Jump to content

Novak Djokovic


Recommended Posts

Evo da otvorimo i ovu temu o najboljem srpskom teniseru svih vremena.

Mozda je najbolje da pocnemo onim sta su drugi rekli o njemu. Zato evo najpre jedan tekst iz 2007 koji je napisao Peter Bodo za tennis.com:




Ostatak teksta (ne nalazim spoiler):



I went out to take a close look at the Djoker today, in his match against Julian Benneteau, a Frenchman who’s been playing very well here by following a simple and often deadly formula – make few errors and force your opponent to win the match by making the shots that he knows he must in order to win. Then hope he'll go all Gasquet on you, instead of demonstrate that he's got the Wilanders.

I arrived at Stadium Court 2 six games (at 3-all) in, while most of the fans were watching Andy Murray bang on Nikolay Davydenko in the big house. I took a seat right  behind the north baseline, just three rows up from the wall behind the court, among a handful of big-bellied senior citizens, tanning their chicken-wing arms and backs on the green benches like a fleet of fat iguanas lounging on palm fronds. I turned off the cell phone and sat back to watch.

The first thing I jotted into my notebook, as Djokovic whacked a backhand that earned him a break of serve for 5-3, was “great trunk rotation, often punctuated by a guttural exhalation.” Trunk rotation is a big thing for me, has been every since I first aw the best practitioner, Miloslav Big Cat Mecir – a guy who did not appear to run (he was always just there, waiting for the ball) and who did not appear to swing a racquet hard enough to break an electric-eye beam.

But the ball came off Mecir’s strings with the pop of a champagne cork and unexpected pace. Djoker is just as clean, yet he takes a bigger cut at the ball and is less disposed to counterpunching than was Mecir. So he ends up hitting a heavier, more dangerous ball. But trunk rotation only rises to maximum efficiency with great timing, and that’s the Djoker’s other deep, subtle talent. The combination of timing and rotation yield maximum oomph without maximum swing speed. This is a pretty good definition of stroking efficiency.


Serving for the set, Djoker fell behind love-40, at which point he let out a visceral roar and, enraged, flung his cap to the court. This gesture appeared to end the curse, for he won the next two points with fierce, inside-out, forehand winners, each of them having every mark of a go-for-broke shot, but without the desperation. This is one cool kid. He got back to deuce with yet another big, IO forehand, but this time the ball also skipped of off the let cord.

“S***!,” Benneteau cried. Then, perhaps recalling that he’s French, he amended it to, “Merde!”

A group of shirtless college kids, with their baseball caps worn facing the wrong direction, as per current campus-correctness, wandered in and sat down to watch. Benneteau was playing well enough to force Djokovic’s hand, and each time the latter made an error – or hit a winner – he punctuated it with a war cry or a clenched fist. He’s an emotional guy, but somehow it never corrupts his stroke work, or finds expression as a poor decision, a hasty decision or a puzzling decision – which is the problem faced by guys like Gasquet.

Often, guys who play with a great deal of emotion are perfectionists; that was John McEnroe’s lifelong mantra, as well as the convenient, all-purpose excuse for his tantrums. Andy Murray and Djokovic, among others, are like that too, and their biggest enemy is the self-same perfectionism that has brought them this far. Their challenge is to keep that perfectionism from becoming a destructive force. Djokovic seems to have a handle on this, because his game doesn’t fluctuate a great deal. Those outbursts - they're just just lip service to the perfectionism he is keeping at bay.

And here’s something else. I noticed watching Gasquet that his feet are very busy, sometimes working like flippers as he hits the ball. I thought it telling that Djoker’s feet are active as well, yet it’s always a critical, split-second later than in a guy like Gasquet. That is, Djoker buys an extra, useful moment of stillness while his swing is still in progress, and that enables him to whack the kitten with a shade more power and accuracy.

