Novak Djokovic’s bid for the calendar year grand slam was recently put on hold, succumbing to Russia’s Daniil Medvedev in a tight three-set affair.
However, the wiry Serb can take solace in the fact that any further accolades are simply adding extras. In a dizzying career to date, Djokovic has won all nine Masters 1000 titles to date, twice. This record is unlikely to ever be broken by his long-time counterparts, Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer, given the pair are missing tournaments from their CV which have traditionally been their Achilles heel: Federer needing just Monte Carlo (clay), while Nadal needs Miami and Paris.
The problem for Nadal is the latter event is held on indoor hardcourts at the end of the season (Nadal’s body holding up until the end of the season is typically uncommon), while for Federer, the low-altitude clay of Monte Carlo, with a traditionally low and slow bounce, has never been his forte.
Notwithstanding, it is the little things on all possible metrics which have already cemented Djokovic’s position as the greatest of all time, regardless of his US Open loss. Six year-end championships, (stands alone), six-time year end world No.1 (stands alone), highest win percentage on tour (stands alone), most Masters 1000 titles (tied with Nadal).
Djokovic has also spent a whopping 339 weeks at number 1, a streak which is still ongoing. His closest rival, Spaniard Rafael Nadal, had spent 209 weeks, which pales in comparison, while Swiss maestro Federer spent 310 weeks at the sports top spot.
Given this, Djokovic has almost nothing to play for (besides a little bit of extra history). He has broken almost every all-time record imaginable, so anything further simply serves as an exclamation mark, rather than an ellipsis, on his resume.
There’s not much left to prove for the 20-time grand slam winner (Photo by Sarah Stier/Getty Images)
This loss, remarkably, could serve as extra fuel in the fire for Djokovic, in a career with almost nothing left to prove. Does he keep playing simply to win another calendar year grand slam? His only competition appears to be Spain’s golden child Rafael Nadal (who has every chance of improving his major record of 20 with a win in Paris next June).
Perhaps, Djokovic’s next calling at this stage in his tennis career is blocking young up-and-comers from winning majors. Already, since his career renaissance in 2018, Djokovic has prevented a slew of next-gen talent from adding to their account books. Stars of the future, Stefanos Tsitsipas and Matteo Berretini, were thwarted by the Benjamin Button-like 34-year-old.
Motivation, however, is something which powers us all. An argument can be made that had Djokovic won last fortnight’s US Open, there would be little left to prove.
The elusive calendar year grand slam is something which has never been achieved in the men’s professional game, bar once, by Rod Laver in 1969 (hardly something to write home about in comparison to the physicality of today’s men’s game). The grand slam deadlock of 20 would have been broken regardless (health permitting) by Djokovic.
Putting that aside, Djokovic now shifts his attention to finishing a historic 2021 season on a high.
Whether he continues to play, or takes a leaf out of Nadal’s book and calls an end to an incredibly long and successful season, remains to be known. However, one thing is clear: come new year’s day 2022, Djokovic will be locked and loaded, hoping to go all in, this time in the hopes of winning a record-breaking tenth Australian Open crown. ‘La decima’, as they call it, will be on the blue hard courts of Melbourne Park.
Bidding to become the only man in the Open Era to have won ten major championships on hard courts, his quest for ultimate supremacy will be a sight to behold. Winning a major at his spiritual home, Rod Laver Arena, will also give him the outright lead in the slam race, the first time ever in his career.
Prior to this, Swiss star Roger Federer held the all-time men’s singles grand slam count for 11 consecutive years (2009-2020).
So, after a three-way rivalry which has spanned almost 16 years, the curtain draws closer and closer on one of the biggest oligopolies in men’s professional sport. Only one man will stand at the mountaintop when it’s all said and done.
I wonder who that will be?
Simoc
Guest
For some unknown reason the author seems to miss the obvious all together. The girls/guys are playing for Grand Slam major titles and particularly Wimbleton as number one. I would suggest getting all four or a calendar slam is of more interest to the media than the players. Winning a 21st major would be motivation enough for Djokovic. Then a 22nd. The rest is pretty much exhibition (outside National titles) where you say nice things about the sponsors in return for lots of money. The Davis Cup is only super important when you're winning it. Its something different which tsome players like as long as it doesn't interfere with major preparation.
