Djokovic Era

[Obsi]

If Novak ends up as the best player in 2015 and 2016 would you agree that 2011-2016 is "Djokovic Era"?

2011 Djokovic
2012 Djokovic
2013 Nadal
2014 Djokovic
2015 Djokovic
2016 Djokovic

 

[brokenshoelace]

No. His "era" consisted of winning more than one slam a year only once in his entire career. If that's an "era" then Nadal has been having an era since 2005.

Even if technically, he's been the best player in some of the years you've mentioned, splitting slams with players and not even being THAT dominant at non-slam tournaments does not an era make. For instance, 2012 was not nearly clear cut for Novak as far as being the best player goes, despite reaching all four finals. Don't get me wrong, he was the best player, but the margin was quite slim.

And I'd argue that 2014 was the worst year for a "best player" we've seen in a while, as in, if you look at who the best players were in each year dating back to Federer's rise, 2014 has been the least dominant by a best player.

If Novak goes on to have EXTREMELY DOMINANT years in 2015 and 2016, then maybe it's worth pondering. Being the best by a slight margin alone will not cut it out, especially given the standard set by the previous owner of an "era" (Federer).

 

[brokenshoelace]

I think since the turn of the millennium, we've seen only one true single player era, and that's the Federer era in 04-07. After that, it was Fedal era (08-10, with Nadal dominating more) and then the Nadovic era (11-present day, with Djokovic dominating more).

 

[Federberg]

No. His "era" consisted of winning more than one slam a year only once in his entire career. If that's an "era" then Nadal has been having an era since 2005.

Even if technically, he's been the best player in some of the years you've mentioned, splitting slams with players and not even being THAT dominant non-slam tournaments does not an era make. For instance, 2012 was not nearly clear cut for Novak as far as being the best player goes, despite reaching all four finals. Don't get me wrong, he was the best player, but the margin was quite slim.

And I'd argue that 2014 was the worst year for a "best player" we've seen in a while, as in, if you look at who the best players were in each year dating back to Federer's rise, 2014 has been the least dominant by a best player.

If Novak goes on to have EXTREMELY DOMINANT years in 2015 and 2016, then maybe it's worth pondering. Being the best by a slight margin alone will not cut it out, especially given the standard set by the previous owner of an "era" (Federer).

Couldn't agree more..

 

[Kieran]

Rafa's won more majors since 2011, while playing only 3 each year. It's been a good time for Nole, but there's no way anyone could say he's been dominant...

EDIT: And welcome to the forum, Obsi, if I haven't welcomed you before. Don't be put off by any disagreements, they're not personal, just different fanbases and opinions collide...

 

[El Dude]

There's numerous ways to slice the cake. For instance, you could say:

2004-07 Federer
2008-10 Nadal
2011-14 Djokovic

But of course Roger was #1 in 2009 and Rafa was #1 in 2013 and, as some have said, Roger's 4-year stretch was far more dominant than Nadal's 3-year reign and Djokovic's last four years. Actually, we could say that Roger was truly the dominant player in the game in 2004-07, but over the last four years Novak has simply been the best--or at least most consistent--among equals.

Let's take another approach, looking at the last 12 years, going back to the rise of Roger to best player in the sport. If we use ATP points, especially over the #2 player (and the #2 player over the #3 player), let's posit a scale of dominance, with the percentage being relative to #1 points as 100%. So for instance, in 2004 Roger had 6335 points and #2 Andy Roddick had 3655, which is just under 58% of Roger's 6335 - so I'm giving Roger a +42% lead.

30%+ over #2 - TRULY DOMINANT
20-29.9% over #2 - Dominant
10-19.9% over #2 - slightly dominant
<10% over #2 - shared dominance

2003 - Roddick/Federer/Ferrero (Roddick +4% over Federer, +7% over Ferrero)
2004 - FEDERER (+42% over Roddick)
2005 - Federer (+29% over Nadal)
2006 - FEDERER (+47% over Nadal)
2007 - Federer (+20% over Nadal)
2008 - Nadal (+21% over Federer/Djokovic)
2009 - Federer (+13% over Nadal)
2010 - Nadal (+26% over Federer)
2011 - Djokovic (+29% over Nadal)
2012 - Djokovic (+21% over Federer)
2013 - Nadal/Djokovic - (Nadal +6% over Djokovic)
2014 - Djokovic (+14% over Federer)

Now those percentages are arbitrary for the terminology used, but it gives us a sense of relative dominance over the field. As you can see, neither Rafa or Novak had a year of "true dominance" like Roger in 2004 and 2006; 2011 and 2010 were close, more more akin to Roger's 2005.

 

[Denis]

If Novak ends up as the best player in 2015 and 2016 would you agree that 2011-2016 is "Djokovic Era"?