Djoker broke Benneteau easily in the first game of set 2, and then crushed some gigunda serves to hold. The Djokovic serve is a thing of beauty, streamlined as a Brancusi sculpture, lethal as the strike of a cobra. It is a serve very much like that of Pete Sampras, although it probably is a shade slower. Djoker lines up with his feet nearly parallel to the baseline, his front, left foot so far ahead of his right that his calf appears to be bowed. As he begins his no-frills, leisurely toss, he shifts his weight slightly to his back foot – just enough to free up that distended left leg to respond to his deep knee bend, then act as a piston to pump his body up and forward. The motion is seamless, gathering force and speed that maxes out as he makes contact.

The racquet appears to swallow the ball before it spits it back out with explosive force, egg-shaped if Djokovic is going for the big kicker, distended like a yellow cartoon bullet if it’s a hard, flat one. Ka-boom! When Djoker blasted another one that helped him go up 2-0, it left Benneteau shaking his head, a man in sorry communion with his pending doom.

It was at this point that I jotted down that most famous line in the literature of rock music, Jon Landau’s pronouncement: I have seen rock and roll (tennis) future and it is Bruce Springsteen (Novak Djokovic).Djokerfed

The games began to flow quickly; Benneteau was losing blood fast and nothing he did would stem the tide. A lot of this was because of Djokovic’s ability to compete – to press the attack without relenting, or allowing his focus to dim. Perfect execution is a high wire act; let a sliver of doubt or distraction enter your consciousness and you fall off the string, although in tennis it may take a while to hit the ground. It’s an especially cruel sport that way.

On this day, though, the Djoker was not about to fall.  My next note is an aside written as Djokovic starts serving the fourth game: The PA announcer comes on and booms out: “. . . and then, Czech teen-age sensation Nicole Vaidisova, giving autographs over at the Tennis Warehouse tent!”

I swear, by the time I finished my note, Djoker was up 4-0. When Benneteau held for 1-4, I had the feeling that Djokovic was taking a breather. He then ran out the next two games and the match, 6-3, 6-1.

Did Benneteau play into Djokovic’s hands? It depends on how you look at it. The way I saw it, he held up the match, showed it to Djoker, and, in effect, said: If you can take it, it’s yours. And he took it.

I wandered away thinking I had just observed the Perfect Player, so I figured, what the hail, I may as well tell the guy. So the ATP hooked me up with Djokovic. Mainly, I was interested in learning in a little more detail how a guy with very little access to top tennis training, and the resources it requires, ended up owning a game that’s cleaner than a child’s plate on spaghetti night.

I sat down with Djoker in an empty office off the player’s lounge. In case you’re interested, he has an impressive, almost old school (1950s) look, enhanced by the erect carriage of a soldier. He has no hairstyle – just short, dark hair of even length all around. It's a Spartan look. What you may not see on television is that he has very finely made features that are as perfectly balanced as his game, although his eyes are a little close together. He’s friendly and direct. I told him that I wasn’t there to kiss his butt but I thought he was as close to the Perfect Player as I had ever seen, and asked if that was a matter of nature or nurture.

First, he laughed at my disclaimer. Then he said, “I can say in one hand that it is destiny. In Serbia, we never had a Top 15 player after Bobo (Slobodan Zivoinovic reached No. 19), so it was hard for me to develop and succeed. But it was a half-and-half thing between my talent and my first coach’s work, so I was very luck to have this coach.”

That mentor was a woman, Jelena Gencic, who had also worked with Monica Seles and at one point traveled with Goran Ivanisevic (I met her briefly).Djokovic says that Gencic gave him the “basic things” and watched over him like a hawk between the ages of 6 and 11, after which the family brain trust decided to allow him to go off to the former Yugoslav star Nikki Pilic’s tennis academy in Europe (as per Gencic’s advice), where he rubbed elbows with the likes of Boris Becker and Goran Ivanisevic. “It was difficult for my family to leave a child of 12 in another country, but after the first few days the uncle who took me to Munich, and I was left for myself. But it was a thing I needed to do.”

