Novak Djokovic breaks glandslam record

Federer was just fantastic to watch, just can't enjoy Novac anywhere near as much, excellent player but not as natural or flamboyant as either Federer or Nadal
 
Can certainly understand the suspicion around Djokovic and Nadal and any performance enhancement they may have had over the years. They are both almost superhuman in terms of movement.

However what really sets Djokovic apart from the rest is the mental side of the game. A lot of the younger players can match him physically (particularly Alcarez) but mentally they're usually beaten before they step on court, particularly in a slam. His level almost never drops. When it does, it's not by much and not for long. You have to play so well and so consistently to even take a set off him.

Federer was more talented. Nadal quicker and more powerful. But neither were quite as good mentally as Djokovic. And don't get me wrong, they're two of the most mentally strong players to have ever picked up a racket.
 
I used to watch loads of tennis but for some reason I rarely bother now.

Djokovic is a bit dull to watch I find. He's a bit like a tennis robot, remorselessly grinding down the opposition


I loved the flare of Federer and Nadal to an extent but not so much with djokovic.
 
I agree that Djokovic isn't as easy on the eye as Federer and Nadal, but it's hard to argue against him being a better overall player. There are just no weaknesses in his game, unlike the other two.
 
It's definitely hard to argue against Novak being the GOAT. The sheer number of slams he's won, when he's competed in the hardest era ever, is just incredible.

As a person, he's clearly less liked than Rafa/Roger, but you can't take anything away from his performances on court. He's a machine and his mental strength is just staggering.

I think there's a debate to be had between him and Rafa for GOAT status as they've both won 22/23 slams during this ridiculous era. I used to put Roger in that bracket, but I think it's very easy to put him in 3rd place behind these two now. Roger was a joy to watch and the way he used to glide across court was fantastic to watch and he definitely elevated the sport to crazy heights, but Rafa and Novak are that extra level above IMO.

I always seem to think of them as:
Player with the most natural ability - Roger
Player with the hardest will to win - Rafa
Player with the biggest mental strength - Novak.

I can't see past Novak for Wimbledon, I don't see how anyone beats him on grass.
And then assuming everything goes to plan, the US Open in September looks to be his to lose as well.

I honestly think after US Open this season, Novak will be sat on 25 slams and I don't think that will ever be eclipsed in our lifetime.

He's already massive favourite for Australian Open next January! And I for one can't fault the bookies.
 
Agree with every word Marv.

I'd also add that Djokovic has effectively now proven himself against 3 different generations. Firstly he faced Federer and his generation at their peak when he was in his early 20's. Then in his peak years (25-32) he was up against the best of his generation, including Nadal and Murray. In the past 4 years he's comfortably seen off the best of the next generation - between the age of 33 and 36, he's made 9 finals in his last 10 grand slams and won 7 of them! It's a nonsense that he is still dominant at the age of 36 and really there is only Alcaraz or injury that you can see stopping him over the next 6 slams.
 
alvez_49 said:
The irony of implying that Nadal is clean. 😂

Most tennis players are packed to the gills with PEDs. Federer is one of the only ones I would say was clean during his peak.
Click to expand...

No I wasn't implying that, and I agree with you Nadal wasn't any cleaner than Novak. It was just the sudden transformation where his level went through the roof made me feel like it wasn't real.
 
Frozen Horse said:
Won every grand slam at least 3 times now.

Neither Federer nor Nadal can claim that, but maybe that's because RN dominated on clay and, to a lesser extent, RF dominated on grass
Click to expand...
Those two were their own problem, the two best tennis players ever, by a fair margin and both simultaneously, crazy. Had one of them not been around, the other would have got maybe 30 slams, at a time when the rest of the field was pretty strong too.

The Wimbledon final in 2008 was the best and highest-standard match ever played I think. Either of them would have beaten anyone else at their peak that day, and the only difference was that it was on grass, which suited Federer better, and Federer had the upper hand on hard court too. Clay was for Nadal of course (and he's dominated that for around 18 years, crazy).

Djokovic is great of course, he can't not be with that many slams, but I actually think he hit his peak around 2008 or soon after, but couldn't really topple Nadal or Federer, as their peak was just higher. I don't actually think Djok has got much better since, it's just that Federer and Nadal naturally faded, especialyl on their non-speciality surfaces, and the rest of the field hasn't been that strong for a few years.

If Djokovic had his peak when the others did, he wouldn't have got much of a look in on Clay v Nadal, or for Grass or Hard courts against Fed, and he would likely have had to play both of them in any slam he wanted to win, which would have been very difficult.

We could have done with some more peak competition for Novak in the last 5 years or so, but he'll probably end up retiring before anyone of a top level comes along.
 
