Will Djokovic do a Laver?

In 1969 the 2nd year of Open Era, Rodney 'Rod' Laver won all for majors and claimed the historic calendar-year Grand Slam. The nearest to this feat came Djokovic who couldn't do a calender-year slam but was successfully able to hold all-4-majors at once. Something even Federer couldn't do.


But lets see what happened in the following years to Laver's tennis and his great feat. 


In 1970 the following year, his slam results were : AO-Absent RG-Absent, Wimbledon-4R, US-4R


He didn't play many slams after 1969, but his best result after that spectacular year was a Wimble-QF. Let's not go for why he didn't play or how he was injured etc.


Now, after RG 2016 win which got Djokovic to hold all-4 slams, he, till now has lost 3 of them. His results since RG2016  win are W-3R, US-F, AO-2R  


So will he do a Laver by losing all his 4-slams that he once had the very next year ? He has already lost lot of titles he was holding during that 1-year period and also his #1 rank.




My take: YES

Holding all-4 slams together is extremely assisted with circumstances. Its extremely rare but that doesn't mean this achievement was biggest of all.

When I read the title I thought you meant hold all 4 slams in a year and already started typing in my mind: "Federer has more chance if TDs provide light balls")

So....doing the "other" Laver, i.e. not defending any of the 4 slams, well...he''s only got RG left...the one it took him longest to win, most physical, so that's a logical conclusion.

I don't think it was the achievement of holding all 4 that burnt him out, it was the level of domination he was displaying for almost 3-4 years.

He won almost everything he entered, i,e, played a lot of matches and put his body under a looooot of stress.

His game has a different kind of rhythmic flow and I don't think he'll be able to go back to it as before.

His tennis is torturous for the soul, not liberating like Federer's.

I am curious to see how he does this year.

NITB wrote:
I don't think it was the achievement of holding all 4 that burnt him out, it was the level of domination he was displaying for almost 3-4 years.

He won almost everything he entered, i,e, played a lot of matches and put his body under a looooot of stress.

When did Djokovic dominated for 3-4 years? His dominant years were: 
2011
and 2015
and up to RG 2016 because after that, he has lost every title he was defending from last year
So its about 2.5 years.  
Years 2012, he finished #1, but he lost that to Fed for some 12-13 weeks, and only 1 slam and WTF. So I can't call that a dominant year. 

2013 Nadal was the most dominant player.

2014 was better than 2013, but nothing like 2011, but better than 2012.

I am pretty sure he has more year end number one than Nadal.

He has been the man to beat & dominating for the last 4-5 years.

Nadal only snuck 2013 under Djokovic's nose, and even that year he never won WTF.

Djoko is history, irrelevant,...oh wait, we are talking history in this thread, so ok. 

Serbian media already speculating he may be skipping the entire USO season because of the childbirth...as if he is pregnant....

Ah well...it was good while it lasted.

Jahu wrote:Djoko is history, irrelevant,...oh wait, we are talking history in this thread, so ok. 

I won't say he is irrelevant, he is out there and players have to play mighty to beat him . Murray is #1 but I don't him as a serious #1.

Silly to write him off. He'll be back. More than likely he'll end up on anything between 15 and 17 slams, so between Nadal and Federer.

Nah....15 17 slams? Never. Guys like Zverev will kill those shotless retrievers. Not that Zverev is a great shot maker himself but he will turn into a much better version of them with a serve and more powerful easy ground shots. And if not him....other youngsters will shorten their careers.

When Nadal won his 14th slam in RG 2014, Fed's 17 looked so reachable. And it took him almost 3 years to reach another slam final which he couldn't win.

Djokovic's 12 slams.. 15-17 is quite far.

I don't write him off, but he is now beatable unlike how it looked in 2015. He couldn't even beat his bunny Murray to win back his #1 and another YE #1.

I never thought Nadal could catch up Federer. By 2014 he was only winning FOs and those were getting harder by the year only managing to scrap through his last 2. His 13 season was embellished by Djoko losing form again. I don't see Nadal winning a single other slam. Very surprised he reached the AOL final though to me that's probably the best tennis I have seen him play ...prior to the final.