Djokovic originally played a one-handed backhand, but he described himself as a “skinny” kid who didn’t make enough power, and thus always found himself on the defensive. So he adopted the two-hander. Everything else, more or less, just continued to develop naturally. Pilic, who had helped Ivanisevic with his serve (“You know how he’s serving,” Djokovic asked, laughing), also fine-tuned the Djokovic delivery.

The only other thing that changed as Djokovic began to make his move in the pros was his forehand. He had good run in Paris in 2005, but after he retired during his match with Guillermo Coria (after winning the first set), Gencic pulled him aside. “She said, ‘You’re playing great, but when you have a chance to finish the point with my forehand you use too much spin. Make it flatter.'" He paused. “She’s great, I’m telling you. . .”

And of his mental toughness, Djokovic said: “I matured a lot. . .I am trying to hold my emotions as much as I can, but that’s just me. I like to scream on the court. I like to fight. I like to compete.”

And what did he think about this “Perfect Player” theory?

He laughed again. “I can’t say I’m the perfect tennis player. Nobody can be perfect and I think I have a lot to improve on (serve, making best use of his opportunities, attacking the net were the ones he cited).”

So perhaps he isn’t perfect, but he’s a spectacularly gifted player who’s not going to be undone by his perfectionism, either. And that’s as perfect as anyone has a right to ask.



Edited by wwww
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evo jedan tekst o sezoni 2011:



The Greatest Tennis Season Ever

We — and by “we” I really mean “I” — use the word “ever” a lot in sports. Best ever. Greatest ever. First time ever. It’s a shortcut word, an easy way to navigate the tricky waters of time AND make an achievement sound really impressive. Someone out there is the best “Angry Birds” player ever. Someone has written the best iPad review ever. Every so often you will see someone credited for the best tweet ever.

Novak Djokovic is closing in on what most experts are calling the greatest tennis season ever. It has been one heck of a season, no question. He has won three of the four major championships — the sixth man in the Open Era to do that, if I’m not mistaken. He has lost just two matches all year. And he has dominated in a particularly wonderful time in men’s tennis, when Roger Federer (greatest ever?) is still playing supremely well, when Rafael Nadal (greatest ever?) is still at the height of his powers, when Andy Murray plays surpassing tennis, when tournament fields are loaded with huge servers and clay-court specialists and human walls. On Monday, in the U.S. Open final, Djokovic played a grueling four-set match with Nadal that had several of the most spectacular points I can remember seeing. But there was never really a moment’s doubt who was the better player. Nadal is pretty close to unbeatable by anybody else — he has beaten Federer all three times they have faced this year, beaten Murray all four times, he gave up only six games to Roddick two days earlier — but Djokovic’s game and will break him apart. It took everything Nadal had inside (and Nadal has a considerable sporting soul inside) just to extend this match to four sets.

The problem with “ever” in tennis — like in so many sports — is that “ever” just isn’t a very long time at all. In this way, I think, of the Big 12 Conference. Many people are lamenting the break-up of the Big 12, and I understand this because when (not if) the Big 12 breaks up there will be some uncertainty for fine schools like Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor, even Kansas and Missouri (though I tend to think Missouri, in particular, will be in great shape to land in the SEC, and Kansas’ basketball powers will probably land the Jayhawks in the Pac 284 or whatever it will be called by then).

I covered the Big 12 for a dozen years, and I have good memories. There were many great games, great moments, all that. But let’s not kid anybody: The Big 12 is not some ancient conference that was organized in Teddy Roosevelt’s day to better mankind. The Big 12 only has only been around since 1996. It was put together as a money grab, plain and simple, and while Baylor president Ken Starr might be singing the “we’re all in this together” blues now, Baylor certainly did not seem to mind leaving behind Rice, SMU and Houston when the old Southwest Conference was detonated to make room for the Big 12. I will be sad when the Big 12 goes down, but it’s much more like the closing of a local Starbucks than old Yankee Stadium.

