Nole Reality Check

Just thought it worth recording a few things about our new #1 and Worlds best player;

* He won't win everything for the next few years.
* He will slip up now and then; even the very greatest (which he isn't at this stage) have bad days.
* 6 months is too short a period to be announcing the 2nd coming.

He's playing great and he's the man of the moment, but in his last Slam he dropped a set to Tomic (and looked capable of losing the third as well until the young man lost his way) and dropped a set to Baggy too, in a match that looked far more competitive than the final. I can think of a few players recently who've won Slams without even looking like dropping a set.

No negativity about him from me so no need for a pack attack, but I do think the forum is in danger of losing perspective and extrapolating unrealistically.

Nadal will wins more Slams, maybe JMDP or Fed, maybe even Murray. Nole won't reach 10 because he's taken too long to get to 3. I think he will be the favourite going into every Slam for the next 18 months at least though.

Lot of sense in this article. Much of the Djoko talk is down to the ending - for now - of the Fedal duopoly of GS titles and the number one spot. Djoko's presence at the top is fascinating. Will he be able to have a good run at number one, what will this do to Rafa, can Roger come again, will Andy M ever win a slam, when will del Potty be back in the mix at the very top ? (pretty soon, IMO)
Can't wait for the circus to move on to America.

All very sensible. Yes, Djokovic is in scintillating form, no it won't last forever.

What's the record for fewest matches lost in a full season? Something like 4 or 5 if I recall correctly. Djokovic will be doing extraordinarily well to equal or better that stat given we now have the US hard court season to come, where more players are truly competetive and where there are 3 tournament (USO + Cinci and Toronto) where the top players will all be in the field. I doubt Novak will go through all 3 (plus any warm up tournaments) without a defeat somewhere even though the hard courts are probably his best surface (since they are the best surface for several others as well).

Also, he will have to be tired (perhaps more psychologically than physically) towards the end of the season - if he keeps winning he'll play an awful lot of matches this year, and that inevitably takes its toll on anyone.

One of the things is that winning 3 slams a year has been a rarity in the Open era, it is just that Federer and Nadal have been so good in the last 5 years that they've managed to make it seem routine. Djokovic might manage it this year (in fact, has a very good chance), but it would be extremely impressive if he manages to repeat that feat in 2012.
So, yes he will go into all the up-coming tournaments as the favourite, but that is no guarantee of continued and prolonged success

Yes, the three GS in a season is a tremendous achievement. When Rog did it for the first time it put the spotlight back on Mats Wilander as he - to some people's surprise - had been the last to do it.
You could argue that with the increase in competiton and the differing surfaces for the GS tourneys, the three-in-a-year is as much an achievement as the Grand Slam of old.

Hmmm, I think the harmonisation of surfaces diminishes the achievement, although Mats ducked that one by failing Wimbledon.

Personally I think Borgs FO/W = todays 3 in a season, and is far bigger than todays FO/W double.

bogbrush wrote:Hmmm, I think the harmonisation of surfaces diminishes the achievement, although Mats ducked that one by failing Wimbledon.

Personally I think Borgs FO/W = todays 3 in a season, and is far bigger than todays FO/W double.

Quite a few players did the FO/Wim before Borg. Was easier to do with the smaller racquets cause they did not emphasise the difference in surfaces like the larger graphite racquets did.

Djoko is certainly impressive at the moment cause he has that excellent fitness/talent ratio...though his talent is not really what sets him apart. He is simply the only one fit enough (mouvement pace and stamina) to "apply" his talent v Nadal.

Of course the run will come to an end, but I am sure that Djokovic will then bounce back quite quickly and continue to challenge for the majors - I believe this mainly because he knows what it is like to struggle to find form and fitness and he has come through that, his rise has had a different trajectory to someone maybe like Becker who won a lot when he was v young and fearless and when the inevitable slump came found he had to learn how to deal with adversity then.
Although he is much more engaging and exciting to watch than Lendl, perhaps (apart from AO 2008) his career path could be similar to the former, in terms of asserting his dominance from mid twenties????

