roger served much better V Murray than he did V Djokovic but all the same Murray just looked lost and could never get into Fed's service games as much as he would have liked.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

lydian wrote:The performances I enjoyed the most this year was oddly enough Martina Hingis 2 doubles finals...that was some serious talent for volleying on display and still the best BH in the game from a relative position. Re: mens final, I couldn't help but think Roger adopted the wrong tactics vs Novak, as he often seems to these days...seems to think he can hit through Novak and then ends up red-lining his game until he's lost his rhythm, ok he competed well for 2 sets but it knocked the wind out of his sails...should have attacked the net more as I'm sure Edberg was advocating ahead of the match!  

Long time no see

I don't think the tactics were wrong on Federer's behalf, just it was always going to be a step up in class from the performance Murray put in. I find it annoying the commentators say Andy didn't do much wrong, when infact you could see his length was poor as was the power in his shots. Simply for me it was like an exhibition match. It's testament to Djokovic's consistency. He wasn't going to put in a 'soft' performance like Murray did. The return as well killed Roger. Djokovic will always look to return aggressive and not throw in any slice returns. For 2 sets in a way Djokovic was in cruise mode and it was only in the 3rd set that Djokovic's intensity went up a level. Federer really struggled to hold any court position in the rallies and as BB alluded to the use of the squash shot. Almost a white flag if you will. Most importantly the serve deserted Federer in key moments. Especially in the first set at 4-2. The pressure Djokovic exerts is immense. Just look at the 1st point in the 1st TB. Nothing wrong with the volley and yet Djokovic picked it up. Must be crushing to see fine play not rewarded.

I agree lk. I thought Murray's play lacked aggression. Sure his serve stats were very good but that alone doesn't win you matches (just look at Karlovic for evidence of that). Much of Murray's ground strokes were landing around the serve boxes whereas Novak's were peppering the baseline. Andy was rolling his shots in whereas Novak was hitting with venom. Sure Roger served much better V Murray than he did V Djokovic but all the same Murray just looked lost and could never get into Fed's service games as much as he would have liked.

What I find interesting about Murray v. Federer as a neutral is that Andy seemed to do better against Roger when he was younger. For many years owned the H2H record against Roger. But as time has gone by he seems to have become less competitive in this particular matchup. To me it is a bit of a question. It says that either Murray is worse or Roger is better or some combination of both. I think the racquet change has made a huge difference in Roger's game I am sure his fans wish that he had made the switch many years ago. But Murray has lost ground in all of his matchups against the other Big 4 guys. Well I guess his last straight sets win against Rafa goes against that but we are talking about a nose diving Nadal in terms of form. To me it is a little perplexing is this his ceiling? Being able to beat Fed or Novak in a best of three or every now and again at a slam. I just think he has more in his game then that but has yet to deliver it except for that streak he had in 2012-2013.

socal1976 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

lydian wrote:The performances I enjoyed the most this year was oddly enough Martina Hingis 2 doubles finals...that was some serious talent for volleying on display and still the best BH in the game from a relative position. Re: mens final, I couldn't help but think Roger adopted the wrong tactics vs Novak, as he often seems to these days...seems to think he can hit through Novak and then ends up red-lining his game until he's lost his rhythm, ok he competed well for 2 sets but it knocked the wind out of his sails...should have attacked the net more as I'm sure Edberg was advocating ahead of the match!  

Long time no see

I don't think the tactics were wrong on Federer's behalf, just it was always going to be a step up in class from the performance Murray put in. I find it annoying the commentators say Andy didn't do much wrong, when infact you could see his length was poor as was the power in his shots. Simply for me it was like an exhibition match. It's testament to Djokovic's consistency. He wasn't going to put in a 'soft' performance like Murray did. The return as well killed Roger. Djokovic will always look to return aggressive and not throw in any slice returns. For 2 sets in a way Djokovic was in cruise mode and it was only in the 3rd set that Djokovic's intensity went up a level. Federer really struggled to hold any court position in the rallies and as BB alluded to the use of the squash shot. Almost a white flag if you will. Most importantly the serve deserted Federer in key moments. Especially in the first set at 4-2. The pressure Djokovic exerts is immense. Just look at the 1st point in the 1st TB. Nothing wrong with the volley and yet Djokovic picked it up. Must be crushing to see fine play not rewarded.

