Let’s talk for a moment about the two-year walkabout that Novak Djokovic went on from Wimbledon 2016 through the French Open 2018. It happened right after he had pulled off the greatest men’s tennis feat of the last 50 years, winning four grand slam titles in a row. He had beaten Roger Federer at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open; he had beaten Andy Murray at the Australian and the French. Djokovic had 12 major championships before he turned 30. It was a remarkable career.
Got busy so I finally worked my way to JoeBlogs. It hurts to pay for another site (already paying for his previous stop), but Joe's worth it. Anyway, it's great to have a great sportswriter write about tennis. I was thrilled to get to the end of the article and see my conclusion echoed: the three greatest of all time. They have done in different ways with different styles but in numbers and eye test they are equally great. As a scientist, I work with statistical insignificant differences meaning if Djokovic has won a couple more matches head-to-head than Nadal or Federer when it is out of 100 matches one can call it even. Same goes for GSs, Masters titles, years no.1 - it's crazy how similar all the numbers are. Joe does this excellently in his baseball analysis which is why the 100 works so well: when a couple guys have equally great numbers, it doesn't matter who has a few more counting numbers or a few points on OPS or an extra WAR or two, he gets to break free of numbers. I hope they all finish with 20 GS's so that the consensus is that THEY are the greatest, but alas probably Novak will end up on top which means his supporters have definitive "proof" that he's the greatest and fans of Roger and Rafa will spend their time poking holes in Novak's claim. Thanks Joe for a great essay.
Novak's "Greatest" argument rides on believing the Australian is as important as the big 3 majors, because Australia represents 45% of his titles. He's won 11 combined Wimbledon's/French/US Opens. Compare that to 19 for Nadal or 14 for Federer.
This would be a more compelling argument, I think, if Djokovic wasn't the only one of the three to win each grand slam twice. That fact, along with his 30 grand slam finals, his 36 Masters 1000 victories along with the fact that he has beaten Federer on Centre Court and Nadal at Roland Garros multiple times tells you he is hardly a creature of the Australian Open. The fact that Rafa has "only" 7 non-French Open titles or that Fed has "just" one French Open title and has one Masters 1000 clay-court title since 2010 feels to me more like nitpicking their greatness.
Thanks for the response Joe. To be clear, I was more arguing against the idea that Novak would separate himself as the "Greatest" if he wins the US Open vs that he belongs in the group with Nadal or Federer. Novak clearly belongs, it is less clear to me that he has the slam dunk case as #1 by completing an historic year.
65% of Nadal’s slams are French, 40% of Federer’s are Wimbledon’s.
I don’t buy that the Australian isn’t as important as the others. Pre-1988, sure, but since then everyone has played it, it’s just as important as the others now. And should be assessed in that context.
You're free to feel that way. But it's clearly the 4th major in the same way the PGA is in golf. No one outside of Australia dreams of winning the Australian in the same way they dream of winning the French, US Open or Wimbledon.
He can be beaten alright. His physical talents are insane. And mentally he looks solid as a rock. But…..i believe the only way to beat him is mentally. he’s broken big time mentally in the past. He has a serious temper he keeps under control mostly. But that’s where you have to hit. Keep scratching that seeming impenetrable veneer of his..underneath you’ll find his loss of control.
You have to be a top player obviously to come near this. His overconfidence will crumble if you keep pushing. Who remembers the US Open when he couldn’t control his temper? Who can recall his ridiculous belief he and his short lived tennis tour was immune to science? How about the year and a half free fall he was in, when he looked like he was absolutely done?
With rumors of infidelity? I do. And if was Rublev i’d bring it on up on the next change over.
Wonderful essay, but to say Djokovic has no weaknesses? He has maybe the single most blatant weakness among all the top players, not just the all-time greats: his overhead. Becker, I think, said it was the worst overhead of any player in the top 100.
You missed mentioning , he went through an elbow surgery. That he has been work rank 1 for now 330 weeks and might have weeks at no 1 than Steffi Graf 381. That is something
Terrific piece, and I happen to agree with all of it. :)
I did think though, that the 5-4 game of the Shapovalov match, which I rewatched, was just a choke. First two points were routine backhand and then forehand into the bottom half of the net by Shapo. The 30-30 point was of course an epic gag. Then the last two points were pretty bad rally errors. Five unforced groundie errors while serving for the set. Didn't make Djokovic do anything that game. That wasn't luck. That was weak. I'm not taking anything away from Djokovic; he probably would have won regardless. But that particular game was dreadful.