He's ruthlessly efficient. Not always the most exciting to watch but I guess that's one of the reasons he is so consistent

He's not the most naturally talented player to ever play the game but his athleticism and mentality are amazing.

I think he could go on to reach close to 30 slams. Alcaraz in particular will give him a run for his money mind.
 
Marvanelli said:
It's definitely hard to argue against Novak being the GOAT. The sheer number of slams he's won, when he's competed in the hardest era ever, is just incredible.

As a person, he's clearly less liked than Rafa/Roger, but you can't take anything away from his performances on court. He's a machine and his mental strength is just staggering.

I think there's a debate to be had between him and Rafa for GOAT status as they've both won 22/23 slams during this ridiculous era. I used to put Roger in that bracket, but I think it's very easy to put him in 3rd place behind these two now. Roger was a joy to watch and the way he used to glide across court was fantastic to watch and he definitely elevated the sport to crazy heights, but Rafa and Novak are that extra level above IMO.

I always seem to think of them as:
Player with the most natural ability - Roger
Player with the hardest will to win - Rafa
Player with the biggest mental strength - Novak.

I can't see past Novak for Wimbledon, I don't see how anyone beats him on grass.
And then assuming everything goes to plan, the US Open in September looks to be his to lose as well.

I honestly think after US Open this season, Novak will be sat on 25 slams and I don't think that will ever be eclipsed in our lifetime.

He's already massive favourite for Australian Open next January! And I for one can't fault the bookies.
Click to expand...
I don't think he's the GOAT, I think Fed is, then Nadal (especially Clay), and I'd put Djok in with some of the others after those two.

I think the peak era was around 2004 to 2010, a lot of very very good players about then, but by 2010 Fed had been no1 for 6 years, and fighting Nadal for 4 of them.

Most players have a steady graph to no 1, if they get to no 1, as when they fly up the ranks they hit their peak and just become the best and stay there, till the next guy comes along. But Nadal hit a brick wall in Fed, from 2006 to 2010, and Novak hit the brick wall in Nadal and Fed from 2008-2012, and didn't really make it his own until 2014. By then Fed was certainly long beyond his best, and Nadal largely only could dominate on Clay and his body seemed to go downhill when he was quite young. Nadal missed a lot of majors through injury throughout his career and it got worse from 2012 onwards. I can't believe Nadal kept on playing so long mind, but it cost him changing his game and schedule to do it, which cost him other non-clay majors.

I think Dojoviks best attributes are his resilience and fitness, he's barely missed a major in 18 years, and had to put up with being behind Fed and Nadal for years, when at most other times he would have walked it to world no1.
 
Andy_W said:
The Wimbledon final in 2008 was the best and highest-standard match ever played I think. Either of them would have beaten anyone else at their peak that day, and the only difference was that it was on grass, which suited Federer better
Click to expand...
Nadal won that final
 
Andy_W said:
Novak hit the brick wall in Nadal and Fed from 2008-2012, and didn't really make it his own until 2014
Click to expand...
Novak won 3 Grand Slams in 2011 as well as 5 of the 9 Masters and ended the year as clear no.1. He beat Nadal in the final at Wimbledon and the US Open and Andy Murray in Australia, though he did lose to Federer in the SF at Roland Garros. He beat Nadal again in the Aussie Open Final in Jan 2012.

To suggest he hit a brick wall in 2011/12 and didn't make it his own until 2014 is simply wrong.
 
WilliamMunny said:
Novak won 3 Grand Slams in 2011 as well as 5 of the 9 Masters and ended the year as clear no.1. He beat Nadal in the final at Wimbledon and the US Open and Andy Murray in Australia, though he did lose to Federer in the SF at Roland Garros. He beat Nadal again in the Aussie Open Final in Jan 2012.

To suggest he hit a brick wall in 2011/12 and didn't make it his own until 2014 is simply wrong.
Click to expand...
Yeah he did break through in 2011, but then only won 2 of the next 10 slams, and both of those were the Australian.

He didn't really hold no 1 for more than a year until ~2014, and Fed was passed his peak by about 2009, and had done his back in 2013 and Nadal probably passed his a year or two later, and had plenty of injuries in 2014.
 
Andy_W said:
Those two were their own problem, the two best tennis players ever, by a fair margin and both simultaneously, crazy. Had one of them not been around, the other would have got maybe 30 slams, at a time when the rest of the field was pretty strong too.
Click to expand...

More than 30 probably. There were only 3 players who came anywhere near (Murray, Wawrinka and Del Potro) and they were still a level below.

It's a good point though, it's not quite as simple as "he's won the most slams so he's the best". He might be, and there are other stats that you could use to make that argument aside from number slams. But it's not clear cut.