I agree lk. I thought Murray's play lacked aggression. Sure his serve stats were very good but that alone doesn't win you matches (just look at Karlovic for evidence of that). Much of Murray's ground strokes were landing around the serve boxes whereas Novak's were peppering the baseline. Andy was rolling his shots in whereas Novak was hitting with venom. Sure Roger served much better V Murray than he did V Djokovic but all the same Murray just looked lost and could never get into Fed's service games as much as he would have liked.

What I find interesting about Murray v. Federer as a neutral is that Andy seemed to do better against Roger when he was younger. For many years owned the H2H record against Roger. But as time has gone by he seems to have become less competitive in this particular matchup. To me it is a bit of a question. It says that either Murray is worse or Roger is better or some combination of both. I think the racquet change has made a huge difference in Roger's game I am sure his fans wish that he had made the switch many years ago. But Murray has lost ground in all of his matchups against the other Big 4 guys. Well I guess his last straight sets win against Rafa goes against that but we are talking about a nose diving Nadal in terms of form. To me it is a little perplexing is this his ceiling? Being able to beat Fed or Novak in a best of three or every now and again at a slam. I just think he has more in his game then that but has yet to deliver it except for that streak he had in 2012-2013.

As HM said any H2H you need perspective. Yes Andy did well in the H2H against Federer, but remember that H2H was mainly dominated by a BO3 format which in comparison to a BO5 format is a sprint. Remember Andy had to wait until 2013 to beat Roger at a Slam and even then Roger was a shell of a player due to his back. Andy's H2H with the elite at Slams is poor, but in a BO3 it's a bit respectable. That should tell you something about consistency and Andy. Against the elite in Slams Andy is 5-18 which is 27% win ratio, but in the BO3 format he is 18-28 which is a 64.2% win ratio.

The theory on Murray / Fed was that early Murray was a quirky, mixing-it-up type of player, more so than the "Superman" Lendl helped create, and Federer found countering the more successful player easier.

It's more complicated of course; the BO3 / BO5 point made above; injuries (to both); the loss of novelty status; but it's an interesting contribution to the debate. Murray seems to be looking to bring back that player a bit - a sort of best of both Worlds thing - which personally I'd like to see him do, both for him and for me as a viewer of his tennis matches.

I  feel a heck of a lot is a mental block. Whereas Roger, Novak and Rafa (of old) are/were rock solid in the belief department I always feel Andy is different here. At too many times he is almost like a fan going up against his heroes. He goes into matches waxing lyrical about how awesome his opponent is/has been and he sounds beaten before he has started a lot of the time. That oozes out in defeat as well. Like V Federer the other day he said it was the best Roger served against him ever (fair comment) but then went on to say he didn't think he did too much wrong. Heck I hope Jonas and Amelie sit him down to look at the depth (or woeful lack of) on those ground strokes plus the power he was hitting them at (or lack of).

That is my theory on within Andy but also the blatantly obvious observation is that those players are just all-round better players than Andy and there is no shame in that. Andy belongs in something of his own realm. Above the rest (apart from Stan now) and below the others. Just now he is probably rightly proud of what he has achieved in the sport but years down the line he ma have regrets he never tackled certain key situations a lot better.

It's clear that in the Federer v Murray match, Roger had a particularly good serving day and Andy was below his best on the return. There's a degree of cause and effect between these two elements but I think, even in isolation, Fed's serve was 'on' and Andy's eye wasn't in on the return.

But I think the two matches highlight the key differences between Novak and Andy.

The obvious one is the second serve. Novak is much more capable at defending his  - he won 60% of his second serves in the final. Murray won only only 50% of his.

The second is the forehand. Many are saying that Andy wasn't being aggressive enough, which is true, but I think that's a technical problem rather than a mental one.

Prior to Lendl, Andy's forehand was a bit of liability. It broke down easily and wasn't that versatile (he rarely hit down the line, for instance).

He's shored it up in recent years, particularly during the Lendl period, but I still don't think it is as developed or as reliable as it could/should be. That was the shot that collapsed when his mind went in the Australian final. I think all the short balls he was hitting against Federer were a product of being under pressure and not having the confidence to commit to that shot.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I  feel a heck of a lot is a mental block. Whereas Roger, Novak and Rafa (of old) are/were rock solid in the belief department I always feel Andy is different here. At too many times he is almost like a fan going up against his heroes. He goes into matches waxing lyrical about how awesome his opponent is/has been and he sounds beaten before he has started a lot of the time. That oozes out in defeat as well.