Wimbledon has been played in one form or another since 1877, the U.S. Open since 1881 and the French Open since 1891, though the last two were not called “Open” for many decades. But when we talk about “ever” in tennis, we don’t go back nearly that far. Part of the reason is that for many, many years tennis was mainly a sport played by amateurs. Golf had its own tension between amateurs and professionals, but that separation lasted much, much longer in tennis. Until 1968 — and as basic as this is, it’s still remarkable — there was no prize money whatsoever at any of tennis’ grand slam events. Every single player at Wimbledon or the U.S. Open were, at least on the surface, amateurs.

So how good were these amateur players? Bill Tilden won what was then called the U.S. National Men’s Singles Championships six times in a row, won Wimbledon the two times he played there in his prime, led the United States to seven straight Davis Cup victories and supposedly won 98 straight matches in 1924 and ’25. They say he was so much better than his opponents, he would tank sets just to keep the crowd interested.

Don Budge won Wimbledon and the U.S. singles in 1937 and also beat Gottfried Van Cramm in a five-set Davis Cup match that some tennis historians insist is the greatest match ever played. He won the grand slam in 1938 — he didn’t lose a set at Wimbledon, and lost just four games in the final. Fred Perry always said that Budge was the most perfect player. It’s hard to imagine a tennis year better than Budge’s in ’37 or ’38. But … alas … amateurs.

Ellsworth Vines was a professional tennis player at a time when that meant being shut out of the grand slam events. He had won Wimbledon and U.S. singles twice when he was an amateur, and then he mostly went on tours, where he supposedly dominated an aging Tilden, beat Rene Lacoste consistently and was Budge’s great rival. Here’s a fun bit: Vines later became a pro golfer, where he twice finished 14th at the U.S. Open and reached the semifinal of the PGA Championship in 1951 when that was a match-play event. He barely lost to Walter Burkermo — it took 37 holes — who then was clubbed by Sam Snead 7 and 6.

Then there was Laver. Rod Laver was a marvelous serve-and-volley player who won twice won the Grand Slam, once as an amateur in 1962 and again as a professional in 1969, the second year of the Open Era. How dominant was Laver? Well, put it this way, from 1962 to 1969, he played in 26 tournaments I would call major championships. Eleven of these were what we call the grand slam events — Australian, French, Wimbledon, U.S. Open. But he could not play in those from 1963-67 because he was a professional. Those years, the three big tournaments were the French Professional, the Wembley Professional and the U.S. Professional. He played in 15 of those.

OK, 26 major championships. How did he do? He won SEVENTEEN of them. He reached the final in seven more.

These are some of the greatest players before the Open Era … do they count when talking about ever? Everything was so different. Even the surfaces were different — when Laver won the Grand Slam, three of the tournaments were on grass, and only the French Open with its famous red clay was different. There were no hard courts in big tennis tournaments until the U.S. Open in 1978.

So, when talking about Djokovic’s year and the meaning of “ever” in tennis, people generally ignore everything before 1968, and often downplay Laver’s great seasons too because of competition and general tournament differences. Ever, in this scenario, only goes back to the 1970s.

But does it even go back that far? If you go back to the 1970s, you have to talk about Jimmy Connors’ remarkable 1974 season? He went 99-4, won 15 tournaments and all three grand slams he entered (the French Open did not allow him to compete because he played in World Team Tennis). Many tennis people, once again, suggest this isn’t comparable to the game today. Why not? Well, the surfaces were different. The equipment was different. And, most of all they say, the level of competition was different. Fields are so much deeper. Perhaps this is true. Maybe 1974 is before “ever” begins.

Bjorn Borg won the French Open-Wimbledon double three years in a row — from 1978-80 — and that might be the toughest trick in tennis. Borg was the only player to do it from Laver’s grand slam all the way to Nadal and Federer (who did it in back-to-back years, Nadal in 2008, Federer 2009). Djokovic, as remarkable a year as he’s having, did not do it. And Borg did it THREE TIMES IN A ROW. But again … there’s the competition question, though it is true that Borg in his amazing three-year Wimbledon-French run did beat Hall of Famers Guillermo Vilas, Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe along the way.

