Novak Djokovic - Golden Slam?

David Jimerson

David Jimerson

Administrator
Staff member
Could possibly do it. No one in the men's game has been in a position to . . . ever, I think.

The odds for that sort of thing are long, but he's teed up to do it, anyway.
 
What's really fun to me is that Novak's already holding a consecutive slam (all four titles at once); nobody's done that since Rod Laver. And, on top of that, he's also holding the ATP World Championship title, so he's currently holding the five biggest titles in tennis. That's never been done before; that tournament started in 1970, a year after Laver's calendar slam (and Laver was the runner-up that year).

With the decline of the games of major rivals like Federer and Nadal, and Novak's ongoing mastery of Murray and Wawrinka, it's certainly possible. But then again, he's looked pretty shaky at times, so anything can happen of course. The Olympics are on a hard court this year, arguably Novak's best surface... could be in for some fun drama this year. Wimbledon looks like a decent shot, since he's won it the last two years. Perhaps the hardest part will be the US Open, where Serena failed in her attempt... he's only won that twice (as opposed to six Australian Opens)... add the pressure of the first-ever golden men's slam and yeah, who knows what might happen.

If he does manage to pull it off, it'll be the most significant accomplishment in the men's game ever. He'd hold all six titles at once. And he has a chance to push it even further if he could add the ATP year-end Finals, which would give him a calendar-year sweep of all six of tennis' biggest titles. Not even Graf managed that; she lost to Pam Shriver in the semis at the WTA championship. On the other hand, Steffi won Wimbledon twice that year (singles and doubles) so that's all kinds of awesome.
 
Last edited:
He's been shaky at some pressure moments, like yesterday, but it's certainly the best shot anyone's had. I don't mean that because of what he's won already, but because he'd be the favorite (right now) to win the remaining contests even if such a stack wasn't in the balance. I mean, you'd likely pick him to win on one-off predictions.

If Federer had won the French in 2008 - which was his stumbling block - the same would have been true then.

But obviously, any given round, anything can happen.
 
A slam is difficult, no matter how you define it. Even though I was pulling for Murray, I found Djokovic's accomplishment amazing. There's no doubt at all that he's the best player in men's tennis. The only person in the way of his winning a grand slam like Laver, is Djokovic himself.

Ironically (considering what Djokovic has to say about women's tennis), the women's final between Serena Williams and Garbine Muguruza was a much better match. I can't remember when I've seen a better bit of tennis. The two stood toe-to-toe and went at each other. There wasn't a let down like Murray's, just a universally high level of tennis from both players. Muguruza was fearless! It was IMHO a considerably better match than the men's final.

Unlike the men's match, which for me left open the question: who defeated Murray? IOW, did Murray lose, or did Djokovic win? In the women's match it was obvious. Williams didn't loose, Muguruza beat her. Williams finally has a rival. But with Nadal and Federer fading, and Murray doubting, does Djokovic have a rival?
 
Bruce Watson said:
A slam is difficult, no matter how you define it. Even though I was pulling for Murray, I found Djokovic's accomplishment amazing. There's no doubt at all that he's the best player in men's tennis. The only person in the way of his winning a grand slam like Laver, is Djokovic himself.

Ironically (considering what Djokovic has to say about women's tennis), the women's final between Serena Williams and Garbine Muguruza was a much better match. I can't remember when I've seen a better bit of tennis. The two stood toe-to-toe and went at each other. There wasn't a let down like Murray's, just a universally high level of tennis from both players. Muguruza was fearless! It was IMHO a considerably better match than the men's final.