2011 Djokovic
2012 Djokovic
2013 Nadal
2014 Djokovic
2015 Djokovic
2016 Djokovic

I am with you Obsi. Djokovic has been the man to beat. Sure Nadal is great on clay, but overall consistency it has been Djokovic and if he puts in two more good years with multiple slams I agree. Let's hope for the best for 2015 for starters.

 

[brokenshoelace]

If Novak ends up as the best player in 2015 and 2016 would you agree that 2011-2016 is "Djokovic Era"?

2011 Djokovic
2012 Djokovic
2013 Nadal
2014 Djokovic
2015 Djokovic
2016 Djokovic

I am with you Obsi. Djokovic has been the man to beat. Sure Nadal is great on clay, but overall consistency it has been Djokovic and if he puts in two more good years with multiple slams I agree. Let's hope for the best for 2015 for starters.

You think that means it's an era? Your Djokovic fandom aside...

 

[Billie]

If Novak ends up as the best player in 2015 and 2016 would you agree that 2011-2016 is "Djokovic Era"?

2011 Djokovic
2012 Djokovic
2013 Nadal
2014 Djokovic
2015 Djokovic
2016 Djokovic

Don't worry, they don't know yet that they are watching it for a few years now, it's been a slow, slow process but some progress has been made

I am a fan, but I didn't make this up:

Let's see total points won by each of the players in the last 4 years, starting from 2014 to 2011:

Nole: 11,360 + 12,260 + 12,920 + 13,690 = 50,170

Rafa: 6,835 + 13,030 + 6,690 + 9,595 = 36,150

Roger: 9,775 + 4,205 + 10,265 + 8,170 = 32,415

Somebody told me that if we calculate all the points won in the last 8 years, Nole would still come up on top, but I didn't have time to do it myself and he wasn't the same player before 2011.

Seeing nobody came close to Nole in this period, I am calling it a Nole era. And also because it strikes a nerve in some posters here.:laydownlaughing

 

[Billie]

Let's hope for the best for 2015 for starters.

I am worried about AO first as it was his worst major last year. Hopefully he comes in well prepared, motivated and does great there. Then I'll worry about the next one.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

you cannot have 2009 as the middle of nadal's era.,that is not sensible thinking whichever way you wanna slice the tasty cake of think.

Federer won twice as many majors as nadal and Federer played in all four major finals and was year end no1.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

what is domination anyway ?..winning more big tourneys ? or just majors ?, can we really have slight domination/semi domination/non dominant domination./domination-free dominance ??.

2014 djokovic "only" won one major, so sounds non dominant..but then we see he also won 4 masters titles and the wtf and was year end no1. looking at it that way it sounds more dominant.

 

[brokenshoelace]

And also because it strikes a nerve in some posters here.:laydownlaughing

Actually, most of us find the Novak fan victim card hilarious, and you never fail to disappoint in that regard, especially when you mix it with silly selective logic.

Here, let me see if I can do the same. Number of slams since 2008:

2008:

- Djokovic: 1
- Federer: 1
- Nadal: 2

2009:

- Djokovic: 0
- Federer: 2
- Nadal: 1

2010:

- Djokovic: 0
- Federer: 1
- Nadal: 3

2011:

- Djokovic: 3
- Federer: 0
- Nadal 1

2012:

- Djokovic: 1
- Federer : 1
- Nadal: 1

2013:

- Djokovic: 1
- Federer: 0
- Nadal: 2

2014:

- Djokovic: 1
- Federer: 0
- Nadal: 1

Total:

- Djokovic: 7
- Federer: 5
- Nadal: 11

I hereby, officially declare 2008-2014 as the Nadal era.

PS: In all seriousness, perhaps you should finally accept that people disagreeing with you about certain things regarding Novak has zero to do with striking nerves. Maybe, just maybe, some of us feel that assuming he won't win 4 majors next year is reasonable, and has nothing to do with whether we're fans of the guy or not (because if you asked me if Rafa would win 4 slams, I'd also say no. Does that mean I hate him?) and that 2011-2014 not being the Djokovic era is still based on facts (unless you count number of points, but that's a...unique criteria that nobody ever uses...except a desperate fan, of course).

Get a thicker skin, please. You're a grown woman.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Now those percentages are arbitrary for the terminology used, but it gives us a sense of relative dominance over the field. As you can see, neither Rafa or Novak had a year of "true dominance" like Roger in 2004 and 2006; 2011 and 2010 were close, more more akin to Roger's 2005.

I'm sorry but if your numbers don't reflect that 2011 was a year of "true dominance" for Djokovic, then you need to reassess and modify the criteria. I'm not being a jerk at all, by the way. I'm serious, I honestly think you should come up with a criteria that better reflects reality in this particular case. A year in which a guy went 6 months undefeated, won 3 slams, and 5 Masters events is not true dominance? What world are we living in? 2011 was better than any Federer year except 2006, by the way.

Djokovic's 2011 trumps Roger's 2005 (and it's not particularly close), and Nadal's 2010 was easily better than Federer's 2005, too.