Djoko came back before after his dip in 2013 and I'm sure he will do the same again. But this time he'll be limited to 3-5 slams over a 3-4 year period during which he'll probably be caught up and out by the youngsters.

As for Nadal, it's no more slams for him. Federer has at least one more Wimbledon and possibly another US Open in him. Let's get him finishing on at least 20.

Tenez wrote: I never thought Nadal could catch up Federer.  By 2014 he was only winning FOs and those were getting  harder by the year only managing to scrap through his last 2. His 13 season was embellished by Djoko losing form again. I don't see Nadal winning a single other slam. Very surprised he reached the AOL final though to me that's probably the best tennis I have seen him play ...prior to the final.

LOL, he looked decent before the final but not as good as 2008-13

And Djokovic does it. This entirely goes to show how holding 4-slams together is highly aided by circumstances. Laver's 4-slams too were, just like Djokovic's.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:And Djokovic does it. This entirely goes to show how holding 4-slams together is highly aided by circumstances. Laver's 4-slams too were, just like Djokovic's.

Not really, it just shows how extremely difficult it is to hold all four slams and how much it took out of Djokovic.

Nnothing to do with circumstances.

Federer and Nadal never did it even during their most dominant years and that says everything.

... wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:And Djokovic does it. This entirely goes to show how holding 4-slams together is highly aided by circumstances. Laver's 4-slams too were, just like Djokovic's.

Not really, it just shows how extremely difficult it is to hold all four slams and how much it took out of Djokovic.

Nnothing to do with circumstances.

Federer and Nadal never did it even during their most dominant years and that says everything.

I never said its not difficult. It is. But when ever it has happened, its certainly aided by circumstances. Fed and Nadal were dominant. Nadal never came to holding 4-slams.

Djokovic was winning everything till RG2016, and then on wards he lost every single title he held in 2015-16 bar Qatar ATP250. And that says everything.

... wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:And Djokovic does it. This entirely goes to show how holding 4-slams together is highly aided by circumstances. Laver's 4-slams too were, just like Djokovic's.

Not really, it just shows how extremely difficult it is to hold all four slams and how much it took out of Djokovic.

Nnothing to do with circumstances.

Federer and Nadal never did it even during their most dominant years and that says everything.

The fact neither Fed nor Rafa did it only strengthens rotla's argument no?  If a superios player (such as Fed ) cannot do what an inferior player (such as Nole ) does, then it is quite likely that circumstances played role.

If all 3 were at their best throughout the year at the same time you'd give Novak the best chance of doing it, however unlikely.

summerblues wrote:
The fact neither Fed nor Rafa did it only strengthens rotla's argument no?  If a superios player (such as Fed ) cannot do what an inferior player (such as Nole ) does, then it is quite likely that circumstances played role.

Well, Federer was clearly nor better on clay which is why he couldn't hold all four at the same time.

It's not Nole's  fault Fed was stupid and kept playing with a small racquet head.

So just live with it!

He did stg nobody else could.

... wrote:He did stg nobody else could.

Sure, and good for him, but rotla's point does seem reasonable.  Circumstances certainly seem to have helped Nole.

summerblues wrote:

... wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:And Djokovic does it. This entirely goes to show how holding 4-slams together is highly aided by circumstances. Laver's 4-slams too were, just like Djokovic's.

Not really, it just shows how extremely difficult it is to hold all four slams and how much it took out of Djokovic.

Nnothing to do with circumstances.

Federer and Nadal never did it even during their most dominant years and that says everything.

The fact neither Fed nor Rafa did it only strengthens rotla's argument no?  If a superios player (such as Fed ) cannot do what an inferior player (such as Nole ) does, then it is quite likely that circumstances played role.

the main circunstances is that the 4 slams play more similar than in the past....which suited the lung busters over the shot makers.Incredible that fed managed to win 18 slams in this era. He coudl have won 28 in any other.