John McEnroe’s 1984 season seems to be the one that many considered the best until Djokovic. McEnroe went 84-3 and won two grand slam titles. It was a ridiculously great season. His win over Jimmy Connors at Wimbledon was absurd domination. He won 6-1, 6-1, 6-2. He then went to the French Open and dominated there losing just one set all the way to the Final, where he had Ivan Lendl down two sets and a break. And that’s when Lendl, who had a reputation for giving up when things weren’t going well, made his stand, broke back, won the third set and eventually beat a shattered McEnroe in five (though McEnroe wasn’t too shattered — he destroyed Lendl in the final of the U.S. Open). In all, McEnroe won 13 tournaments and lost just three matches all year.

Thing is, McEnroe himself thinks Djokovic’s year is better. And he should know. The competition’s better, he says. The game is better. The athletes are better. All that. That’s certainly true. But McEnroe might also be underselling his own dominance.

What about Mats Wilander’s 1988 when he won three grand slams and along the way beat Hall of Famers Stefan Edberg, Andre Agassi (twice), Jimmy Connors, Ivan Lendl and also Frenchman Henri Leconte in the French Open Final?

What about Ivan Lendl from 1985-87, when he won 26 times, won the French Open twice, the U.S. Open three times and twice was a finalist at Wimbledon despite his well-known dislike of grass? Was there a great year in there somewhere? What about Pete Sampras in 1993 and 1994 when he pretty much dominated everywhere except on the clay in Paris? What about Agassi’s 1999-2000 run, when he reached four straight finals, and won the U.S. Open and French Open in five sets?

And, come to think of it, why do we have to back that far? Three times in his career, Roger Federer has won three grand slam events in the same year. In 2006 and 2007 (and, come to think of it, 2009 too) he reached the final of all four majors, something that Djokovic did not quite do this year (because of Federer, who beat him at the French). In 2006, particularly, Federer’s only losses were to Rafael Nadal on clay and Andy Murray in Cincinnati. He only lost one set at Wimbledon (to Nadal in the Final) and two sets at the U.S. Open, one of those in a tiebreaker.

And what about Nadal, you know, LAST YEAR, when he won that tough French-Wimbledon double, and beat the ascendant Djokovic in the U.S. Open final.

Djokovic might indeed be having the best tennis season ever, when you take the whole season into account, when you take how he has dominated Nadal, when you consider how great the top four players in the world are, when you consider how he has blended dominance with spectacular fight (his two matches against Federer at the French Open and U.S. Open were like Ali-Frasier at their best). I certainly would not want to downplay how amazing Djokovic has been. and how wonderfully he’s handed it all. But best ever? Can we hold off for a minute? Can a tennis player really be said to have the greatest year ever when he does not win the Grand Slam? How does Nadal’s greatest season compare with, say, Steffi Graf’s Golden Slam of 1988, when she won all four majors and WImbledon?

I just really like what Djokovic has said when asked about it: “It’s just so hard to compare different eras.” I think that’s right. I often throw around the word “ever” lightly — this player’s the best ever, that coach is the best ever, that game was the best ever — and I probably shouldn’t. In the last few years, just in tennis, we have wondered if Federer is the greatest ever, Nadal is the greatest ever, Djokovic is having the greatest ever season. Maybe this is just one of those odd and wonderful times in tennis where the top players keep pushing each other higher and higher into a stratosphere never before reached in the sport. It’s certainly seems that way. But, getting caught up in the excitement it can become too easy to forget something pretty important: There have been many great tennis players through the years.


  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



The Mysteries of Novak



Saturday evening in Rome, Novak Djokovic utterly dismantled a wonderful young player named Dominic Thiem. In case you don’t follow tennis too closely, this was kind of a big deal. Djokovic has been something of a mess the last year or so. Well, it was almost exactly a year ago that Djokovic beat Andy Murray in the final of the French Open to do the near impossible — win four Grand Slam titles in a row.