Yes Craig, that is exactly how I saw him in that match. He was beaten before that match. Murray elected  to receive instead of serving, that said all about his selfconfidence  I also agree that except that mental side there is also some  points in his game  to be improved (not easy to do now), but poor mentality prevails in his overall player attitude.

I agree he shored it up under Lendl HM, but I think since Mauresmo he has been more comfortable in using it as a shot to hit winners off. I think his Clay season we saw that. I think if the shoulder was an issue (not making excuses) which would explain the lack of power in his shots against Federer, however Federer still had to put in a performance and brutally schooled Andy. Look to their US Open 2008 and Aus Open 2010 encounters he did same. Attacked Andy. Sadly for Andy he couldn't find the length against Roger like Djokovic and Nadal can.

The serve I agree. I feel Djokovic is quite under-rated in that department.

Funny thing is that when I played a lot my backhand (Single handed, of course!) had excellent technique and never broke down whereas my forehand would wobble under pressure. Ah, Andy, Rafa and me.......

Way back when I was coached he said to me that to see which is more natural do the following; put a racquet in your wrong hand and swing a single handed backhand: easy isn't it? The racquet stays stable and the stroke smooth. Now try a forehand. Awful! That must mean something. I think it's that there's more chance of something of the wrist going on with a forehand, another pivot point. Or maybe it's just my garbage technique.

LK, I see Andy's forehand as being a bit like Novak's volleys.

Both are fine in most circumstances but, as a shot that doesn't seem to come naturally to them, it's the first part of their game to become sloppy when they are under pressure.

The relative damage is greater to Andy than Novak though. A bad day at the net doesn't massively impede Novak but a bad day with the forehand is big blow to Andy.

I don't know HM. When Andy's FH deserts him, he plays netball and Novak on missed volleys tends to go long and wide. Just for me the pressure of the shot if it's not there strongest suit causes them to cook it.

legendkillarV2 wrote:I don't know HM. When Andy's FH deserts him, he plays netball and Novak on missed volleys tends to go long and wide. Just for me the pressure of the shot if it's not there strongest suit causes them to cook it.

Yes but I was talking in the sense that that volleys, as much as they have improved, are not a vital part of the Djokovic game.

But if the forehand crumbles for Andy, that's a big problem for his overall game.

HM Murdoch wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:I don't know HM. When Andy's FH deserts him, he plays netball and Novak on missed volleys tends to go long and wide. Just for me the pressure of the shot if it's not there strongest suit causes them to cook it.

Yes but I was talking in the sense that that volleys, as much as they have improved, are not a vital part of the Djokovic game.

But if the forehand crumbles for Andy, that's a big problem for his overall game.

I see it that as it is more of a rallying stroke for Andy that it isn't such a problem. Thing is with the FH HM if Andy starts netting the flatter version, he will revert to the moonballing FH, play the percentage shot. It might breakdown in the sense that he is not winning points on it, but he can force points out of the opponent.

With a volley, you don't get that comfort. It's a winning point and not a rallying stroke. It would be difficult to customise it to not being a losing shot/point. That's why I think if the volley's break down, it's more difficult.

Talking of mental pressure, he must have had the O2 drubbing on his mind when he walked onto the court - and the pressure of that I think made him go into his shell somewhat, play safer, not trusting more risky aggressive shots. Which of course he needed.
Unfortunately I see similar pressure will be there when he next meets Djokovic - having lost so many consecutive times to him now.