Bell31
Roar Rookie
This is not the first time I've said this on here, but I just don't understand the references to 'year end titles, masters titles, etc' --- having followed tennis fairly closely for 40 years, the real focus is Slams and everything else is not that significant in terms of legacy etc --- the Slams are what the ex-pros talk about when they look back at their career and how pros appear to judge success --- I respect that masters titles, time at no. 1 etc are probably somewhat relevant when trying to split GOATs (although personally I like H2H's as more compelling, at least between the big 3). Yes though - the Joker will end up as the 'modern era' GOAT - but for me, he needs to win more Slams than the other 2 to make that argument compelling - otherwise there will always be pros & cons of the other arguments (eg, I read somewhere that Fed is the GOAT b/c he was better at his peak - I don't buy that - but Novak winning some more slams will put that kind of argument to bed).
Bell31
Roar Rookie
I'm very late to this party, but good work @ matth - I've done some reading on the pre-open era and I'll only use the words 'modern era GOAT' to describe any of the Big 3. Pre-1969 was just a mess in tennis for about 15 years from what I can gather --- from what I can gather almost no one took Roy Emerson's 14 slams during that era as especially meaningful, since many of the top players were playing on the professional circuit. I agree that on a 'like for like' basis you can mount an argument for Laver having more 'slams' than the Big 3. Also, minimising Laver's 69 slam due to 2 surfaces and physicality doesn't appear to have much basis - you can only 'beat who you can beat' at the time and there were some damn good players around then from what I know.
Kane
Roar Guru
Also Sampras only has 5, he's tied with Djokovic. A quick google search will clear that up?
matth
Roar Guru
Yeah that was an unbecoming comment from the author. Laver still had to cover the two most extreme surfaces, in grass and clay. Travel was harder, conditions more variable in terms of ball and racket technology, court preparation, etc. Also injury treatment and recovery was less advanced, so to be at peak fitness for all four slams is an achievement. What the author also failed to acknowledge is the grand slam in 1962. This was before the game turned professional, but was when all the best players in the world still played on the main circuit. A large number of the best players broke away soon after that, including Laver. He had no opportunity to compete and win slams between 1963 and 1968. who knows how many he may have won, including possibly another calendar slam. The biggest tournament on the professional circuit was the U.S. Pro Tennis Championships and Laver won it five times, including four in a row beginning in 1966. He also won the premier professional tournament in England, the Wembley Championships from 1964 to 1967. In 1967, Laver won the Wimbledon Pro, the US Pro Championships, the Wembley Pro Championships and the French Pro Championship which gave him a clean sweep of the four most important professional titles, a professional Grand Slam. Laver won 11 of 16 grand slam titles in his prime. while in his prime as a professional there were another 20. Assuming the same strike rate that would have put Laver at 24 or 25 in total. So in summary, the author needs to show some respect, or if has no knowledge of tennis before the Big 3, maybe just not mention Laver (or Rosewall or Gonzales or Borg) at all.
danwain
Roar Rookie
No, Federer has won 6, Djokovic has 5
danwain
Roar Rookie
Rod Lavers grand slam was ‘hardly anything to write home about’? Why didn’t more players do it during that era if that is the case? Why has no one does it in the intervening years before tennis got ‘physical’?
Ana
Guest
Roger is missing Rome too from the 1000 Masters series and Nadal is missing Shanghai, Miami and Paris! Roger has won six ATP Tour Finals titles, Novak won five!
Laurarossini
Guest
No, Djokovic has 6 and is tied with Sampras. Federer 5.
PADMA RAJAN
Guest
Simply brilliant writing by Mohammed of the greatest tennis player Djokovic’s “dizzying career” ! Looking forward to more articles by MA! Well done!
Kane
Roar Guru
I enjoyed your article. Just a small point Federer has 6 year end titles. Djokovic has 5 for the time being.