Glad you made the point about Federer 04-07. I rant a lot about how to truly appreciate Federer you have to go back and watch some of his matches from that period (I've said mid-03 to 06, but basically the same period). The way he attacked his strokes back then, even his backhand, was way more aggressive than even in 2017. He was a different player. Even in 2009, when he made the finals of all four Slams, he wasn't as good as he was a few years earlier.
Great piece. DFW's story on Tracy Austin is amazing. I recommend all his tennis short stories (string theory). As a Rafa fan I desperately want another Rafa spurt or at the very least a young (hell I'll even take experienced -- get well Stan the Man) Djokovic rival who actually has a chance against him at the Slams.
Great piece Joe. My favorite DFW tennis essay is the one on Michael Joyce. In it, the author perfectly captures what is required physically and mentally to reach the top and, specifically, what differentiates a great player in the top, say, 50, from a top 10 player and top 10 player from a #1. https://www.esquire.com/sports/a5151/the-string-theory-david-foster-wallace/ Not having read John McPhee's "Levels of the Game," the best three tennis writers to me are: DFW, Jon Wertheim and Joe Posnanski. I am hoping one of the latter two write the book that remains to be written one day - on the Federer, Nadal and Djokovic rivalry.
I have always preferred Roger for aesthetic reasons. However, there is no doubt in my mind that Novak will retire as "the GOAT". He will have more majors, more Masters titles and a winning head to head record against both Roger and Rafa. All GOAT's are created equal, but some are more equal than others.
Thank you, Joe. I have been a fan of Djokovic since he first came on the big scene, and it amazes me how so many people seem to want him to lose. And he's made a mess of things more than once, so I can kind of understand it. I mean, John McEnroe is my all-time favorite tennis player, so I guess I have a heart for this type. Nevertheless, the new mature Novak takes all the negativity from the crowd (though more and more of them are seeing him for how good he really is), and it motivates him, gives him incentive now. As of today, there's not much of an argument against the fact that he is the greatest player on the planet. Hope he pulls off the golden slam.
Got busy so I finally worked my way to JoeBlogs. It hurts to pay for another site (already paying for his previous stop), but Joe's worth it. Anyway, it's great to have a great sportswriter write about tennis. I was thrilled to get to the end of the article and see my conclusion echoed: the three greatest of all time. They have done in different ways with different styles but in numbers and eye test they are equally great. As a scientist, I work with statistical insignificant differences meaning if Djokovic has won a couple more matches head-to-head than Nadal or Federer when it is out of 100 matches one can call it even. Same goes for GSs, Masters titles, years no.1 - it's crazy how similar all the numbers are. Joe does this excellently in his baseball analysis which is why the 100 works so well: when a couple guys have equally great numbers, it doesn't matter who has a few more counting numbers or a few points on OPS or an extra WAR or two, he gets to break free of numbers. I hope they all finish with 20 GS's so that the consensus is that THEY are the greatest, but alas probably Novak will end up on top which means his supporters have definitive "proof" that he's the greatest and fans of Roger and Rafa will spend their time poking holes in Novak's claim. Thanks Joe for a great essay.
Enjoyed this post, but you misspelled pretty much every name, from Daniil to Hubert to Stefanos.
Novak's "Greatest" argument rides on believing the Australian is as important as the big 3 majors, because Australia represents 45% of his titles. He's won 11 combined Wimbledon's/French/US Opens. Compare that to 19 for Nadal or 14 for Federer.
This would be a more compelling argument, I think, if Djokovic wasn't the only one of the three to win each grand slam twice. That fact, along with his 30 grand slam finals, his 36 Masters 1000 victories along with the fact that he has beaten Federer on Centre Court and Nadal at Roland Garros multiple times tells you he is hardly a creature of the Australian Open. The fact that Rafa has "only" 7 non-French Open titles or that Fed has "just" one French Open title and has one Masters 1000 clay-court title since 2010 feels to me more like nitpicking their greatness.
Thanks for the response Joe. To be clear, I was more arguing against the idea that Novak would separate himself as the "Greatest" if he wins the US Open vs that he belongs in the group with Nadal or Federer. Novak clearly belongs, it is less clear to me that he has the slam dunk case as #1 by completing an historic year.
65% of Nadal’s slams are French, 40% of Federer’s are Wimbledon’s.
I don’t buy that the Australian isn’t as important as the others. Pre-1988, sure, but since then everyone has played it, it’s just as important as the others now. And should be assessed in that context.