Unlike the men's match, which for me left open the question: who defeated Murray? IOW, did Murray lose, or did Djokovic win? In the women's match it was obvious. Williams didn't loose, Muguruza beat her. Williams finally has a rival. But with Nadal and Federer fading, and Murray doubting, does Djokovic have a rival?
Click to expand...
interesting that you bring this up.....i watched serena's semi final with my wife and we could not believe the low quality of both players, serena looked like she did not want to be there, both did not even run for some drop shots, her opponent wasn't seated, so she was surely happy to be in a semi anyway and probably did not expect much going against serena....either way we both were saying that there just HAS to be someone better in women's tennis....turns out there obviously is.....
as far as the level of tennis quality goes, it is of course hard to compare but even the men's quarters were on an incredibly high level....athletisism, technique, and across the board higher level of competition....guys like Thiem coming up....in comparison it seems like it sometimes is enough to keep the ball in play to stay in the game in women's tennis....

i think in men' tennis the numbers (points) show the status clearly right now....murray, wawrinka are unlucky to live at the same time as djokovic, nadal and federer are just fading (but still got it if they are fit) but djokovic is just such a perfect all around player.....i disagree that murray lost the match....it's just that everything he tried did not work....
it is amazing to see what nutrition can change in a person, it really lifted djokovic to a different level and adding boris into the mix gave him a winning mentality that is hard to bend....
the little lapse towards the end of the 4th set just showed that novak actually is human after all....i think he just realized the amazing feat he was about to achieve....i am hoping for his run to go on....
 
Paul schefz said:
I watched serena's semi final with my wife and we could not believe the low quality of both players, serena looked like she did not want to be there, both did not even run for some drop shots...
Click to expand...

That semi was pretty nasty. Williams looked like she could barely walk between points. A hip abductor injury will do that to you (been there, done that, thought I was going to die). What was interesting to me is that she played on through the injury. And that she won. There usually aren't many points Williams will give up on, which made that semi remarkable -- she just stood and watched a few. Very unlike her; she must have been really hurting.

She was moving much better in the final, it was finally reasonable warm, reasonably dry, and not overly windy (for the French Open anyway). And the play was much better.
 
Bruce Watson said:
... Ironically (considering what Djokovic has to say about women's tennis), the women's final between Serena Williams and Garbine Muguruza was a much better match. I can't remember when I've seen a better bit of tennis. The two stood toe-to-toe and went at each other. There wasn't a let down like Murray's, just a universally high level of tennis from both players. Muguruza was fearless! It was IMHO a considerably better match than the men's final.
Click to expand...
For a match - in any sports - to be entertaining, one needs a sense of drama and, usually, a closely contested outcome. In that regard, people will often watch college sports over pros or women's sports over men's. On sheer quality of performance, obviously, the college sports (football, basketball) can't match the pros and women can't match men. An exact spot is rather difficult to pinpoint but Serena once blown out by a German male player ranked in the 200's, who, by own admission, had a few beers and a round of golf before this dare. Most estimate would rank the top female players somewhere around 600-800, had they been male. The US women soccer team usually practices against boys prior to the major tournaments and they get regularly destroyed by the U-15 squads.
 
DLD said:
For a match - in any sports - to be entertaining, one needs a sense of drama and, usually, a closely contested outcome. In that regard, people will often watch college sports over pros or women's sports over men's. On sheer quality of performance, obviously, the college sports (football, basketball) can't match the pros and women can't match men. An exact spot is rather difficult to pinpoint but Serena once blown out by a German male player ranked in the 200's, who, by own admission, had a few beers and a round of golf before this dare. Most estimate would rank the top female players somewhere around 600-800, had they been male. The US women soccer team usually practices against boys prior to the major tournaments and they get regularly destroyed by the U-15 squads.
Click to expand...

Tell it to Bobby Riggs.
 
Bruce Watson said:
Tell it to Bobby Riggs.
Click to expand...
That Riggs thing isn't one-sided.

In 1973, a 55-year old Bobby Riggs took on all-time Grand Slam master Margaret Court, at the top of her game and #1 in the world, and beat her 6-2, 6-1. That was what led to the match against King (who beat Riggs 6-4, 6-3, 6-3) but there's considerable speculation that Riggs bet heavily on and threw the match. Regardless, Riggs was 55 and King was 29, so it would hardly be considered a "fair" match (i.e., both in their prime).