Time will tell if he can overcome the mental blocks - which he needs to do to get his game back 'on song'

I maintain that if Roger serves like he did Friday then Novak reacts like he did against Karlovic

It's easy to say that Murray got slump shouldered, jaded and then as admittedly always happens he loses belief in forehand - but Fed's Friday performance was near to unplayable

I also think people need to remember that Murray's recent constant loses to the top three coincide entirely with his back issues, which let's remember started at some time during 2012 and were recovered from (i.e. back to what we expect) by March this year

Since then he's taken Novak to five on clay and beaten Rafa (admittedley nothing special in that)

So I'm nonplussed about the recent defeat. Andy is the poorest of the four, but so what - he's still showing and showed enough this year to win another couple of slams, as I think there is still a bit more to come in the next year

Significantly, other than Stan, he's actually widened the gap from the others. Now for the next phase getting some occasional wins against the top two

I guess the problem is that Fed cant play like that every time...even by his own standards he said that was one of the matches of his life such was the serving. However, he didn't serve as well as even normally on Sunday but I think that was because he red-lined himself for a good 1hr40mins over those 1st 2 sets and he pushed himself out of his comfort zone (some credit due here to Djoko also for doing this). However, Fed has to find a better route to easier points vs Djokovic...he has to commit to attacking on even only half-decent approaches otherwise he's just grooving Djokovic who loves nothing more than rallying and retrieving. Fed has to do to Djokovic what Novak did to him...push him out of comfort zone and then all hell can break loose once rhythm gets lost. I actually though he didn't slice enough into the FH corner (down the line) and follow into the net enough, Fed has the best slice in the game...anyway things for him to try...even at fast Cincy and medium USO coming up.

Cant comment on the Murray back situ as don't know enough but his form overall is pretty good, after all it took one of Fed's best matches to beat him and even then it wasn't a 62 63 63 type scoreline so Murray can be happy with that and move on to do well at US Open series.

It's quite difficult though when playing Djokovic who eats up so much of the court. The length on the groundies was a killer. Kept pushing Roger further and further behind the baseline. For as talented as Roger is, it's always been an achillies heel. How do you defend against that unless you go all out aggressive and rush the net as much as possible. Which we all know is something not rewarded in today's game.

For me the serve is something harder to be consistent than say getting the right length on groundstrokes.

I think Roger found it difficult to get to net. People are criticizing him for not moving in as often against Novak have to credit the fact that the superior depth of Novak and his ability to make Roger run wide keeps Roger from doing that. And Roger knows he can't just run up on the quality of Djokovic's passing shots. Here is what I found interesting statistically from the final. Novak won the majority of points from (0-4) shots, lost most of the 5-9 shot rallies and then won most of the long rallies over 9 shots. Roger was losing the battle of the first ball, the returns were to hard and to deep to approach and often would put him on the defense. And on his return games when he did have a few BP chances Novak channeled Pistol Pete and came up with big clutch first serves to wipe out the advantage. It is very hard to do what people wanted of Fed to move in when you are getting beat on the first ball (serve and return) and then your opponent is moving you and keeping good length.

interesting quote I found from Novak after the match.....

"he continuously puts a lot of pressure on you.  Especially on the grass, he plays one, two game very quickly, chips and charges, just takes away the time, which Andy and I need.
We are baseline players and we need a little bit more time.  We are not as talented as Roger."

Novak certainly doesn't need time returning first serves! Never seen anything like it.

Djokovic reminds me of Ivan Lendl. Tremendously respected but universally adored? No chance.

he has two problems. One is that he will forever play in the shadow of Nadal and Federer so long as they grace a court and at least one of those two worthies doesn't seem to show any inclination of riding away into the sunset.

The second problem he is, at least for me, his brand of tennis is more an endurance race.. It is watchable in small bites but not for long.

I see Djokovic as being in the shadow of Federer rather than Nadal.

He's played plenty of matches against Rafa but aside from Madrid, I've never really felt a crowd was strongly in favour of Rafa. It's usually pretty even.

I'm sure on a global scale Rafa has bigger fanbase than Novak but it doesn't seem to manifest itself in a stadium crowd.

Didn't seem to be much of an endurance race on Sunday. Under 3 hours on court with a short break for rain.

Calder106 wrote:Didn't seem to be much of an endurance race on Sunday. Under 3 hours on court with a short break for rain.

Yes, I find the talk about Djokovic relying on endurance a bit out of date.

He hasn't really engaged in long rallies for a couple of years now. He deliberately tried to move away from that after AO2012.

Here's the rally length breakdown from Sunday's final and how many each player won:

0-4 shots
Djokovic 103 - 94 Federer

5-9 shots
Djokovic 27 - 34 Federer

9+ shots
Djokovic 18 - 10 Federer

Not much grinding going on there.

His matches at the AO required more grinding - vs Stan and Murray this year for examples.