At that precise moment, Djokovic was playing at a level that, as over-the-top as it sounds, might have been unmatched in tennis history. There seemed no way to beat him. He moved the best. He missed the least. He returned serve better than any man ever had. He did the scariest thing of all, he turned an opponent’s power inside out. The better the opponent played, it seemed, the greater Novak Djokovic became.



  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Novak Djokovic: A tribute to the Master of Masters

Following Djokovic's win in Cincinnati which completed the 'Career Golden Masters', RealSport pay tribute to the first man to win all nine Masters 1000 titles.


Where does the ‘Career Golden Masters’ rank?

Though a wordy accolade, much more so than Ben Rothenberg’s catchier Djokémon, there can be no doubt that Djokovic’s achievement in claiming all nine Masters titles is a magnificent one. Though not quite as unprecedented as it has been presented as, with Ivan Lendl winning all the Super 9 series titles during his career, it is remarkable all the same. It serves as a testament to his adaptability and ability to compete and win on any surface.

It also lends further credence to Nick Bollettieri’s argument that Djokovic is the most complete player of all time. Whilst he has never been as dominant as Nadal or Federer on one surface, he has been better at managing the shift across the three surfaces than either. In the era of Nadal and Federer, being the second best clay courter and the second best grass courter is no mean feat. But what is most impressive, is that Djokovic has now won every big title the game has to offer.

All four Grand Slams, the Davis Cup, the World Tour finals and now the nine Masters have all fallen to him. No other player in the history of the game has a resumé as complete as that. Indeed, in many ways it is there that the true significance of Djokovic’s achievement is to be found. Nothing will ever match his triumph in Paris in 2016, which saw him complete the astonishingly rarely discussed ‘Nole Slam’, but this perhaps comes a distant second.

It also shares with the ‘Nole Slam’ the extra-burnish of setting him apart from Nadal and Federer who have thus far been unable to complete the set. It may even reopen the Greatest of All Time debate, though it remains a pointless one. Regardless, Djokovic can look across the entire tennis world and see his name and his victories written in stone. And with the US Open now fast approaching, Djokovic can look forward to triumphs yet to come with his legacy secure behind him.


Edited by wwww
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Elias said:

Izgleda da se za RG sprema kod Pepea u Marbelji.😀

Normalno je da se sprema u Marbelji tamo mu brat drzi tenisku akademiju i ima super uslove a sledeci turnir mu je u Madridu

btw GG i Vajda su sa njim tamo

Link to comment
Share on other sites


2018 Embodied Everything Great About Novak Djokovic


Go back to that cramped press room in Stade Roland Garros. Go back to that scene in Paris. Go back to the moment when Novak Djokovic had just lost to Marco Cecchinato at the French Open after having a 5-2 lead in the fourth set.

That was not a happy time for Djokovic. How could it have been? Matches he didn’t normally lose were lost. Situations he normally handled were unable to be contained and managed. No, he was not in the same place as March in the United States — his game was clearly getting better — but no one thought he was ready for Wimbledon.

In fact, in the aftermath of that loss to Cecchinato, Djokovic gave a throwaway line — obviously in frustration and laced with sarcasm, not reflecting anything close to actual intent — about possibly not playing the grass season. No one should have taken that statement at face value. Some did.

The point of the statement was not what Djokovic’s words literally meant. The point of the statement was the frustration beneath the words. A great champion was growing tired of not being able to unleash his best tennis, after having laid the tennis world at his feet two years earlier, in June of 2016.

It was in that same place — Roland Garros, Paris — where Djokovic completed his seminal “Novak Slam” and did what neither Roger Federer nor Rafael Nadal had ever been able to do, and will almost certainly never do before they retire as professional tennis players: Win four straight major tournaments. Only Rod Laver gets to share that distinction among male tennis players in the Open Era.