You're free to feel that way. But it's clearly the 4th major in the same way the PGA is in golf. No one outside of Australia dreams of winning the Australian in the same way they dream of winning the French, US Open or Wimbledon.
He can be beaten alright. His physical talents are insane. And mentally he looks solid as a rock. But…..i believe the only way to beat him is mentally. he’s broken big time mentally in the past. He has a serious temper he keeps under control mostly. But that’s where you have to hit. Keep scratching that seeming impenetrable veneer of his..underneath you’ll find his loss of control.
You have to be a top player obviously to come near this. His overconfidence will crumble if you keep pushing. Who remembers the US Open when he couldn’t control his temper? Who can recall his ridiculous belief he and his short lived tennis tour was immune to science? How about the year and a half free fall he was in, when he looked like he was absolutely done?
With rumors of infidelity? I do. And if was Rublev i’d bring it on up on the next change over.
Wonderful essay, but to say Djokovic has no weaknesses? He has maybe the single most blatant weakness among all the top players, not just the all-time greats: his overhead. Becker, I think, said it was the worst overhead of any player in the top 100.
You missed mentioning , he went through an elbow surgery. That he has been work rank 1 for now 330 weeks and might have weeks at no 1 than Steffi Graf 381. That is something
It's looking almost certain Djokovic will win the most Grand Slams (maybe by a lot), but I think it would be so cool if they all finished with 20.
Terrific piece, and I happen to agree with all of it. :)
I did think though, that the 5-4 game of the Shapovalov match, which I rewatched, was just a choke. First two points were routine backhand and then forehand into the bottom half of the net by Shapo. The 30-30 point was of course an epic gag. Then the last two points were pretty bad rally errors. Five unforced groundie errors while serving for the set. Didn't make Djokovic do anything that game. That wasn't luck. That was weak. I'm not taking anything away from Djokovic; he probably would have won regardless. But that particular game was dreadful.
Glad you made the point about Federer 04-07. I rant a lot about how to truly appreciate Federer you have to go back and watch some of his matches from that period (I've said mid-03 to 06, but basically the same period). The way he attacked his strokes back then, even his backhand, was way more aggressive than even in 2017. He was a different player. Even in 2009, when he made the finals of all four Slams, he wasn't as good as he was a few years earlier.
Great work. Thanks for doing it.
This story and the prior one on Federer were terrific. Thanks. (And I am not even a tennis fan!)
Great piece. DFW's story on Tracy Austin is amazing. I recommend all his tennis short stories (string theory). As a Rafa fan I desperately want another Rafa spurt or at the very least a young (hell I'll even take experienced -- get well Stan the Man) Djokovic rival who actually has a chance against him at the Slams.
Joe, you write so well about tennis, yourself, I am curious to know, what your opinion is about David Foster Wallace's essay on Federer.
One of my favorite ever pieces of writing, but I love his piece about Tracy Austin's biography even more.
Great piece Joe. My favorite DFW tennis essay is the one on Michael Joyce. In it, the author perfectly captures what is required physically and mentally to reach the top and, specifically, what differentiates a great player in the top, say, 50, from a top 10 player and top 10 player from a #1. https://www.esquire.com/sports/a5151/the-string-theory-david-foster-wallace/ Not having read John McPhee's "Levels of the Game," the best three tennis writers to me are: DFW, Jon Wertheim and Joe Posnanski. I am hoping one of the latter two write the book that remains to be written one day - on the Federer, Nadal and Djokovic rivalry.
Yes, that left me wondering what if DFW himself had ghost written that autobiography.
I frequently think about the line "'I had just won the U.S. Open, and I was thrilled'" followed by "that sentence haunts me."
Hurkacz first name is Hubert, a very French one for a Pole. Good text.
I have always preferred Roger for aesthetic reasons. However, there is no doubt in my mind that Novak will retire as "the GOAT". He will have more majors, more Masters titles and a winning head to head record against both Roger and Rafa. All GOAT's are created equal, but some are more equal than others.
Thank you, Joe. I have been a fan of Djokovic since he first came on the big scene, and it amazes me how so many people seem to want him to lose. And he's made a mess of things more than once, so I can kind of understand it. I mean, John McEnroe is my all-time favorite tennis player, so I guess I have a heart for this type. Nevertheless, the new mature Novak takes all the negativity from the crowd (though more and more of them are seeing him for how good he really is), and it motivates him, gives him incentive now. As of today, there's not much of an argument against the fact that he is the greatest player on the planet. Hope he pulls off the golden slam.