Some good points raised in the OP and I largely agree. I think the most exciting thing about Djokovic this year is that he has changed the balance of power in the men's game and, without wishing to sound too dramatic, changed the perception of what is possible.
For years it has been a rule of thumb that if Federer or Nadal play well, they win. Occasionally a player has produced a great performance to get a shock win but it's rare that this win is followed up.
This year though, for the first time we have a player who is consistently beating Nadal and Federer, even if they play well. We have a player who does not blink first in the pressure points, who seems to be able to overcome the reputation of the guy on the other side of the net.
This has been hard for people to accept.
When Djokovic's run against Nadal started, there were those who said "yes, but it's hard courts". Then he won at Madrid on clay and it was "yes, but it's a high altitude and fast". Then he won on clay at Rome and it was "yes, but it's not best of five". It's only now that he has won a grand slam on grass, comprehensively beating Nadal on the way, that many people are starting to realise that Djokovic actually IS currently better than Nadal and Fed.
It was telling that before Wimbledon, so many people still had Nadal or Federer as favourite over Djokovic, despite recent form and results. I think a large part of this was due to simply not being able to believe that anyone could take these players on over 5 sets in a slam, which looking at previous years, was probably a sensible conclusion. I wouldn't be surprised if most of the players felt this too.
Djokovic has destroyed this assumption though. Yes, it has only been 6 months and yes, Nadal and maybe Fed will win more slams. But he has punctured the air of invincibility. To quote from the cinematical masterpiece(!) Rocky IV:
“You hurt him! You see? He's not a machine! He's a man!”

Agree HM. It's always the same, people are usually slow to accept that things have changed.

HM/Bogbrush
Fraid I fell into the Djoko doubter category just before Wimbledon. Even when Djoko got to the final I thought Rafa would win. Even when Djoko was two sets up I thought somehow Rafa would come back. You rarely see Rafa looking anything but piratically scowling on the court, but by the end of the final we were seeing some different body language from him - dejection, despair,resignation ?

Even though Novak has been outstanding all year, I still get the distinct impression that he is more vulnerable to a shock defeat in an early round than Federer was at his peak, or even Nadal was last year.

I know the results would suggest otherwise, however, it seems to me that Djokovich has not completely cast out all of his mental demons. When the going gets tough (like against Baggy) it seems as though he is still on the edge of a potential mental collapse.

It may require two or three earlier than expected defeats and the old doubts could resurface.

In contrast, I feel that he is less vulnerable against the top 10 players; it seems as though he steels his resolve more against these guys and adopts a 'refuse to lose' attitude.

HM
Going into Wimbledon there were 2 question marks against Djokovic:
1 - His previous grass court form had not been all that good (yes, he reached semi finals a couple of times but didn't play that well to get there). Would his recent improvements translate onto the Wimbledon grass courts?

2 - Having lost his first match of the year (and in such a big tournament), would this have an adverse reaction on Djokovic's form?

We know the answeres now:
1 - Yes, he played as well on grass as on either clay or hard
2 - The confidence was still there and so the form remained very good.

But because of the questions and particularly Nole's past unimpressive record on grass, it was probably reasonable to make him slightly less of a favourite than Federer and Nadal (without being wise after the event).

I didn't intend to have the discussion go this way, but I think people may have to re-learn what it's like for the #1 to be "Primus inter Pares".

Nadal has been a very dominant #1 but even he never turned in ridiculous years like Federer did around 2006. Someone posted that he experienced 15 defeats in 3 years, which is completely insane, particularly given that I expect a large proportion of those defeats were on one surface; the rest of the season was basically made up of him beating everyone up.

Nole will not attain that level despite the exceptional 1st half of 2011, but that's no disgrace to him. He's a worthy #1 and on a great tear, but I doubt he'll be the colossus figure we've started to expect of our #1s.

We've been spoilt.

The interesting part here of all this is; Djokovic actually doesn't have to be at peak level all year. This season is going great and he is virtually unbeatable but from next season, you'll see him pacing himself more to peak for slams like Nadal and Federer have shown. This means he will suffer more loses between slams next year and when it comes to the big ones, he can simply play his best tennis which is way above every ones level now to win.
And for the love of mankind Boggo, after so many failed player predictions in the past, the most famous of all when you declared Nadal could never win a slam outside clay(on the old 606 board in 2006) haven't you learnt a lesson yet and not to predict Djokovic cannot win 10 slams? He could easily win the USO and 4 next year to reach 8 for starters.

I doubt very much whether I ever used 606 in 2006. Slight problem there.

I stand by my prediction. Like Nadal he is wholly reliant on physical conditioning and will struggle past 25. I doubt he'll do 6 Slams in a row so feel safe in my prediction. In fact, suggesting a 24 year old with 3 Slams won't get to 10 is hardly brave.