In fact he had grinding matches at AO, FO and USO as well. His FO 2012 matches vs Seppi and Tsonga, his USO 2012 match vs Murray and 2014 match vs Stan.

Rafa fans are not as loud as some of the Fed or Novak fans. Fed fans even bring along their cowbells!

I think at the AO and USO theyre more for Rafa than for Novak. The FO crowd normally support anyone who's against Rafa. At Wimbledon, I do feel that they cheer for Rafa's upset when they sense one; I have a strange feeling that as long as Murray is there, they dont want Rafa to stand in his way (as Rafa beat Murray each time they met there). However, they love Fed to the extent that they dont mind Fed vs Murray and Fed winning.

HM Murdoch wrote:I see Djokovic as being in the shadow of Federer rather than Nadal.

He's played plenty of matches against Rafa but aside from Madrid, I've never really felt a crowd was strongly in favour of Rafa. It's usually pretty even.

I'm sure on a global scale Rafa has bigger fanbase than Novak but it doesn't seem to manifest itself in a stadium crowd.

The US crowd big time pulled for him vs Novak in '11 and '13. I think Rafa edged support in '10 too.

Interestingly, this crowd thing hasn't manifested itself in the bank account. Djokovic is making like 30 million a year in endorsements in fact he makes about as much if not a little more than Nadal according to the recent Forbes list I have seen. Fed around the fifties in endorsements, so Djokovic's total is about 60 percent of Fed's endorsement money not bad at all. I think Fans like him but I think he is a guy who is generally most tennis fans second or third favorite guy. I talk to a lot of Fed fans that also like Djokovic surprisingly maybe it has something to do with bringing Nadal back to earth. I think in the sports world at large and in the tennis community he is liked and respected, just not passionately so like Federer or Nadal. With the exception of course of the Serbians who are super passionate for him. I think he has always been seen as the usurper, the third wheel, but I think as he continues to dominate and play enjoyable tennis for the viewer he will slowly but surely increase in popularity. I think if he does something really historic than a percentage of fans will jump on and start liking him more passionately. His problem is that Nadal and Fed have set the bar so high that people are like oh he only has 9 slams. 9 slams that is a crazy number, but Fed and Nadal have moved the bar up a great deal in what shocks and surprises sports fans and tennis fans. That is why 2011 and the win streak was such a big thing for his reputation and popularity because that win streak was something even Fed and Nadal hadn't matched. I think if he for example flirts with 17, or flirts with CYGS, or some kind of epic win streak again it will again move him up another notch in tennis fan's minds and the more general public.

I don't buy this boring stuff about Novak's game. He takes the ball early, goes up the line, approaches the net often by today's standards, uses drop shots, slice, good lobs. He has the full arsenal and he puts it to work. In fact, he maybe one of the more unpredictable players in terms of shot location and variety. From the middle of the court he can hit to any spot with either wing with a super high precision. His passing shots from full stretch especially on the backhand side are not only world class level athleticism but worldclass shot making as well. The way he returns serve is also pretty amazing if you have any understanding of what returning a 130-145 mile an hour serve is like. And if you look at all the top 4 Novak has had the most dramatic and most intense battles in 5 setters as slams. Whether it be Stan, Nadal, FEd, Andy, or even Tsonga for that matter. Some say he is repetitive or robotic but like Murdoch I think a lot of criticisms of him and his game are bit outdated and don't jive with the current person or player.

I think his most exciting matches are when he is pushed to the hilt, perhaps more than others, more so than his game on his own.

socal1976 wrote:Interestingly, this crowd thing hasn't manifested itself in the bank account. Djokovic is making like 30 million a year in endorsements in fact he makes about as much if not a little more than Nadal according to the recent Forbes list I have seen. Fed around the fifties in endorsements, so Djokovic's total is about 60 percent of Fed's endorsement money not bad at all. I think Fans like him but I think he is a guy who is generally most tennis fans second or third favorite guy. I talk to a lot of Fed fans that also like Djokovic surprisingly maybe it has something to do with bringing Nadal back to earth. I think in the sports world at large and in the tennis community he is liked and respected, just not passionately so like Federer or Nadal. With the exception of course of the Serbians who are super passionate for him. I think he has always been seen as the usurper, the third wheel, but I think as he continues to dominate and play enjoyable tennis for the viewer he will slowly but surely increase in popularity. I think if he does something really historic than a percentage of fans will jump on and start liking him more passionately. His problem is that Nadal and Fed have set the bar so high that people are like oh he only has 9 slams. 9 slams that is a crazy number, but Fed and Nadal have moved the bar up a great deal in what shocks and surprises sports fans and tennis fans. That is why 2011 and the win streak was such a big thing for his reputation and popularity because that win streak was something even Fed and Nadal hadn't matched. I think if he for example flirts with 17, or flirts with CYGS, or some kind of epic win streak again it will again move him up another notch in tennis fan's minds and the more general public.  