There was a third "Battle of the Sexes" match where 40-year-old Jimmy Connors took on 35-year-old Martina Navratilova. In that match the rules were modified, Connors was allowed only one serve where Navratilova got two, and Navratilova also benefited from wider lanes (she was allowed to hit into half the doubles court). Even with those advantages, and a 5-year age difference, Connors won handily, 7-5 and 6-2.

And yes, to DLD's point, Karsten Braasch did take on the Williams sisters, at the 1998 Australian Open. He was ranked 203 at the time, although he had been ranked as high as #38 in the world. Serena was 16, and hadn't really accomplished anything in her career, I think she was ranked 96 at the time. She hadn't played in any Grand Slams yet (that Aussie Open was her first, and she lost in the 2nd round). So -- to be fair, the Serena of 1998 wasn't a pimple on the butt cheek of the Serena of 2015, when she won her second "Serena Slam". Reports of the match against Braasch are not encouraging for defenders of the women's game, he slaughtered Serena 6-1 and Venus 6-2, and the report I read said that he wasn't even really trying that hard, and Serena said that she hit shots that were clear and easy winners on the women's game, but that Braasch was able to easily get to them. I remember Serena back then -- she was a basket case. She had some talent, but she was also a major hypochondriac, and Venus was the far better player back then. I would think it interesting if they were to try a rematch today, when Serena is far, far, far and away the best women's player. Could she now beat a man ranked outside the top 350 (as the Williams Sisters modified their claim)? Who knows? But I think it would be a more representative version of the question, rather than having a 55-year-old guy play a 29-year-old or whatever.
 
Last edited:
I've always wanted to organize a pro tennis tournament where there's a general draw rather than two separated by sex, where everyone plays by the same rules.
 
Can you imagine Serena vs. John McEnroe? She's older than Court & King were, and he's a little older than Riggs was... and he's just as big a personality as Riggs was... get to organizing that! :)
 
David Jimerson said:
I've always wanted to organize a pro tennis tournament where there's a general draw rather than two separated by sex, where everyone plays by the same rules.
Click to expand...
Martina Navratilova played Jimmy Connors in some PR event in Vegas and had the full court while he only had the singles portion. Plus she had more serves. And he bet a $1M (on himself)

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2013/05/connors-admits-million-dollar-bet-match-vs-navratilova/47471/

FWIW, there was a debate on men vs. women on a sport site that I frequent. So, I decided to search a bit for whatever I could find online. A unified tennis tournament isn't likely to be competitive.

It's more closely contested in chess, where a recent female world champion was able to play in men tournaments and do quite well.
 
Barry_Green said:
Can you imagine Serena vs. John McEnroe? She's older than Court & King were, and he's a little older than Riggs was... and he's just as big a personality as Riggs was... get to organizing that! :)
Click to expand...

Well, I envisioned it with the current active roster. But that would be quite an exhibition match.

Did you ever see McEnroe's talk show?
 
Well, so much for that. There's a reason it almost never happens . . .

A few guys are pretty happy today.

Why didn't Sam Querrey break this stuff out earlier in his career?
 
David Jimerson said:
Well, so much for that. There's a reason it almost never happens . . .

A few guys are pretty happy today.

Why didn't Sam Querrey break this stuff out earlier in his career?
Click to expand...

The result had little to do with Querry and more to do with something in Novak's head. He was reportedly in a very bad mood in practice and clearly took that mindset into the match today. I've never seen him play so poorly. He was terrible. Looked like he wanted to lose, and sounded like he was happy to lose in his press conference. No doubt we will find out what it is in due course, I have my theories...
 
Djoko wasn't Djoko, and at his best, he certainly would have won, but Querrey was putting some good stuff into that match.
 
David Jimerson said:
Why didn't Sam Querrey break this stuff out earlier in his career?
Click to expand...
That's a good question for a few guys. Wawrinka didn't win his first major title until he was 29; Ferrer didn't even win a Masters 1000 until he was 30, and hit his career ranking peak at 31 years old. There's something about aging in tennis nowadays... used to be by the time you were 30, you were done and gone. Nowadays some of the best players aren't even hitting their stride 'til they're around 30. Querrey's 28 and a half, so maybe he's just beginning the best part of his career now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top