Oh, and nobody is talking about what it takes to be #1; I'm commenting that some on here (such as you, it now seems) are getting a little carried away. Yes, predicting 6 Slams in a row falls into the category of "getting carried away" so this article should be of significant benefit to help settle you down.

sirfred, dummy_half,
For all my preaching, I did feel much like both of you! The logical part of my mind had seen Djokovic's increasingly convincing tour wins against Nadal and felt he had to be the favourite on that evidence. But the idea that "Nadal does not lose slam finals" felt like a law of the universe and made me waver somewhat. And, dummy_half, you are correct, "New Djokovic's" game on grass was a bit of an unknown.

Emancipator - I agree with you about Novak's mental demons. He seems to be playing the biggest points against the best players absolutely perfectly but getting inexplicable wobbes at less important times. Kind of the opposite of Federer at the moment!

Djokovic's level won't last forever?!

What really?!

Thanks alot there Mr Perspective.

Even if this is a WUM article, I'll still be serious:


Nole is here to stay. Injury barring this time next year he'll own at least 5 slams, his tennis is yet to peak....sorry Fedal fans.....as Nole's mum's said it's NOVAK NOVAK NOVAK time

My God a slam winning imposter who lost some sets along the way!

He'd better give the trophy back and they'd better invoice him for all that grass he ate. After all, there's no such thing as a free lunch at Wimbledon .

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Djokovic's level won't last forever?!

What really?!

Thanks alot there Mr Perspective.

Looks like a few on here need it though, and "forever" wasn't actually on the agenda.

Are you still trying to recover ground after your groundbreaking assertion yesterday that comparing players of different eras has no place on a thread asking whether tennis has reached its peak?

Tip: Stop digging.

newballs wrote:My God a slam winning imposter who lost some sets along the way!

He'd better give the trophy back and they'd better invoice him for all that grass he ate. After all, there's no such thing as a free lunch at Wimbledon .

Setting up strawmen seems to be in vogue today.

Thing is though Nadal would've beaten Federer with his match in the final, Djokovic was just too good on the day...and you still think RF will win another slam?

newballs wrote:My God a slam winning imposter who lost some sets along the way!

He'd better give the trophy back and they'd better invoice him for all that grass he ate. After all, there's no such thing as a free lunch at Wimbledon .

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Thing is though Nadal would've beaten Federer with his match in the final, Djokovic was just too good on the day...and you still think RF will win another slam?

Hardly relevant to a Nole thread, but if you care to look carefully I think the article says "Nadal will wins more Slams, maybe JMDP or Fed, maybe even Murray." I think the "maybe" is an important word there. Sue me, but I always think reading all the words is a big help. Just my take on it.

Agree that Djokovic will be very unlikely to get anywhere near Nadal's current slam haul i.e. around double figures.

We are talking here though about a guy who for a long time was stalled at 3 in the world, had to watch Federer & Nadal contest just about every slam final and did something about it. He's obviously lost that one slam wonder label and looks the number 1 for more than just a temporary visit.

The US Open? Well he'll have to start as favourite and, if his current form continues, will win it with just a couple of sets lost along the way.

Just two sets?

Intriguing. I'd take that bet because I think he'll lose more than that. In my opinion he's no better than 50/50 to win it.

I agree with the thrust of the thread: it's too early to get carried away, certainly with the idea he could get 10 slams within a few years. He has the potential, but then again, there were times Federer had the potential to get the grand slam of tennis but didn't (2009 being the perfect example, switch 2 sets lost on tie breakers and he had it).

I'm a bit sceptical that grass is somehow less competitive than hard court, certainly not this season. Djokovic was competing with Nadal, Federer, Murray and Tsonga -no push overs (and this is not to mention a couple of former Wimbledon finalists). Federer & Nadal have won 8 of the previous Wimbledon titles, a pretty strong field in my view.

The American hard court season will tell us how invincible Djokovic actually is. I'm pretty sure Djokovic will enter all 3 of the tournaments unless he has an injury and he has the extra motivation that if he wins either of the Cini or Canadian Masters, he's won more Masters tournaments in a year than either Federer or Nadal. The real big one is the USO Open, if he wins that, his dominance this year will be cemented. The interesting thing is that, as someone pointed out, Djokovic has improved his results at every tournament this year. Two of the remaining Masters events he's won before, and for Cini & the USO, he's got to the final before. Those tournaments he's won before (no matter which previous year it was in), he's won this year. So on that basis, he could be chalking up another 2 further titles.