Along those lines- London School of Marketing just released their annual list of the Worlds Most Marketable Athletes and Djokovic has now passed Nadal on the list for #7. Federer #1 most marketable Athlete followed by American Golfers and Basketball players...

It's a highly respected look in the marketing world and reflects that Djokovic is growing in acceptance as someone who can attract paying public to brands.

TRuffin wrote:Along those lines-  London School of Marketing just released their annual list of the Worlds Most Marketable Athletes and Djokovic has now passed Nadal on the list for #7.   Federer #1 most marketable Athlete followed by American Golfers and Basketball players...    

It's a highly respected look in the marketing world and reflects that Djokovic is growing in acceptance as someone who can attract paying public to brands.  

I was surprised to see that Tiger Woods is #2 in that list! Both his form and his reputation have deserted him in recent years.

I find the status of tennis players quite interesting in these lists.

The 'average' tennis player gets nowhere near the attention of the average footballer, golfer, basketball player etc.

But the very best tennis players are right near the top of the list for earnings and marketability. It's a very polarised sport.

socal1976 wrote:Novak is now almost a lock to be the world #1 at the year end for the 4th time in 5 years...Djokovic also stands a great chance of finishing his career with the most master's titles of any player in history...But with his dominance looking like it will continue for at least a little while longer he has a great chance to leap frog into the top 5...

For me, the argument for Djokovic begins and ends with the number of majors he's won - at 9, he has now surpassed Connors, Lendl, Rosewall, Agassi and Fred Perry. That's quite an illustrious list. The years at #1 for me doesn't have much historical context beyond the current crop of players, 2 of which have more majors than him. The masters titles, are an achievement, but they don't mean as much to me as the majors because the universe of winners and the disparity in the number of those titles versus the number of majors in that universe.

I would also question the term "dominance" - with the exception of 2011 and this year, I wouldn't say Djokovic has been dominant during the periods in which he has finished year end #1. If he had been, he'd be chasing Federer right now. The thing about Djokovic is that his athleticism is almost as important to his success as his technique, and that's not a recipe for longevity. My guess is that this year is the zenith and drop off will be precipitous.

MMT1 wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Novak is now almost a lock to be the world #1 at the year end for the 4th time in 5 years...Djokovic also stands a great chance of finishing his career with the most master's titles of any player in history...But with his dominance looking like it will continue for at least a little while longer he has a great chance to leap frog into the top 5...

For me, the argument for Djokovic begins and ends with the number of majors he's won - at 9, he has now surpassed Connors, Lendl, Rosewall, Agassi and Fred Perry.  That's quite an illustrious list.  The years at #1 for me doesn't have much historical context beyond the current crop of players, 2 of which have more majors than him.  The masters titles, are an achievement, but they don't mean as much to me as the majors because the universe of winners and the disparity in the number of those titles versus the number of majors in that universe.

I would also question the term "dominance" - with the exception of 2011 and this year, I wouldn't say Djokovic has been dominant during the periods in which he has finished year end #1.  If he had been, he'd be chasing Federer right now.  The thing about Djokovic is that his athleticism is almost as important to his success as his technique, and that's not a recipe for longevity.  My guess is that this year is the zenith and drop off will be precipitous.