Djokovic set the bar so high — and busted through the Fedal axis of power so thoroughly and convincingly — that his status in the sport’s history had forever changed, even if the media lavished more attention upon Federer. People who knew what Djokovic was up against at the end of the 2010 tennis season — who knew how hard it had been for him to coexist in a competitive sense with these two giants of the sport — could appreciate the enormity of what Djokovic subsequently achieved from 2011 through 2016, and HOW he achieved it.

In a long introductory essay to my 2017 book on Djokovic, I spent time focusing on this process of absorbing how hard it would be to conquer Federer and Nadal… and then actually doing it as Djokovic did. This feat is one of the most remarkable transformations in sports (not just tennis) history.

It belongs to Novak Djokovic alone.




He is — indisputably — the 2018 ATP Player of the Year. In half a season — from the rubble of Roland Garros — he reestablished his place not just in the top tier of men’s tennis, but at the very top of the mountain, looking down on everyone else, including and especially the Fedal Axis.

That he regained his place as No. 1 is not the surprise of the 2018 season for Djokovic. That he did so with such speed and immediacy is the remarkable part of a season which, at the start of April, lacked Marian Vajda and lacked the ability to beat Taro Daniel or Benoit Paire on hardcourts.

Vajda, of course, is the man who began to set the wheels in motion for this renaissance. As soon as Djokovic returned to Vajda, he had already made the coaching decision which enabled this transformation to occur.

That said, the athlete still has to execute what the coach wants him to do. The athlete still has to perform in pressure situations, no matter what the coach says. Djokovic still had to turn frustration into inspiration at the start of the summer of 2018. That he engineered the transformation is not remarkable. That he made it happen so decisively and profoundly in the span of just five months — wresting World No. 1 and Player of the Year honors from the Fedal Axis — is the true marker of iconic greatness at the level Novak Djokovic has established.

The man who — staring at an Everest-sized climb at the end of 2010 — scaled every inch of rock to rise above his two fabled rivals over the next six years has, in 2018, replicated that same massive ascent up the mountain, only in a compressed amount of time.

The 2018 tennis season embodied everything great about Novak Djokovic. It offered, within the context of 10 months, a perfect representation of the journey which has defined — and immortalized — a career which, in the course of history, could still become the greatest that has ever existed.


Edited by wwww
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Što se tiče Novaka i prvog mesta ...

Ako dočeka drugu nedelju USO (2.9.2019) na prvom mestu dosegnuće ukupno 267 nedelja.

On sada ima garantovanih 7005 bodova za taj trenutak, a u igri mu je 8000 bodova na turnirima koje je prijavio - od sada do tada.  Od tih 8000 neka osvoji 2000 i mislim da je garantovano prvi do tada. Izuzetno se retko dešavalo da igrač ima 9000+ bodova, a da nije prvi na listi. To se dešavalo u trenucima izuzetne dominacije 2 igrača što sada nije slučaj.

Inače Džimi Konors ima 268, a Lendl 270 nedelja ukupno, dakle neko eventualno obaranje njihovog plasmana na večnoj listi je moguće početkom oktobra.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Just for fun. These are the weeks Nole would tie the players above him in weeks at #1 if he doesn’t lose the ranking

Connors - September 2nd 2019

Lendl - September 16th 2019

Sampras - January 6th 2020

Federer - June 22nd 2020



  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basia je stavljala neke slike/snimke s treninga gde su Vajda i GG prisutni, sto valjda znaci da ozbiljno trenira (u izolaciji 😄 ). Kad dodje u Madrid pocece da ga smaraju s Gimelstobom i PC i svim ostalim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posto je ovo fanovska tema, a da "ubijemo" malo ovaj defetizam 😄 evo jednog teksta:


prvi deo je o RoS generalno:


There is no weapon in tennis like the return of serve. This is true for at least two reasons. The first: There is nothing more deflating, more flattening, more humbling for an opponent than to have his or her best serve rocketed back. A player, at every level, gets used to the rewards of hitting a good serve. It's an ace. The ball clanks off the returners frame. Sometimes, a bloop return barely makes it over the net, setting up fun and easy put-away. Feel my power!