All this will underline is how dominant he's been all season, if he carries on as he has, pretty invincible. It reminds me a bit of the season when Arsenal went undefeated for an entire season, a very dominant showing. However, have they won another 5 titles? Nope. It would be a remarkable achievement if Djokovic demonstrated such a powerful dominance, but this doesn't tell us if he will keep it up. Also, if he does have this much success, the only way afterwards is down (bar the French), how will that affect him? He has the strong motivation for this year and possibly next year (so he can win the French, perhaps Monte Carlo) but then he's won every major title available, something neither Federer or Nadal would be able to claim. But they've kept it up, we need to see more to know if he can. Also, as I've said before, post Wimbledon, Nadal's record is pretty bad but Djokovic's isn't that much better, 2/3 titles is all he's got, so we'll need to see if he keeps it up, it's not easy, he can ask Nadal!

bogbrush now now you're taking me too literally here.

"couple" in this case doesn't relate to a specific number i.e. 2. It means a few or several.

If I was to say I'd post again concerning this thread in a couple of days therefore don't just assume it would be on Friday. It could be as soon as tomorrow, Friday or the weekend just to keep you guessing.

Well in a written medium we don't get the visual clues so it's not unreasonable for me to assume that couple meant two. It is the definition, after all. Several might mean up to 8 or 9, and he'd do well to win the event if that's the case. A few usually means 3-6 I think.

How many did you mean?

"well written medium"? I struggle to put more than a couple of words together.

How many? Well if you tied me down and tortured it out of me I'd go for 3 or 4 more. If that' s several more, a few more or even more than a couple more I'll leave down to you.

How many people said Djokovic will reach 10 slams bogbrush?

He's won 2 of the last 3 slams, not a 1 hit wonder like Del Potro

Why is it necessary to denigrate Del Potro - The thread has nothing to do with him.

How is the weather in Gaza!?

I don't disagree with what bogbrush is saying. But I don't know anyone who has really come on the site and claimed that Djokovic will get 10 slams. If anything I think Bogbrush is right that in recent years Fed and Nadal have spoiled us by there level of dominance. In my mind Djokovic can have a great career and a major impact without having to get to double digit slams. Only a handful of players have ever reached those heights. As a diehard Novak fan I don't think he will get to 10, if he does great, but most likely he won't and anything from here on out for me is gravy. Since he won in Australia back in 08 I thought he would be a 3-6 slam guy, I still think that although I think he has a little shot to do even better than that. I don't anyone has come in here and claimed Novak would match nadal or federer or win double digit slams. But he has done some epic things in tennis over the last 7 months so he is rightly the biggest story in the tennis world right now, don't see a need to rain on the parade Bogbrush.

I believe SA said that Djokovic is capable of reaching 10 slams within a few years.

To reach 10 or more slams means you have to stay fit and dominate for a considerable length of time.

If all the young guns Raonic, Dimitrov. Tomic ...etc start challenging hard and both Murray and Nadal are still at the top then it may be difficult.

Federer surely is almost at the Crossroads and, if Nadal were to suffer a crisis in confidence or injury then in the short term it might only be Murray who stands in his way. In that extreme scenario Andy might win a couple of slams (no we don't need to know how many precisely a couple is) and Djokovic the rest over a 2 year period. I f he'd already added the US this year making 4 then pretty simple maths will give you the answer.

Crystal ball gazing is always fraught with danger though and I'll stick to the middle ground giving him 7-8 slams. He's good enough and the omens are on his side.

Yes, newballs that is my point. What exactly is the need for this thread, what i have seen on this website in terms of analysis of Djokovic and his potential has been pretty balanced across the board. Maybe one or two posters have taken a slightly bigger view of his success. But overral people have basically had a pretty well grounded view of things. Considering that his accomplishment of winning wimbeldon for the the first time over the most legendary of foe has been pretty much right on. Frankly this to me is just bogbrush raining on the parade for the sake of raining on the parade.

Well since you are now originating conspiracy theories and take the view that Djokovic only loses because he gets rest, I think the thread has a place.

You may not see it, but actually you wouldn't, would you?

Yes, I answered your silly accusations of a conspiracy theory in another thread and answered it well quite frankly. I haven't seen a wave of people coming onto this site harping how Novak is the greatest ever and better than Fed and Nadal combined. Therefore what is the purpose other than a silly attempt to fight against a non-existant problem.

Unless there was access to a crystal ball, it is possible for Djokovic to overtake Nadal and even exceed Federers record.

Nobody knows what the future holds especially with regard to injury.

Maybe he is the future goat who knows.

Ask again in four or five years time!