I don't how you can question dominance in that Djokovic since 2011 if you look at the whole period from 2011 to today has been number 1 for the largest chunk of that time and has won most of the big tournaments at the first tier of the tour masters, slams, etc. Also when you talk majors he has won 8 of the last 19 since 2011. That is almost 40 percent of all majors since 2011. I mean before Fed's outrageous numbers this would be seen as dominance. Similar to the type of control lendl had on the upper ranking in the mid to late 80s. There was a lot of competition for Lendl as there is for Djokovic at least for most of this period, and yet he is clearly the best player when looking at the whole picture. In those years you claim as less dominant like 2012, 13, and 14 he was the year end #1 in two of them. Taken with 2011 and now his ridiculous dominance of this season going all the way back to the end of last year I think dominance is a fair word. He has won all but one first tier event that he has entered in (masters, and slams) going back to November of 2014. Even the majors he doesn't win he is almost always in the final or at the worst semi.

He has won 40 percent of slams over the period since 2011. And even more ridiculously played in 14 of the last 20 slams finals for a 70 percent of the finals since USO 2010. That is dominance, even if it is short of lets say Federer 04-07.

TRuffin wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Interestingly, this crowd thing hasn't manifested itself in the bank account. Djokovic is making like 30 million a year in endorsements in fact he makes about as much if not a little more than Nadal according to the recent Forbes list I have seen. Fed around the fifties in endorsements, so Djokovic's total is about 60 percent of Fed's endorsement money not bad at all. I think Fans like him but I think he is a guy who is generally most tennis fans second or third favorite guy. I talk to a lot of Fed fans that also like Djokovic surprisingly maybe it has something to do with bringing Nadal back to earth. I think in the sports world at large and in the tennis community he is liked and respected, just not passionately so like Federer or Nadal. With the exception of course of the Serbians who are super passionate for him. I think he has always been seen as the usurper, the third wheel, but I think as he continues to dominate and play enjoyable tennis for the viewer he will slowly but surely increase in popularity. I think if he does something really historic than a percentage of fans will jump on and start liking him more passionately. His problem is that Nadal and Fed have set the bar so high that people are like oh he only has 9 slams. 9 slams that is a crazy number, but Fed and Nadal have moved the bar up a great deal in what shocks and surprises sports fans and tennis fans. That is why 2011 and the win streak was such a big thing for his reputation and popularity because that win streak was something even Fed and Nadal hadn't matched. I think if he for example flirts with 17, or flirts with CYGS, or some kind of epic win streak again it will again move him up another notch in tennis fan's minds and the more general public.  

Along those lines-  London School of Marketing just released their annual list of the Worlds Most Marketable Athletes and Djokovic has now passed Nadal on the list for #7.   Federer #1 most marketable Athlete followed by American Golfers and Basketball players...    

It's a highly respected look in the marketing world and reflects that Djokovic is growing in acceptance as someone who can attract paying public to brands.  

Yes I mean fans know who he is, they think he is a great player and pretty decent and funny guy. The one thing we know is that fans respond to winners and winners who do it for a long period of time. I think if he wants to go up even further on the list of fan appreciation he has to do something again like he did in 2011 when he flirted with real history. If he were to accomplish something like getting close to or passing Fed's 17 or doing calendar year slam then he would probably enjoy a major bump in appreciation. Plus once he gets older and isn't the clear favorite and Federer retires I think he will gain more appreciation as well. He just isn't going to measure in terms of Fed's popularity which really transcends the sport and maybe all sports in some way. But he is doing pretty damn well either way.

MMT1 wrote:The thing about Djokovic is that his athleticism is almost as important to his success as his technique, and that's not a recipe for longevity.  My guess is that this year is the zenith and drop off will be precipitous.

I partially agree.

Slam wins by players in their 30s are very rare, so it seems likely he'll win his last slam in the next 18 months to 2 years.

I don't expect a sharp decline though. He's had an injury free career and doesn't have a heavy playing schedule. I think a gradual decline is much more likely.

What I expect to see is those back-from-the-brink victories gradually turning into narrow defeats.

Then presumably there will be lots of discussion about how the next generation have raised the level of tennis and willful blindness to the fact that age has robbed the older player of the movement, agility and reactions that elevated him above the pack.

He has shown a fair bit of longevity already by being a top 4 or better player since mid 2007. He appears to be managing his schedule well by not fitting in a lot of smaller tournaments around the statutory ones. Obviously at some stage he will start to drop away but unless he has a bad injury I don't see that being for at least a couple of years at least.

^ yes, he's played fewer tournaments this year than anyone else in the top 20.

He's played in 10 and nobody else has played fewer than 12.

In fact, only 2 people out of the top 100 in YTD rankings have played fewer tournaments.