Djokovic has benefitted immensely from the demise of his rivals. Fair play to him for staying fit and healthy when they haven't been able to. And without COVID (albeit largely a problem of his own making mind) he'd have even more.

But he has been in effectively a one horse race for quite some time now.

Federer probably had that advantage for a few years towards the start of his career (particularly while Nadal was hopeless on anything other than clay).

Not sure Nadal ever has really, bar the odd tournament.

It's a bit like saying Smac is our best ever manager. He's certainly the most successful, but that doesn't necessarily mean he was the best.

Pitch Djokovic, Federer or Nadal against each other at their respective peaks and it's a brave man who'll confidently predict the winner.
 
No doubting his ability to win, however GOAT status is subjective & though he is without doubt one of the best players ever & certainly of this era.. he is boring to watch, a wall, that returns the ball.. no style, charisma or flair.. boring..

Fed' greatest for me..
 
festa5 said:
More than 30 probably. There were only 3 players who came anywhere near (Murray, Wawrinka and Del Potro) and they were still a level below.

It's a good point though, it's not quite as simple as "he's won the most slams so he's the best". He might be, and there are other stats that you could use to make that argument aside from number slams. But it's not clear cut.

Djokovic has benefitted immensely from the demise of his rivals. Fair play to him for staying fit and healthy when they haven't been able to. And without COVID (albeit largely a problem of his own making mind) he'd have even more.

But he has been in effectively a one horse race for quite some time now.

Federer probably had that advantage for a few years towards the start of his career (particularly while Nadal was hopeless on anything other than clay).

Not sure Nadal ever has really, bar the odd tournament.

It's a bit like saying Smac is our best ever manager. He's certainly the most successful, but that doesn't necessarily mean he was the best.

Pitch Djokovic, Federer or Nadal against each other at their respective peaks and it's a brave man who'll confidently predict the winner.
Click to expand...
Yeah, they could have got more, but both probably wore each other out to a degree, there was zero chance of letting off the gas in any sort of way.

I just think the tennis in the 2000's was a lot more competitive than the 2010's and much better than now. It wasn't just Fed and Nadal though, like you say, there was the ones you mention, plus Hewitt, Roddick, Safin etc, and any of those could probably win a few slams now. There were always wild cards in the top 30 though, who would go on a mad run for a season or so, they all came and went though, as they never got any real reward. I remember watching tennis a lot back then, used to bet on it, but out of touch a bit now I suppose.

Yeah, not having a dig at Djoko like, it must have been a nightmare for the years he was behind those two, most players would have gone downhill soon after as that must have been mentally tough, literally not being able to do any more. Fair play to him sticking that out, and he's got payback for that for over a decade.

Nadal was better than people give him credit for, especially during the time when Fed was top of his game. The problem was that on 3/4 of the surfaces he had to play against Fed, who was the best there's ever been on those, and was extremely consistent. Nadal also had a lot of injuries throughout his career, even when he was winning it was like there were always injury concerns.

Fed's the best for me, even at a time when the standard was very high, the tournaments other than RG were a foregone conclusion.
 
Andy_W said:
Nadal was better than people give him credit for, especially during the time when Fed was top of his game. The problem was that on 3/4 of the surfaces he had to play against Fed, who was the best there's ever been on those, and was extremely consistent. Nadal also had a lot of injuries throughout his career, even when he was winning it was like there were always injury concerns.
Click to expand...
This was never a problem for Nadal. Nadal came on to the scene around 2004 when he was 17 and beat Federer in straight sets in their first match, and won 6 of their first 7 matches against each other. In the decade from 2004 to 2014 Federer had only won 10 of their 33 matches. Was only from 2017 that Federer suddenly had some consistent success against Nadal. Nadal's also won 10 of their 14 Grand Slam matches.
Andy_W said:
Djokovic is great of course, he can't not be with that many slams, but I actually think he hit his peak around 2008 or soon after, but couldn't really topple Nadal or Federer, as their peak was just higher. I don't actually think Djok has got much better since, it's just that Federer and Nadal naturally faded, especialyl on their non-speciality surfaces, and the rest of the field hasn't been that strong for a few years.
Click to expand...
I'm confused by the idea that Djokovic hit his peak in 2008 when he's won 22 of his 23 Grand Slam's from 2011 onwards. Nadal and Djokovic are basically the same age, I'm not sure what fading you think Nadal did comparative to Djokovic. Nadal won 13 Grand Slams post-2011 and reached 6 other Grand Slam finals in the time you're saying he supposedly faded, including two just last year. Even Federer won 4 and made 5 other finals. Djokovic just went to another level in 2011 and basically didn't drop a level for the next decade, and Nadal was right there battling him for a lot of it. It's the main reason the "big" rivalry in tennis became Nadal vs. Djokovic rather than Nadal vs. Federer.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top