Sometimes, all the numbers you need are the ones right there in front of you.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Novak Djokovic has been, by and large, on average, the best player in the world since 2011 (with the exception of certain stretches, but as I said, "on average"). Why do we need to needlessly take it a step further? He hasn't been dominant enough to warrant an era, though 2011 remains one of the best individual years I've ever seen.

 

[El Dude]

Now those percentages are arbitrary for the terminology used, but it gives us a sense of relative dominance over the field. As you can see, neither Rafa or Novak had a year of "true dominance" like Roger in 2004 and 2006; 2011 and 2010 were close, more more akin to Roger's 2005.

I'm sorry but if your numbers don't reflect that 2011 was a year of "true dominance" for Djokovic, then you need to reassess and modify the criteria. I'm not being a jerk at all, by the way. I'm serious, I honestly think you should come up with a criteria that better reflects reality in this particular case. A year in which a guy went 6 months undefeated, won 3 slams, and 5 Masters events is not true dominance? What world are we living in? 2011 was better than any Federer year except 2006, by the way.

Djokovic's 2011 trumps Roger's 2005 (and it's not particularly close), and Nadal's 2010 was easily better than Federer's 2005, too.

Sometimes, all the numbers you need are the ones right there in front of you.

Hey, don't kill the messenger - I'm just reporting mathematical findings and adding descriptive terms. The *fact* of the matter is that the percentage difference between Roger in 2005 and Novak in 2011 was the same. Call it what you want - take the descriptors out. But that's the fact, jack.

(I'm not saying that Roger's 2005 was equally dominant to 2011, by the way. I'm just presenting numbers)

 

[El Dude]

But if we really must compare:

Roger 2005:
2 Slams wins, 2 SF
ATP Final
4 Masters Wins, 1 Final
11 titles

81-4 overall record (95%)

Novak 2011:
3 Slam wins, 1 SF
ATP RR
5 Masters Wins, 1 Final
10 titles
70-6 overall record (91%)

There you go - all the numbers you need are now right in front of you. I'd agree that Novak had the better year, but it isn't by as much as you say. Novak has the edge with one more Slam and one more Masters, but Roger partially makes up for it by having a better result at the WTF, one more title, and a better overall record.

 

[Riotbeard]

Can we all just agree it depends on how you want to define an "era." I would tend to lean toward this as the Djodal era, but that is not an empirical standard and people can certainly think it's the djokovic era if they want. To me there have been two clear top players for the last four years. Novak has been number one, but rafa has always been there, challenging him, even taking the crown for a year. Novak would have to get to at least 3 or 4 more majors for my mind to change.

 

[britbox]

Now those percentages are arbitrary for the terminology used, but it gives us a sense of relative dominance over the field. As you can see, neither Rafa or Novak had a year of "true dominance" like Roger in 2004 and 2006; 2011 and 2010 were close, more more akin to Roger's 2005.

I'm sorry but if your numbers don't reflect that 2011 was a year of "true dominance" for Djokovic, then you need to reassess and modify the criteria. I'm not being a jerk at all, by the way. I'm serious, I honestly think you should come up with a criteria that better reflects reality in this particular case. A year in which a guy went 6 months undefeated, won 3 slams, and 5 Masters events is not true dominance? What world are we living in? 2011 was better than any Federer year except 2006, by the way.

Djokovic's 2011 trumps Roger's 2005 (and it's not particularly close), and Nadal's 2010 was easily better than Federer's 2005, too.

Sometimes, all the numbers you need are the ones right there in front of you.

Yeah, I think sometimes achievements are like a fine wine... it takes a few years to really appreciate them. No doubt about it, Djoker's 2011 was a true vintage and the appreciation of it will grow as time goes by.

 

[brokenshoelace]

But if we really must compare:

Roger 2005:
2 Slams wins, 2 SF
ATP Final
4 Masters Wins, 1 Final
11 titles

81-4 overall record (95%)

Novak 2011:
3 Slam wins, 1 SF
ATP RR
5 Masters Wins, 1 Final
10 titles
70-6 overall record (91%)

There you go - all the numbers you need are now right in front of you. I'd agree that Novak had the better year, but it isn't by as much as you say. Novak has the edge with one more Slam and one more Masters, but Roger partially makes up for it by having a better result at the WTF, one more title, and a better overall record.

Numbers aren't created equal. Not every tournament weighs the same, and not every category ways the same (in other words, win/loss ratio isn't quite as important as majors won in a single year).

Federer's 2005 slam count: 2.

Novak's 2011 slam count: 3.

3-2=1.

Except in this case, that is a HUGE 1. In other words, if a player wins 5 Masters 1000 events, and the other 4, then yeah, it's not THAT significant. But when you only have 4 slams, and ultimately, they are the gold standard for dominance in the modern era, winning 3 slams is winning over half of them. That's, 3 out of 4, which is insane. Winning 2 is great, and truly remarkable, of course, but...you catch my drift.