When you hit that same cracking serve and, before you can even blink, the ball skids at your own feet, too hot to deal with, well, that will make you question every decision you have ever made in your life.

The second reason is more ethereal: Service return comes from God, like bursts of inspiration or when the lightbulb appears over your head. Think about the return of serve: How do you even work on it? A player can change serving motions, rework the forehand and backhand, endure countless speed drills to improve movement and work hard on hitting crisper volleys. But the return of serve is not a sum of technique and practice. It is some ineffable combination of instinct and reaction and reflex and timing and luck. The greatest returners of them all seem more like magicians than athletes.

Jimmy Connors is widely regarded as the pioneer who made the return of serve an artform. He used a comically tiny trampoline of a racket called the T2000 with a head roughly the size of Canadian quarter, and he hurled his entire body at the serve as if he was trying to smash himself through a locked door. At his best, he made the game's best servers afraid to unleash their best because they realized the harder they hit their serve, the harder it came back.

Andre Agassi came next in the returners' procession. It has never been easy to sum up Agassi's greatness as a player. His own serve was nothing. He didn't move as well as some, and he wasn't always in prime condition. His net game was uninspiring. The one grand slam title that seemed out of his reach was Wimbledon where the grass was lightning fast and the tournament had long belonged to serve-and-volley bombers like Boris Becker and Pat Cash and Stefan Edberg and Michael Stich (and, soon, Pete Sampras).

But Agassi was a returning genius and his run through Becker, John McEnroe and Goran Ivanisevic in 1992 became the standard for what a player can do armed with will, poise and a missile-launcher for returning serves.

There have been other great returners, men and women, Seles and Lendl, Courier and Capriatti, Rafa and Murray and both Williams' sisters but particularly Serena who returns serves so hard that sometimes it seems like she might blast through the tennis ball and turn it into dust.

a potom o Novaku:


Still, there has never been anyone who returned serve like Novak Djokovic.

Sunday in Australia, Djokovic took another step in his inexorable march to becoming the greatest tennis player of all time by obliterating Rafael Nadal 6-3, 6-2, 6-3. There will always be those who will lean toward Roger Federer in the greatest-ever race (or Rafael Nadal or go more old school with Pete Sampras, Bjorn Borg or Rod Laver). But Djokovic is 31 years old, and he is on his way to mathematically eliminate all other possibilities. For now, Federer has the lead with 20 major titles (and Nadal has 17). But unless something drastic changes, Djokovic, with 15 grand slam titles including the last three, could catch both of them by the end of 2020.

And he likely will finish his career with other insurmountable arguments, such as the Masters 1000 record and a winning record against all three of the great players of his day, Federer, Nadal, and Andy Murray. Djokovic already is the only man in the Open Era to win the four slams consecutively. If he wins the French Open this year, he will do it again. He will also become the only male player of the Open Era to have the double career slam, two wins at each slam.

o AO:


But such talk is conceptual, and what Djoker did to Rafa on Sunday was anything but conceptual. Djokovic dismantled tennis' great warrior in such a complete way, that it's hard to see how Nadal ever fully recovers. The precedent that comes to mind is 1984, when John McEnroe devastated Jimmy Connors at Wimbledon (6-1, 6-1, 6-2 was the famous score) and though Connors played for another decade or so, he never threw himself at returns with quite the same abandon, and he never won another tournament of note, and he never reached another grand slam final.

Nadal might be fine; it's clay season next and clay turns Nadal into a superhero. But he won't soon forget what Djoker did to him Sunday. Djokovic made just nine unforced errors in the entire match (this after making just FIVE unforced errors in his demolishing of Lucas Pouille in the semifinals -- "You feel like in a different dimension," Djoker said after that one), and this was on a windy day. Nadal could not do anything at all against the Djokovic serve; Rafa won just one point as a returner the entire first set and forced one break point the entire match.

But, more than anything, Djokovic returned serve.

itd. da ne prenosim sve, imate ostatak u tekstu na linku datom gore (vredi procitati).

Edited by wwww
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...